why the complaint again DA? - Page 2

Eric Larsen · November 2, 2002, 12:32 AM

Well well well. We have alot of "this is the way it is" here...funny.
Many shooters Ive seen and shoot with can rock with a 1911 and a CZ and a Glock and a Sig. They are good with all of them. They throw no stones over things like this. I carry hammer down and I can and will get my first d/a shot off as well as most and better than some s/a guys. I also carry Cond 1...it depends on the gun I feel like carrying. There are no rules for this...anyone who really thinks so is just limiting what they can learn and the extent that they can learn it.

"Well, Myanmar may land an astronaut on the moon next month too. Now THAT would be a trick shot! Almost as tricky as not having a flier with the DA first shot on most DA/SA pistols. Anyone who equivalates the smoooooth DA pull of a good revolver with the gawdawful first pull of most of the DA first shot autopistols out there should check in for drug treatment"

You need to shoot some better guns....Shoot well

Hkmp5sd · November 2, 2002, 12:45 AM

In the SA catagory, I have a Stainless Gov't 1991. In the DA/SA, I have the S&W 59, S&W 5906 and Beretta 92F. In the "DAO" I have the Glock 17, Glock 27 and S&W Sigma .40SW. Got a few others like Mustang, PPK and so on.

For me, the Glock is the easiest to shoot consistantly under simulated "stressfull" situations.

It really comes down to what the individual is best with. The "cocked and locked is best" and Glock's "world's worst negligent discharge record," and all of the other rumors/perceptions/myths will be around forever.

Use what you like best, end of story.

Stealther · November 2, 2002, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Why does thumbing the hammer on a DA/SA trigger require two hands? Unless your hands are very small or very weak, you should only require one hand. My friend is 5' even, 95lbs and she can thumb back the hammer on her CZ75 Compact just fine.

But can she do it without altering her grip. You wouldnt want to shift your grip just to cock the hammer, then reposition and reaquire - at least I dont. I'm not saying it's impossible to be very proficient and fast cocking the hammer before firing, I just dont see the need when you can simply swipe a safety off as you are raising the pistol up (with no grip change).

Some ways work well for some, but not others. To each his own, but Condition 1 for me!

CastleBravo · November 2, 2002, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Castlebravo refered to not liking a "mechanical obstacle" in the way of firing, so he carries a gun with a mechanical safety and a grip safety that have to both be disengaged prior to firing. If it had been someone else, I would have assumed they were kidding.

Handy, are you really this dense? Are you so thick that you can't figure out that all the smileys (you know, things like

) in my post meant that I was probably not completely serious?

Even that thick-headedness doesn't explain the need for a personal attack on your part... over an opinion about guns.

In any case, there is a valid point to be made that inconsistent trigger pulls are a hindrance, not a help, to learning to shoot well. People (including Handy) constantly confuse this with saying that you can't shoot a DA/SA gun well, which of course is just silly. It is just a bit harder than it would be if the trigger was consistent.

Handy · November 2, 2002, 10:36 AM

If that's what qualifies as a personal attack I need to go back to manners school. I had thought I was using the language of debate, not ridicule. Sorry to offend.

You'll note that I don't often use the aforementioned smileys. I never got the memo on their hidden meanings, so most of them just come off as snide.

I don't know why that is.

I enjoy a good debate and will support an unpopular position ESPECIALLY if the other position is a half truth or not well thought out.

I write all my posts with a real smile on my face.

seeker_two · November 2, 2002, 11:43 AM

A magazine article I read a few years ago (I'll have to dig it out again...) explained a viable set of tactics for the DA/SA autos. When you have a threat close by, the DA trigger (w/o any safety engaged) is accurate enough to hit the target. If the threat is farther away, thumb-cocking is called for. Made a lot of sense to me...

As for the superior mechanism, it all depends on training. If you shoot more SA, then a SA auto is best for you. If you shoot DA/SA, then DA/SA is right for you. Neither is superior to the other in any way except YOUR opinion.

Just shoot. The goblins won't know the difference...

2kiddad · November 2, 2002, 06:01 PM

Quote:

by Stealther...

But can she do it without altering her grip. You wouldnt want to shift your grip just to cock the hammer, then reposition and reaquire - at least I dont. I'm not saying it's impossible to be very proficient and fast cocking the hammer before firing, I just dont see the need when you can simply swipe a safety off as you are raising the pistol up (with no grip change).

Admittedly, no, she can't without adjusting her grip. But then again, she carries her CZ75C in her purse, hammer down and her first shot would be, (God forbid it ever became necessary), a DA pull. Thankfully, her CZ has that nice, smooth, CZ DA trrigger, so it's not that big of a deal.

New_comer · November 3, 2002, 12:27 AM

No complaint here

SA/DA IMO is but a natural progression from "primitive", simplistic triggers to one with greater flexibility in a weapon's readiness set-up.

Please keep in mind that "primitive" does not mean obsolete, as a SA works much like the release set-up of a crossbow: trip the locking hook, the loaded bolt flies. In DA, even the stretching of the bow cord is part of the trigger set-up.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The DA/SA of my USP gives me the flexibility to choose either C&L (simplistic) or loaded hammer down (complicated) carry, complicated in the sense that there is indeed a very perceptible difference in pull. But as I see it, the DA offers me better safety against a ND. Should I fail to hit the target the first time out, the shorter, crisper SA provides for more accurate f-up shots.

Whether one is more advantageous than the other depends on each individual's perception of the best set-up for himself, and himself alone.

My $0.02...

GSB · November 3, 2002, 12:08 PM

I've never understood the venom some people have for DA/SA. I have never met anybody with a solid understanding of trigger control, trigger reset and firing grip who couldn't manage this action type handily, given anything resembling a decent DA trigger. Is it as easy to shoot well as SA? Nope. But it's not freakin' Mount Everest. It's just an action type. Yet I consistently see shooters completely psyching themselves into utter dread, fear, and loathing of a few of pounds of pull and a little bit of travel. Suddenly, they remember nothing about dynamic tension, smooth trigger press, the front sight, and any number of other things.

Boats · November 3, 2002, 02:40 PM

I'd characterize it more as contempt than venom. I have had DA/SA weapons in the past and I have only SAO pistols now. Everytime I borrow or rent an interesting DA/SA pistol these days, I cannot bring myself to buy another one because the triggers are so gawdawful and an exercise in weirdness. This contempt is not exclusive to 1911 owners as BHP and HK P7 owners also express it. Who would purposely want as much trigger "pretravel" as is designed into most autopistol DA pulls?

If SA is "primitive" count me in with the cavemen who were on to something that didn't need "complexity." Strange that for all of their supposed virtues, no one I am aware of has come out with a modern DA/SA or DAO shotgun or rifle.

Maybe it's because you can't get a long gunner to purposely buy a suck-azz trigger pull. . . but somehow certain pistol manufacters have succeeding in just that marketing coup jujitsu with a segment of the autopistol community.

As P.T. Barnum once said. . . .

Handy · November 3, 2002, 06:46 PM

Even a longgunner may recognize that a handgun is NOT a rifle and is built for an entirely different use. Maybe rifles would have different triggers if we expected them to be kept in our pants and grabbed for an unaimed shot. What rifle would you load and then spend the rest of the day with the muzzle pointed at your body?

The more you try to make a pistol shoot like a rifle the more reliability and safety you sacrifice.

A rifle is an offensive weapon designed for pre-planned use and precision.

A pistol is a SHORT range defensive tool that is only drawn when the unexpected occurs.

NotQuiteSane · November 3, 2002, 10:28 PM

My complaints are twofold:

The opposing safety styles, which may become confusing under stress, if you forget which type you're using

and, the majority of DA pistols I've tried have had grips too large for me to hold comfortably

NQS

Boats · November 3, 2002, 11:53 PM

Well every military rifle, shotgun, and subgun ever made has probably been pressed into unexpected close quarters action at short range. Still no one has ever had a serious discussion of how it would be much more rapid and safe to have one that one could carry with the safety off, but with such a long and deliberate trigger pull on at least the first shot, that fellow soldiers wouldn't get wounded by exciteable single action friendly fire or forget to take the safety off under stress and get killed trying to fire their weapons. . . .

My point is that DA is stupid and unnecessary on a rifle. It is just as pointless on an autopistol. Whoever said it was the solution to a non-existent problem was on to something profound.

Handy · November 4, 2002, 12:00 AM

Oh, you're another one of those people who can't control a DA trigger in a short range engagement. If you were you wouldn't be so concerned about shooting the wrong person because of the type of trigger on a pistol. Again, rifles are for precision, pistols are for SHORT range defense. If you take a rifle into a tight spot you generally take the safety off. With a pistol, you could do the same OR cock it.

Mossberg is making a military shotgun with a DA/SA trigger.

I hear your complaining, but no one has yet come up with a real advantage in using a 2 step firing operation instead of a 1 step operation for a pistol. The KISS principle is applied best to combat. Draw gun, pull trigger. You're arguing that you're smarter than that because you added a SECOND step?!!

Robert Foote · November 4, 2002, 12:21 AM

Oddly enought this thread got started while I was working on my own thread on the 1911.

All I know is that I can shoot a DA revolver better on a bad day than I can a Glock or SIG on a good day. It's not from lack of practice. My SIG had a factory tune and was set up for both SA/DA and DAO. That's not to say it can't be done. A friend of mine with a 220 went though the 250 course at Gunsite and declined to thumb cock the first shot; did great. My daughter did it with a Glock 19. I did it with a 1911 and probably had an easier time than either. Just lazy, I guess.

These alternative trigger systems were not made up so good shooters could shoot better; their purpose is to insulate their 'betters' from any conceivable blame--no matter how incompetent the operator might be. It patently takes so much effort to make the gun go bang that the shooter WILL take the fall. Thus the NY triggers on Glocks. In a few years a 20 pound trigger may be the norm. Anything less will be a 'hair trigger'.

I see these 'improvements' as sort of like a three legged race--you can cover the same amount of ground as you can walking normally, but it's a lot harder for most of us.

cheifwatchman · November 4, 2002, 12:57 AM

No way do I shoot a revolver better than a Glock. In fact I shoot a Glock way better than a revolver. On a ring target w/ a revolver the X-ring will have no holes w/ holes all around it in a shotgun pattern. Just the opposite w/ Glock the X-ring will be shot away the rest of the target will have no holes. W/ a DA/SA the X-ring will be gone w/ single holes in a shotgun pattern all around the X-ring. When shooting controlled pairs w/ a DA/SA pistol 1 hole will be in the X-ring all ways with the other hole all around the X-ring. the only way I'll carry a DA/SA pistol is if someone else buys the pistol & pays for practice ammo. I would rather shoot a DAO pistol/revolver w/ a trigger job that reduces the weight of the trigger pull. It's best if I just stick w/ my Glock. That's the pistol I shoot the best.

Boats · November 4, 2002, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Oh, you're another one of those people who can't control a DA trigger in a short range engagement. If you were you wouldn't be so concerned about shooting the wrong person because of the type of trigger on a pistol. Again, rifles are for precision, pistols are for SHORT range defense. If you take a rifle into a tight spot you generally take the safety off. With a pistol, you could do the same OR cock it.

No, I'm not a person who can't control a DA trigger, I'm another one who doesn't want to. Yes, rifles are for precision, and use SA triggers to effectuate that end, but somehow one cannot have a precise close quarters pistol? BTW, I am not worried about shooting the wrong person due to the type of trigger on a pistol. I was illustrating how dumb the notion of having a DA trigger on a long arm is if one uses the same rationale as they do for putting one on a pistol.

Quote:

Mossberg is making a military shotgun with a DA/SA trigger.

Yet another sign that the end of the world is near. About as useful as teats on a bull as they say.

Quote:

I hear your complaining, but no one has yet come up with a real advantage in using a 2 step firing operation instead of a 1 step operation for a pistol. The KISS principle is applied best to combat. Draw gun, pull trigger. You're arguing that you're smarter than that because you added a SECOND step?!!

The reason that no one has come up with a "real" advantage for the "two step" firing operation is that you are wilfully blind to it. How many times has it been heard on this very forum, "Well the DA/SA transition is not a problem for me because I can always fire a follow-up shot"? I suppose if one tries hard enough, one can find a tactical advantage to jerking the first shot under stress and wasting a round. Many people manage the DA first shot well when punching paper and then flub it when it matters. Go to an IDPA match, and talk to the SSP class competitors. Ask why most, if not all, do not use traditional DA/SA autos to compete with. Chances are your answer will be related to first shot importance and not wanting to miss because of a mechanical disadvantage.

I revise my staement about Glocks. There is a certain portion of that ownership group that is highly skilled and choose to use Glocks. I forgot that I see them at practical pistol competitions. About the only people who can claim KISS over SAO are the Glocksters, but some of their number of lesser skilled colleagues shoot things and people unintentionally enough that the pistol has developed a rep that many believe it unsuitable for novices.

Oh and that second step to use a 1911 is about as substantial as remembering to breathe. By the time the pistol is presented to fire, it has long been ready to fire.

Handy · November 4, 2002, 10:25 AM

I've shot quite a bit of IDPA with a P7, DA/SA guns and Glocks.

You are absolutely correct that a Glock or SA gun is better for games like IDPA or IPSC. Further, IDPA demonstrates why a SWAT team or other assault type unit might favor SA over DA/SA to make those 20 yard head shots. But despite knowing that the buzzer is going to happen, I've seen plenty of fumbling, including with 1911 safeties. Simpler works even in competition. And some of our best shooters were using USP's and 92's.

Here's the interesting question begged by the better trigger crowd:

What do you give someone who makes the 20 yard head at the IDPA match? A trophy.

What do you give someone who makes the 20 yard head shot in a defensive shooting? Parole at 10 years.

The CCW holder's primary considerations are safety and the reliable operation of his firearm under duress. Accuracy is a LOW consideration.

Does your 1911 at least have an ambi safety?

Cee-Zed · November 4, 2002, 10:25 AM

The world of competition is by and large divorced from what is practical and/or common in combat handgun applications. Most people that carry a concealed handgun are carrying either a DA/SA semi-auto, a DA J-frame revolver (or equivalent), or a Glock. The vast majority of open carry is done with a full-size DA/SA or Glock. In fact, the only place where SA handguns are common IS the world of competition. In IDPA, they are a separate classification, partially because carrying such a pistol is no longer the norm.

I prefer a SA pistol (or one that can be treated as such, like the CZ 75/75B series). However, using the world of organized competiton as a justification for their superiority shows a critical misunderstanding about the nature of these events. People are playing to win the game. The game isn't real life, nor is their much relationship to it most of the time. For example, how many people leave cover with a gun that is almost dry?

The entire purpose of a DA/SA system (as opposed to DAO or a Glock) is to:
1) Have SA if you want it. There's nothing stopping someone from cocking the external hammer on a DA/SA. Some have C&L ability as well. Is cocking a hammer on a DA/SA less efficient than C&L carry? Probably. There's nothing preventing someone from doing it, though.
2) Have a pistol that is instantly ready, yet safe to carry. Every published expert (even Cooper) will admit that the avowed intent of a DA/SA is to have a pistol that does not require a manual safety to be carried in a safe condition. Cooper doesn't like them, but all of his rhetoric won't change the basic facts. The "imaginary problem" rhetoric ignores a basic fact. The whole world wasn't carrying the 1911/1911A1 before Walther introduced the PP. One way or another, the SA pistol with a Browning-type safety has ALWAYS been the exception, not the rule. In the US, these pistols were more common, but the US is not the only nation to ever use pistols.

Don't believe me. Read a real reference book by someone with no axe to grind. They are rare, but they do exist. I recommend "Military Small Arms of 20th Century" by Ian V. Hogg and John S. Weeks.

Pizzagunner · November 4, 2002, 02:57 PM

I have both DA/SA and SAO pistols. Both designs have merits. My Berettas have their origins in the Walther P-38. I like the Berettas just fine, but only if Ernest Langdon has had his chance to work on them. Contrary to popular belief, a good DA/SA design can be made into a decently triggered shooter.

I have to add my personal opinion that 1911s aren't necessarily in a seperate IDPA division because they aren't common. They are in their own division because they are generally faster with correspondingly lower times than the SSP shooters can manage. 1911s are in a seperate division for the sake of competitive variety so that it doesn't start looking like ISPC.

I did not think the competition/reality proposition was so far off as some claim. A shot to COM is a shot to COM. If one system or the other that one practices or competes with gets someone to that goal before the bad guy fires, great outcome. Head shots are artificial in ISPC and I can scarecely think that anyone would try that as a purposeful option in a real situation against a moving target.

If some people think that the disengaging the safety will get them killed, they have options not to buy one. If someone else thinks the DA/SA transition will get them killed through a poor first shot, they have choices too.

This "debate" is getting pointless.

Cee-Zed · November 4, 2002, 03:45 PM

Pizzagunner wrote:
"If some people think that the disengaging the safety will get them killed, they have options not to buy one. If someone else thinks the DA/SA transition will get them killed through a poor first shot, they have choices too.
This "debate" is getting pointless."

Perhaps I just should have written that myself, rather than trying to prove it is pointless. Thanks, Pizzagunner, for injecting a sense of proportion.

One last thought: Many people argue that SA triggers are superior, based on the 1911A1 platform. That is missing the point. The 1911/1911A1 trigger is a linear trigger, which is better than the curved, pivot style. Yes, the DA pull is different and almost always heavier on a DA/SA, but SA alone doesn't make the 1911 better. There are other SA designs without the linear trigger.

JIH · November 4, 2002, 09:31 PM

The Mossberg is "DAO," not DA/SA. It's meant to replicate the same trigger pull found on a service revolver to ease the transition for police who apparently squeeze off rounds more quickly than desired when dealing with the lighter trigger pull. It's a liability reducer. Don't give it more credit (either good or bad) than that.

As far as DA revolvers vs DA pistols... get a better pistol and/or polish the trigger group. My CZs have a very nice DA pull. It's not as good as the SA pull, but it's as good as any Smith I've shot. And, frankly, if your first shot flier is really THAT far off target, then the problem isn't the system.

As far as messing up the hammer-cocking on a DA/SA pistol... is it really that hard? I mean, sort of something witha bobbed hammer, I've had no problem manually cocking my CZ, SiGs, revovlers... even BHPs and 1911s. (I cocked the SAs to make it easier for my wife to operate the slide when she was first learning.)

As far as Cooper. He's an ok guy, but you need to remember that he's just a guy. He has his own preferences. They don't have to be your preferences. Like Masaad Ayoob or any other gunwriter... sometimes he's got good ideas, sometimes he's talking out of his kiester.

For the record... even with my DA/SA guns... I generally operate in SA only (I love CZs)... and I don't think I'd ever own a DAO gun (except for something like my SA-XD, which is a different animal)

Brian Newbill · November 5, 2002, 01:27 PM

The only ND that I have ever seen documented proof of personally was with a 1911.

I guy I met at a football party had a scar on his ankle, looked like a bullet hole. I asked him how he got it being that we were discussing guns at the time. He said he was trying to let the hammer down on a 1911 and slipped and he shot himeself in the ankle/foot.

The gun isn't the problem.

How you handle it is.

Pampers · November 5, 2002, 05:18 PM

Brian, you prove the case. This is exactly why Condition 2 is a No No. Condition 1 or Condition 3, if you MUST.

The two NDs that I personally know of involve two differant people who were attempting to reholster their Glocks, with their finger still on the trigger. Which is exactly why Glocks should have an external, manual safety!

Handy · November 5, 2002, 05:28 PM

I'm pretty confident that someone who didn't remember to get their finger out of the way can't be trusted to apply the safety either. Full DAO was created for such fumblers-they shouldn't be around any sort of tensioned mainspring.

But if you can trust them to use a safety you can trust them to apply a decocker, which would have equally avoided the ND's.

So why is 2 a "no no"?

November 2, 2002, 12:32 AM	#26
Eric Larsen Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2001 Location: Bountiful....Ut. Posts: 3,226	Well well well. We have alot of "this is the way it is" here...funny. Many shooters Ive seen and shoot with can rock with a 1911 and a CZ and a Glock and a Sig. They are good with all of them. They throw no stones over things like this. I carry hammer down and I can and will get my first d/a shot off as well as most and better than some s/a guys. I also carry Cond 1...it depends on the gun I feel like carrying. There are no rules for this...anyone who really thinks so is just limiting what they can learn and the extent that they can learn it. "Well, Myanmar may land an astronaut on the moon next month too. Now THAT would be a trick shot! Almost as tricky as not having a flier with the DA first shot on most DA/SA pistols. Anyone who equivalates the smoooooth DA pull of a good revolver with the gawdawful first pull of most of the DA first shot autopistols out there should check in for drug treatment" You need to shoot some better guns....Shoot well __________________ If they dont know you have a gun.....then I did alright! If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice......Rush

November 2, 2002, 12:45 AM	#27
Hkmp5sd Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2001 Location: Winter Haven, Florida Posts: 4,303	In the SA catagory, I have a Stainless Gov't 1991. In the DA/SA, I have the S&W 59, S&W 5906 and Beretta 92F. In the "DAO" I have the Glock 17, Glock 27 and S&W Sigma .40SW. Got a few others like Mustang, PPK and so on. For me, the Glock is the easiest to shoot consistantly under simulated "stressfull" situations. It really comes down to what the individual is best with. The "cocked and locked is best" and Glock's "world's worst negligent discharge record," and all of the other rumors/perceptions/myths will be around forever. Use what you like best, end of story. __________________ NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member

November 2, 2002, 11:43 AM	#31
seeker_two Senior Member Join Date: August 31, 2002 Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX) Posts: 2,169	A magazine article I read a few years ago (I'll have to dig it out again...) explained a viable set of tactics for the DA/SA autos. When you have a threat close by, the DA trigger (w/o any safety engaged) is accurate enough to hit the target. If the threat is farther away, thumb-cocking is called for. Made a lot of sense to me... As for the superior mechanism, it all depends on training. If you shoot more SA, then a SA auto is best for you. If you shoot DA/SA, then DA/SA is right for you. Neither is superior to the other in any way except YOUR opinion. Just shoot. The goblins won't know the difference... __________________ Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0......

November 3, 2002, 12:27 AM	#33
New_comer Senior Member Join Date: July 30, 2001 Location: Manila, Phil. Posts: 1,004	No complaint here SA/DA IMO is but a natural progression from "primitive", simplistic triggers to one with greater flexibility in a weapon's readiness set-up. Please keep in mind that "primitive" does not mean obsolete, as a SA works much like the release set-up of a crossbow: trip the locking hook, the loaded bolt flies. In DA, even the stretching of the bow cord is part of the trigger set-up. Nothing more, nothing less. The DA/SA of my USP gives me the flexibility to choose either C&L (simplistic) or loaded hammer down (complicated) carry, complicated in the sense that there is indeed a very perceptible difference in pull. But as I see it, the DA offers me better safety against a ND. Should I fail to hit the target the first time out, the shorter, crisper SA provides for more accurate f-up shots. Whether one is more advantageous than the other depends on each individual's perception of the best set-up for himself, and himself alone. My $0.02... __________________ Regards, New_comer USP9F, Remington 870 "It not in the size of the thing, it's how you use it..."

November 3, 2002, 12:08 PM	#34
GSB Senior Member Join Date: March 20, 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 939	I've never understood the venom some people have for DA/SA. I have never met anybody with a solid understanding of trigger control, trigger reset and firing grip who couldn't manage this action type handily, given anything resembling a decent DA trigger. Is it as easy to shoot well as SA? Nope. But it's not freakin' Mount Everest. It's just an action type. Yet I consistently see shooters completely psyching themselves into utter dread, fear, and loathing of a few of pounds of pull and a little bit of travel. Suddenly, they remember nothing about dynamic tension, smooth trigger press, the front sight, and any number of other things. __________________ GOA, NRA Life Member - "Freedom is not a 'loophole' "

November 2, 2002, 10:36 AM	#30
Handy Junior member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,785	If that's what qualifies as a personal attack I need to go back to manners school. I had thought I was using the language of debate, not ridicule. Sorry to offend. You'll note that I don't often use the aforementioned smileys. I never got the memo on their hidden meanings, so most of them just come off as snide. I don't know why that is. I enjoy a good debate and will support an unpopular position ESPECIALLY if the other position is a half truth or not well thought out. I write all my posts with a real smile on my face.

November 3, 2002, 02:40 PM	#35
Boats Junior member Join Date: September 15, 2002 Location: Oregon Posts: 964	I'd characterize it more as contempt than venom. I have had DA/SA weapons in the past and I have only SAO pistols now. Everytime I borrow or rent an interesting DA/SA pistol these days, I cannot bring myself to buy another one because the triggers are so gawdawful and an exercise in weirdness. This contempt is not exclusive to 1911 owners as BHP and HK P7 owners also express it. Who would purposely want as much trigger "pretravel" as is designed into most autopistol DA pulls? If SA is "primitive" count me in with the cavemen who were on to something that didn't need "complexity." Strange that for all of their supposed virtues, no one I am aware of has come out with a modern DA/SA or DAO shotgun or rifle. Maybe it's because you can't get a long gunner to purposely buy a suck-azz trigger pull. . . but somehow certain pistol manufacters have succeeding in just that marketing coup jujitsu with a segment of the autopistol community. As P.T. Barnum once said. . . .

November 3, 2002, 06:46 PM	#36
Handy Junior member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,785	Even a longgunner may recognize that a handgun is NOT a rifle and is built for an entirely different use. Maybe rifles would have different triggers if we expected them to be kept in our pants and grabbed for an unaimed shot. What rifle would you load and then spend the rest of the day with the muzzle pointed at your body? The more you try to make a pistol shoot like a rifle the more reliability and safety you sacrifice. A rifle is an offensive weapon designed for pre-planned use and precision. A pistol is a SHORT range defensive tool that is only drawn when the unexpected occurs.

November 3, 2002, 10:28 PM	#37
NotQuiteSane Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 2002 Location: Klamath Falls, Jefferson Posts: 142	My complaints are twofold: The opposing safety styles, which may become confusing under stress, if you forget which type you're using and, the majority of DA pistols I've tried have had grips too large for me to hold comfortably NQS __________________ Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster Right the wrongs with the Bill of Rights Smith for Prez!

November 3, 2002, 11:53 PM	#38
Boats Junior member Join Date: September 15, 2002 Location: Oregon Posts: 964	Well every military rifle, shotgun, and subgun ever made has probably been pressed into unexpected close quarters action at short range. Still no one has ever had a serious discussion of how it would be much more rapid and safe to have one that one could carry with the safety off, but with such a long and deliberate trigger pull on at least the first shot, that fellow soldiers wouldn't get wounded by exciteable single action friendly fire or forget to take the safety off under stress and get killed trying to fire their weapons. . . . My point is that DA is stupid and unnecessary on a rifle. It is just as pointless on an autopistol. Whoever said it was the solution to a non-existent problem was on to something profound.

November 4, 2002, 12:00 AM	#39
Handy Junior member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,785	Oh, you're another one of those people who can't control a DA trigger in a short range engagement. If you were you wouldn't be so concerned about shooting the wrong person because of the type of trigger on a pistol. Again, rifles are for precision, pistols are for SHORT range defense. If you take a rifle into a tight spot you generally take the safety off. With a pistol, you could do the same OR cock it. Mossberg is making a military shotgun with a DA/SA trigger. I hear your complaining, but no one has yet come up with a real advantage in using a 2 step firing operation instead of a 1 step operation for a pistol. The KISS principle is applied best to combat. Draw gun, pull trigger. You're arguing that you're smarter than that because you added a SECOND step?!!

November 4, 2002, 12:21 AM	#40
Robert Foote Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 1998 Posts: 623	Oddly enought this thread got started while I was working on my own thread on the 1911. All I know is that I can shoot a DA revolver better on a bad day than I can a Glock or SIG on a good day. It's not from lack of practice. My SIG had a factory tune and was set up for both SA/DA and DAO. That's not to say it can't be done. A friend of mine with a 220 went though the 250 course at Gunsite and declined to thumb cock the first shot; did great. My daughter did it with a Glock 19. I did it with a 1911 and probably had an easier time than either. Just lazy, I guess. These alternative trigger systems were not made up so good shooters could shoot better; their purpose is to insulate their 'betters' from any conceivable blame--no matter how incompetent the operator might be. It patently takes so much effort to make the gun go bang that the shooter WILL take the fall. Thus the NY triggers on Glocks. In a few years a 20 pound trigger may be the norm. Anything less will be a 'hair trigger'. I see these 'improvements' as sort of like a three legged race--you can cover the same amount of ground as you can walking normally, but it's a lot harder for most of us. __________________ RF/DVC

November 4, 2002, 12:57 AM	#41
cheifwatchman Senior Member Join Date: June 20, 2002 Posts: 124	No way do I shoot a revolver better than a Glock. In fact I shoot a Glock way better than a revolver. On a ring target w/ a revolver the X-ring will have no holes w/ holes all around it in a shotgun pattern. Just the opposite w/ Glock the X-ring will be shot away the rest of the target will have no holes. W/ a DA/SA the X-ring will be gone w/ single holes in a shotgun pattern all around the X-ring. When shooting controlled pairs w/ a DA/SA pistol 1 hole will be in the X-ring all ways with the other hole all around the X-ring. the only way I'll carry a DA/SA pistol is if someone else buys the pistol & pays for practice ammo. I would rather shoot a DAO pistol/revolver w/ a trigger job that reduces the weight of the trigger pull. It's best if I just stick w/ my Glock. That's the pistol I shoot the best.

November 4, 2002, 10:25 AM	#43
Handy Junior member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,785	I've shot quite a bit of IDPA with a P7, DA/SA guns and Glocks. You are absolutely correct that a Glock or SA gun is better for games like IDPA or IPSC. Further, IDPA demonstrates why a SWAT team or other assault type unit might favor SA over DA/SA to make those 20 yard head shots. But despite knowing that the buzzer is going to happen, I've seen plenty of fumbling, including with 1911 safeties. Simpler works even in competition. And some of our best shooters were using USP's and 92's. Here's the interesting question begged by the better trigger crowd: What do you give someone who makes the 20 yard head at the IDPA match? A trophy. What do you give someone who makes the 20 yard head shot in a defensive shooting? Parole at 10 years. The CCW holder's primary considerations are safety and the reliable operation of his firearm under duress. Accuracy is a LOW consideration. Does your 1911 at least have an ambi safety?

November 4, 2002, 10:25 AM	#44
Cee-Zed Junior member Join Date: March 2, 2002 Posts: 481	The world of competition is by and large divorced from what is practical and/or common in combat handgun applications. Most people that carry a concealed handgun are carrying either a DA/SA semi-auto, a DA J-frame revolver (or equivalent), or a Glock. The vast majority of open carry is done with a full-size DA/SA or Glock. In fact, the only place where SA handguns are common IS the world of competition. In IDPA, they are a separate classification, partially because carrying such a pistol is no longer the norm. I prefer a SA pistol (or one that can be treated as such, like the CZ 75/75B series). However, using the world of organized competiton as a justification for their superiority shows a critical misunderstanding about the nature of these events. People are playing to win the game. The game isn't real life, nor is their much relationship to it most of the time. For example, how many people leave cover with a gun that is almost dry? The entire purpose of a DA/SA system (as opposed to DAO or a Glock) is to: 1) Have SA if you want it. There's nothing stopping someone from cocking the external hammer on a DA/SA. Some have C&L ability as well. Is cocking a hammer on a DA/SA less efficient than C&L carry? Probably. There's nothing preventing someone from doing it, though. 2) Have a pistol that is instantly ready, yet safe to carry. Every published expert (even Cooper) will admit that the avowed intent of a DA/SA is to have a pistol that does not require a manual safety to be carried in a safe condition. Cooper doesn't like them, but all of his rhetoric won't change the basic facts. The "imaginary problem" rhetoric ignores a basic fact. The whole world wasn't carrying the 1911/1911A1 before Walther introduced the PP. One way or another, the SA pistol with a Browning-type safety has ALWAYS been the exception, not the rule. In the US, these pistols were more common, but the US is not the only nation to ever use pistols. Don't believe me. Read a real reference book by someone with no axe to grind. They are rare, but they do exist. I recommend "Military Small Arms of 20th Century" by Ian V. Hogg and John S. Weeks.

November 4, 2002, 02:57 PM	#45
Pizzagunner Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2002 Posts: 102	I have both DA/SA and SAO pistols. Both designs have merits. My Berettas have their origins in the Walther P-38. I like the Berettas just fine, but only if Ernest Langdon has had his chance to work on them. Contrary to popular belief, a good DA/SA design can be made into a decently triggered shooter. I have to add my personal opinion that 1911s aren't necessarily in a seperate IDPA division because they aren't common. They are in their own division because they are generally faster with correspondingly lower times than the SSP shooters can manage. 1911s are in a seperate division for the sake of competitive variety so that it doesn't start looking like ISPC. I did not think the competition/reality proposition was so far off as some claim. A shot to COM is a shot to COM. If one system or the other that one practices or competes with gets someone to that goal before the bad guy fires, great outcome. Head shots are artificial in ISPC and I can scarecely think that anyone would try that as a purposeful option in a real situation against a moving target. If some people think that the disengaging the safety will get them killed, they have options not to buy one. If someone else thinks the DA/SA transition will get them killed through a poor first shot, they have choices too. This "debate" is getting pointless.

November 4, 2002, 03:45 PM	#46
Cee-Zed Junior member Join Date: March 2, 2002 Posts: 481	Pizzagunner wrote: "If some people think that the disengaging the safety will get them killed, they have options not to buy one. If someone else thinks the DA/SA transition will get them killed through a poor first shot, they have choices too. This "debate" is getting pointless." Perhaps I just should have written that myself, rather than trying to prove it is pointless. Thanks, Pizzagunner, for injecting a sense of proportion. One last thought: Many people argue that SA triggers are superior, based on the 1911A1 platform. That is missing the point. The 1911/1911A1 trigger is a linear trigger, which is better than the curved, pivot style. Yes, the DA pull is different and almost always heavier on a DA/SA, but SA alone doesn't make the 1911 better. There are other SA designs without the linear trigger.

November 4, 2002, 09:31 PM	#47
JIH Senior Member Join Date: November 11, 1999 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 963	The Mossberg is "DAO," not DA/SA. It's meant to replicate the same trigger pull found on a service revolver to ease the transition for police who apparently squeeze off rounds more quickly than desired when dealing with the lighter trigger pull. It's a liability reducer. Don't give it more credit (either good or bad) than that. As far as DA revolvers vs DA pistols... get a better pistol and/or polish the trigger group. My CZs have a very nice DA pull. It's not as good as the SA pull, but it's as good as any Smith I've shot. And, frankly, if your first shot flier is really THAT far off target, then the problem isn't the system. As far as messing up the hammer-cocking on a DA/SA pistol... is it really that hard? I mean, sort of something witha bobbed hammer, I've had no problem manually cocking my CZ, SiGs, revovlers... even BHPs and 1911s. (I cocked the SAs to make it easier for my wife to operate the slide when she was first learning.) As far as Cooper. He's an ok guy, but you need to remember that he's just a guy. He has his own preferences. They don't have to be your preferences. Like Masaad Ayoob or any other gunwriter... sometimes he's got good ideas, sometimes he's talking out of his kiester. For the record... even with my DA/SA guns... I generally operate in SA only (I love CZs)... and I don't think I'd ever own a DAO gun (except for something like my SA-XD, which is a different animal)

November 5, 2002, 01:27 PM	#48
Brian Newbill Senior Member Join Date: June 1, 2001 Posts: 105	The only ND that I have ever seen documented proof of personally was with a 1911. I guy I met at a football party had a scar on his ankle, looked like a bullet hole. I asked him how he got it being that we were discussing guns at the time. He said he was trying to let the hammer down on a 1911 and slipped and he shot himeself in the ankle/foot. The gun isn't the problem. How you handle it is.

November 5, 2002, 05:18 PM	#49
Pampers Senior Member Join Date: October 7, 2000 Location: In the Lost State of Franklin Posts: 482	Condition 2 is the Problem! Brian, you prove the case. This is exactly why Condition 2 is a No No. Condition 1 or Condition 3, if you MUST. The two NDs that I personally know of involve two differant people who were attempting to reholster their Glocks, with their finger still on the trigger. Which is exactly why Glocks should have an external, manual safety! __________________ Your Most Humble & Obedient Servant Fred J. Drumheller NRA Life NRA Golden Eagle

November 5, 2002, 05:28 PM	#50
Handy Junior member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,785	I'm pretty confident that someone who didn't remember to get their finger out of the way can't be trusted to apply the safety either. Full DAO was created for such fumblers-they shouldn't be around any sort of tensioned mainspring. But if you can trust them to use a safety you can trust them to apply a decocker, which would have equally avoided the ND's. So why is 2 a "no no"?