Author Topic: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"  (Read 1459 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline razorback1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
Re: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2019, 03:02:18 AM »
All firearms are inherently "dangerous". The degree of danger depends on the operator. Firearms cannot go off until put in the hands of an operator.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2019, 03:07:22 AM by razorback1 »

Offline David0408

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2019, 01:24:11 PM »
A few additional thoughts/observations:

1) In regards to trigger weight, I think people tend to often skew their opinions heavily based on what they are already used to (which these days, is more and more likely to be a light striker trigger) and what they are accurate with at the range, under controlled (and often static) circumstances, often with slow, controlled trigger pulls. That may be a great way to gauge the accuracy of the pistol itself, and to work on your technique, but that isn't necessarily the best way to gauge your accuracy with that pistol under stress in a rapidly changing situation. And I highly doubt that in a real situation, a few pounds difference in trigger is even going to be noticeable. Don't confuse range results with the real world.

As I mentioned above, if typical DA pistol weights are truly a factor in the increased chance of collateral damage, then this would be true with revolvers as well (which have similar trigger weights), and as such, we would have a significant body of evidence to support this from the decades of data collected when revolvers were the dominant handgun. Also, we should see a corresponding decrease in the amount of missed shots and collateral damage with the move by agencies to striker fired pistols. To the best of my knowledge, there is no data to support this theory.

2) I think it's just as easy to make the argument that in a high-stress situation, one is likely to pull a light trigger prematurely, leading to an inaccurate shot. You can construct logic to bolster either perspective, but at the end of the day, I don't think it's really about trigger weight at all - it's about what you train with.

3) While accuracy is obviously very important, so is safety. I have no desire for a manual safety on my guns. At the same time, I know I'm not perfect and can make mistakes. For this reason, I like having a heavier first trigger pull and particularly because I often carry AIWB, I like being able to keep a thumb on the hammer when holstering. These factors, to me, are just as important as the training required to "master" the DA trigger transition, which in general I think some people make a way bigger deal about than it actually is in reality.

As a sidenote, I find it fascinating that people were obviously very capable of being accurate with DA/SA pistols and revolvers for many years, with average DA trigger weights of 10-12 lbs, and yet somehow in the modern striker era, suddenly being accurate with anything more than a 4lb trigger is viewed as next to impossible...

**mic drop**


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline Walt Sherrill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2019, 05:08:27 PM »
I overlooked the following statement when I first read this, as I felt the who point of the argument wasn't about trigger weights being heavier (with a DA/SA pistol) as much as the first trigger pull being heavier than the subsequent ones.   

Quote from: Hammer Time
As a sidenote, I find it fascinating that people were obviously very capable of being accurate with DA/SA pistols and revolvers for many years, with average DA trigger weights of 10-12 lbs, and yet somehow in the modern striker era, suddenly being accurate with anything more than a 4lb trigger is viewed as next to impossible...

Many folks are still accurate with DA/SA pistol and revolvers, and trigger pull weight is not always an issue.   But, as noted earlier, some shooters find it a bit more difficult to be AS accurate with their first two shots when using a DA/SA gun as they are with their first two shots when using a SA gun or a Striker fired gun. 

Not everybody is less accurate on the first two shots with a DA/SA gun,, to be sure, but many are...

Offline Hammer Time

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2019, 05:16:30 PM »
I overlooked the following statement when I first read this, as I felt the who point of the argument wasn't about trigger weights being heavier (with a DA/SA pistol) as much as the first trigger pull being heavier than the subsequent ones.   

Quote from: Hammer Time
As a sidenote, I find it fascinating that people were obviously very capable of being accurate with DA/SA pistols and revolvers for many years, with average DA trigger weights of 10-12 lbs, and yet somehow in the modern striker era, suddenly being accurate with anything more than a 4lb trigger is viewed as next to impossible...

Many folks are still accurate with DA/SA pistol and revolvers, and trigger pull weight is not always an issue.   But, as noted earlier, some shooters find it a bit more difficult to be AS accurate with their first two shots when using a DA/SA gun as they are with their first two shots when using a SA gun or a Striker fired gun. 

Not everybody is less accurate on the first two shots with a DA/SA gun,, to be sure, but many are...

For sure, Walt. I'm not by any means arguing that DA/SA guns are the "best" choice for every shooter out ther. I'm simply trying to point out the many fallacies in the sweeping generalizations made in that blog post. Nothing more.

SP-01 Tac

P-07

Offline GTTom

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"
« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2019, 07:58:48 PM »
The broad statements by an "experienced professional writer" is BS at best and negligent at worst. It comes down to the individual shooter. DA/SA is perceived as "safer" for carry, particularly for the newer or less experienced. Less likely for ND while holstering. As noted, striker fired is the new norm but that doesn't mean a better platform. A consistent trigger pull is easier to practice and repeat but how many instances in a real defense situation will play out the same as a range practice? "Hey bad guy, stand still at 7 yards and face me while I aim standing still in my Weaver Stance!" If you are an average CCW holder and practice only occasionally then maybe a consistent repeatable trigger pull will help in a defense situation to hit your target. But if you are the least bit conscientious and practice regularly a DA/SA is easily mastered and gives an added measure of safety to an ND in a stressful situation. A "deliberate" long first pull can make the difference. As Ernie Langdon professes. It isn't the weight of the first trigger pull but that long distance travel of the first pull that gives the the margin of safety in a defense situation. I have 10,000 rounds of practice through my Sig Legion P226 SAO. It was to my chagrin that in an 8 hour defensive shooting course I failed to release the safety at least once while under stress. I switched to DA/SA for carry because I wanted to eliminate the slight chance I'd do the same thing in a real defense situation. I ran a defensive concealed carry course recently with my CZ Shadow Line Compact Custom. Over 400 rounds in an 8 hour course. I have to say under stress I never failed to make the first shot. The DA pull was always accurate and the following shots just as accurate.


Offline Spad124

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"
« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2019, 08:40:54 PM »
I’m fairly new to CZ 75s, so this is a FWIW from a newer CZ owner.  As background I owned a couple of Sigs for 10 years before I bought my first 75, a BD.  Plus I’ve owned S&W revolvers and 1911s for a longer.   When I bought the 75BD I appreciated the decock to half cock right away but was a bit thrown by the long SA pull.  As I shot it I came to understand that it seemed like CZ tried to minimize the difference between the length of the DA pull and length of the SA pull.  The DA pull starts from half cock and the SA pull has a good bit of take up.  This makes the DA/SA transition less noticeable and for me more manageable than my P226 or P6.  And I kind of prefer to know all the springs are “at rest” when the pistol is decocked and the hammer is down instead of under 80% pressure as in a striker fired pistol.  Just personal preference

Offline SSGN_Doc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
Re: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2019, 12:08:30 AM »
I’ve gone full circle. 

My first pistol I bought when I turned 21 was a Beretta 92 FS.  Joined the Navy a  couple years later.  Trained with the 92/M9 platform.  Shot competition with it, switched for a bit to 1911s.  Got into multi-gun matches.  Ran Glock’s for most of that.  Got more serious about settling on a good carry pistol that could be a multi role piece.  Back to Beretta (Px4 Compact) and CZ P07 as my most carried pistols.

Offline SSGN_Doc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
Re: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"
« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2019, 12:11:11 AM »
Author also kind of gets his history wrong.  Walther has DA/SA out in the PP and P38 before the Glock handguns were a twinkle in Gaston’s eye.

Offline Walt Sherrill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"
« Reply #38 on: March 12, 2019, 10:39:25 AM »
Quote from: GTTom
The broad statements by an "experienced professional writer" is BS at best and negligent at worst. It comes down to the individual shooter. DA/SA is perceived as "safer" for carry, particularly for the newer or less experienced. Less likely for ND while holstering.  As noted, striker fired is the new norm but that doesn't mean a better platform.

Unless the gun handler has a thumb pressing against the hammer while the gun is being holstered  -- and not everybody is convinced that's a necessary step -- a decocked DA/SA gun encountering an obstruction in the holster can STILL have  a negligent discharge just like a striker-fired gun (that doesn't have a frame-mounted safety).  The trigger weight (and trigger travel) of a decocked  SIG or decocked CZ is just a bit longer that a stock Glock.  All of those triggers are much easier to press than a Glock with the heavy NY trigger -- which feels like a DA revolver.  And if you're holstering a striker-fired Springfield equipped with a grip safety, like my XDm Competition,  it's even harder to have a ND while holstering.  (When I first got my XDm Competition I was ready to trade it away, because I often didn't get the grip right in my hand, but that's no longer problem -- but I'm not sure I'd ever "carry" that gun.)

I would argue that concern about Negligent Discharges   -- thanks to the internet -- has been blown all out of proportion to the actual risk.  I'll agree there seemed to be a lot of NDs when Glocks were first introduced in the Law Enforcement Community, but I'll argue that those ND's were a training issue!  People are learning and training has changed and more attention is paid to being sure the holster is clear before inserting the gun.   

I'll argue, too, that most LEOs -- and they were the majority of the "victims" in the notorious NDs videos that appeared on the internet -- are NOT "gun people."  Most LEOs spend even less time at the range, after their initial training is done, than most of the handgunners participating here.  (Many shoot maybe 90 rounds every 6 months as part of their continuing recertification process.)   Many (maybe most) LEOs view their handgun as a weapons of last resort, and are far more likely to use their batons, pepper sprays, and TASERS being used before moving to a firearm.  (If there are shots fired before or when they arrive at a location, they don't go to the pepper spray first.) 

I also know, from years of observation, that darned few negligent discharges occur while holstering. Most of the ones I know about occurred 1) with "unloaded" weapons which are being handled out of the holster, or 2) while practicing presentations at the range, and in that case it didn't seem to matter whether there was a frame-mounted safety or not. 

Quote from: GTTom
A consistent trigger pull is easier to practice and repeat but how many instances in a real defense situation will play out the same as a range practice? "Hey bad guy, stand still at 7 yards and face me while I aim standing still in my Weaver Stance!" If you are an average CCW holder and practice only occasionally then maybe a consistent repeatable trigger pull will help in a defense situation to hit your target. But if you are the least bit conscientious and practice regularly a DA/SA is easily mastered and gives an added measure of safety to an ND in a stressful situation. A "deliberate" long first pull can make the difference.

And how does an inconsistent trigger pull -- due to the transition from DA to SA -- makes it any easier for  "the average CCW holder who only practices occasionally" to hit what he or she is trying to hit when they are confronted with a real life-threatening situation?   Have you had that REAL-LIFE experience where you've put your hard-earned skill to work?   

I've seen a number of shooters who HAVE mastered the DA/SA transition at the range and in the gun games,  but I've also seen a lot more,  at the range and in the gun games, who HAVE NOT mastered the transition.  First shots may be on target, but followup shots aren't always where they ought to be.  Or vice versa.   (But that can happen with striker-fired guns, too. :) )
 
Quote from: GTTom
As Ernie Langdon professes. It isn't the weight of the first trigger pull but that long distance travel of the first pull that gives the the margin of safety in a defense situation. I have 10,000 rounds of practice through my Sig Legion P226 SAO. It was to my chagrin that in an 8 hour defensive shooting course I failed to release the safety at least once while under stress. I switched to DA/SA for carry because I wanted to eliminate the slight chance I'd do the same thing in a real defense situation. I ran a defensive concealed carry course recently with my CZ Shadow Line Compact Custom. Over 400 rounds in an 8 hour course. I have to say under stress I never failed to make the first shot. The DA pull was always accurate and the following shots just as accurate.

And how does that 400 rounds in an 8-hour course really differ from "range practice"?  In such courses, the only thing at risk is the shooter's EGO, and that's generally not life threatening. That course is NOT a real-life situation, and the target isn't attacking you.   How does YOUR good performance in that classroom environment -- also a non-life-threatening situation -- make your proficiency there any less suspect than those who do well at the range using a striker-fired or safety-equipped SA gun? 

I would note  that your CZ Shadow  Line Compact Custom wouldn't be legal in California: no firing pin safety.  Doesn't that lack of a safety feature cause you some concern?  You might say you've never dropped your loaded weapon, or had it smashed by a blow.  Perhaps, true, but how is the likelihood of a drop happening at home or at the range any different than NOT releasing a safety in an 8-hour course?)

I've presently got only one decocker-equipped handgun -- a Sphinx SDP -- and I don't carry it.  The rest are SA (C&L), DAO, or striker-fired.  If I'm ever forced to use my decockcer Sphinx in a self-defense or home-defense situation, and I've got time to do it, it will be cocked before I pull the trigger.   (I also have a Springfield XDm, previously mentioned, with only a grip safety -- I don't carry it, either.)

You're happy with DA/SA guns.  That's good. You've worked hard to become proficient, that's good, too.  But some of the rationale you've used to support your use of this design is just as shaky (or incomplete) as the arguments you've used to disparage the striker-fired and Cocked & Locked designs and others use to DEFEND their use of C&L and striker-fired guns.  Let's hope that none of us EVER have an opportunity to find out if we're right.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2019, 01:31:11 PM by Walt Sherrill »

Offline SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2984
Re: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"
« Reply #39 on: March 12, 2019, 01:30:27 PM »
You pick what works best for you and practice to be the best you can with your weapon of choice. Beyond that NO ONE can determine how a high stress situation will play out other than you and the other variables that will be unique to that situation.
And hopefully we never have to test our mettle in that kind of situation.

 

Offline Mercs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Re: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"
« Reply #40 on: March 12, 2019, 01:37:25 PM »
I’m fairly new to CZ 75s, so this is a FWIW from a newer CZ owner.  As background I owned a couple of Sigs for 10 years before I bought my first 75, a BD.  Plus I’ve owned S&W revolvers and 1911s for a longer.   When I bought the 75BD I appreciated the decock to half cock right away but was a bit thrown by the long SA pull.  As I shot it I came to understand that it seemed like CZ tried to minimize the difference between the length of the DA pull and length of the SA pull.  The DA pull starts from half cock and the SA pull has a good bit of take up.  This makes the DA/SA transition less noticeable and for me more manageable than my P226 or P6.  And I kind of prefer to know all the springs are “at rest” when the pistol is decocked and the hammer is down instead of under 80% pressure as in a striker fired pistol.  Just personal preference
Here is a good point.  While I’m personally not a big fan of half-cocked carry for a couple of reasons, I do think that the DA trigger from half-cock on a CZ is a much more manageable transition to SA than most TDA pistols


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Walt Sherrill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: DA/SA Pistols are "downright dangerous"
« Reply #41 on: March 12, 2019, 08:37:58 PM »
Quote from: Spad124
The DA pull starts from half cock and the SA pull has a good bit of take up.  This makes the DA/SA transition less noticeable and for me more manageable than my P226 or P6.  And I kind of prefer to know all the springs are “at rest” when the pistol is decocked and the hammer is down instead of under 80% pressure as in a striker fired pistol.  Just personal preference
Quote from: Mercs
I do think that the DA trigger from half-cock on a CZ is a much more manageable transition to SA than most TDA pistols

SIGs decocks to a safety-notch, which is roughly equivalent to the CZ's half-cock notch -- and like the CZ, the SIG will function as a DA gun if the first primer strike doesn't do the job.   I think the SIG and the CZ have relatively the same sort of transition from DA to SA.  Most DA/SA Berettas (the 9X series), because they have slide-based decockers, don't have that more-shooter-friendly transition.

I understand the points you're both making, but I'll note some exceptions:

1) Many hammer and striker springs aren't FULLY AT REST, even when the hammer has been decocked or the striker spring seemingly isn't cocked    The CZ and SIG, both decock to the equivalent of the half-cock notch (SIG calls that their "safety notch"), leaves the hammer spring partially charged.   Those springs are partialy charged.  Not much, but they are charged.  (If the trigger, when pulled, doesn't ignite the primer, the hammer will fall to a fully-decocked position and the great DA/SA transition goes away.)

2)Some other hammer-fired guns use the slide to partially charge the hammer spring whenever a round is chambered and slide closes.  The same is true of some striker-fired guns.  Then, even when the gun is otherwise at rest, the hammer or striker spring is under some tension. 
    Spring designers know that most springs do quite well unless they're stretched or compressed to a point NEAR their "elastic" limit. The gun designers know this and build their designs so that the spring are generally NOT routinely stressed that much. (Beyond that point -- at or near the spring's elastic limit, the springs begin to degrade if held in that position.)
3) Some striker-fired guns can be decocked, and I think the current Walther striker-fired models offer that functionality and other older models, including some variants of the Walther P99 and SW99 offered this functionality. These striker fired gun can be true DA striker-fired guns for the first shot, or have a partially charged (semi-cocked striker spring) for following shots.  The striker can be decocked.  The infamous CZ-100 was a true double-action striker fired gun.  I hated the triggers of both of the ones I once owned (9mm and .40.)  :(

Note: Only a few striker-fired guns have fully-tensioned striker springs.  Some of the polymer Springfield  guns (like my XDm) do, as do many of the S&W striker-fired guns.  Glocks, as best I can tell, tension the spring about 70% (or something like that), with the trigger stroke completing the striker-spring stretching process, and releasing the striker.   But as noted above, at 70% or 80% of spring tension, the springs aren't likely to be badly affected if left in that state for extended periods.

Some of the guns called double-action, whether they're hammer-fired or striker fired, aren't really double-action at all.  With a number of guns (and this includes the vast majority of striker-fired guns), if the trigger pull doesn't ignite the primer, the trigger won't work again until the slide is moved and the hammer or striker-spring is partially charged.  There is no second strike capability.  Yet many of these guns are "marketed" as DA guns.  That's true of Glocks and the CZ P10, and my FNS pistols.   That was also the case with some of the older metal-framed S&W semi-autos (including the final 59XX series guns, the 4000-series, the 45XX, and the 10XX guns); I literally HATED my S&W 4043 because of that functionality.   

Marketing deparments say what they have to say to get people comfortable with the guns they are responsible for selling.  :)



 

anything