SA vs. DA/SA handguns

[Newtonian 453]

Interesting story about this issue: http://bit.ly/1U49FAQ

 

Pretty much sums up my (admittedly inexperienced) belief that DA/SA are inherently safer. 

[NJGF 375]

I watched the video this morning (they have pretty good videos on their channel). He does make the case that you need more training to make sure you are comfortable with the DA/SA triggers and also get used to always decocking. Some people are going to get them because they are "safer" but not get the training. In the stress of an encounter I still believe the less you have to do the better. One could make the case that a revolver fits the bill with less things to learn and do under stress.

[Malsua 1,422]

I get 404 on the link.

 

That said, I like having the round chambered but no loaded hammer or striker behind it.     You have to want to shoot if you have an 11+lb trigger.    Less accurate?  Yeah, probably.  So it goes.   

[GRIZ 3,369]

I agree that SA/DA pistols are safer. The points made in the video are valid. I have been carrying them for over 40 years. There is no loss of accuracy if you teach yourself to let the trigger reset between the first DA and second SA shot. I don't buy one less thing to do is better. If you're a 1911 fan you train to put the safety on when you're finished. If you train to decock when you're finished shooting you will do the same thing on the street.

 

One of the problems with new shooters is they want instant success. They don't want to practice and don't want to develop the muscles needed to deal with a 10-12 pound DA pull. People who suggest the first thing you do when you get a revolver is get an action job really aren't doing you any favors. Those complaining about the "long, hard DA pull" should maybe take up croquet instead of shooting. Going to a 5 lb "action job" and using reloads with soft primers are okay for a range toy but don't think that makes you a great real life combat shooter.

 

I'm not against striker fired pistols. I also carry a Glock at times. The agency I retired from required the NY1 (8 lb) trigger. I've been retired over 10 years now and that's what still is in the gun.

[Vlad G 345]

I don't buy it. Todd Green and Earnest Langdon have been pushing this lately in various media (Well not Green anymore, but you know what I mean). You can listen to Langdon go on about it at some length in an interview with Mike Seeklander on the American Warrior podcast, it was a very good conversation.

 

I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm saying they are biased. I think if you are a professional or competitive shooter, someone who spends a LOT of hours with a gun in their hands, you have the luxury of choosing exactly which fine aspects of the shooting arts you want to select for. I have no problems shooting DA/SA guns, having shot a CZ for like 7 years in USPSA. But given a choice I'll shoot a SA or striker gun. My reasons are very specific to me and my needs and while not blind to Greens and Langdon's arguments I find them not relevant to someone who is reasonably well trained, or at least less important then other components playing into it.

 

The argument that a DA gun is safer for a new shooter that needs to carry a gun is probably correct, but it is quickly countered by the training requirements. The proponents of DA guns don't deny that striker guns are much faster to train a new shooter (cops included), or at least getting a new shooter to a certain acceptable level of skill. They argue that in the race to bottom, and trying to get people competent quickly, the world move to striker guns instead of the most training intensive DA guns.  The question I have is if we assume that funds and time existed for the increase training time you would need for the average person to be competent with a DA gun, how much more competent would they be with a striker gun given the same time spent training?

 

At the end of the day I think it is cyclical. Things come in and out of vogue, and then they swap again.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Vlad, I've been involved in firearms training for over 40 years. Ive trained people with DA revolvers and DA/SA, DAO, SA, and striker fired autos. There's really not much difference in training time between a DA revolver, DA/SA auto, and SA or striker fired auto. I agree it is a shorter learning curve to teaching a striker fired pistol.

 

When I was in the police academy back in the 70s you used a DA revolver, 4" or 6". That's it. I saw guys who never fired a handgun shoot expert after about 1000 rds and 40 hours of instruction. Thats when 20% of the rounds you fired were from 50 yards.

 

Go to the late 70s, when I went to work for the federal government and I had over 100 hours of instruction. Probably over twice as much ammo. We were shooting +P+. More people shot expert but we were still shooting DA revolvers (2 1/2" S&W Model 19 BTW). Still going back to 50 yds.

 

If you're a good shooter and trained on the platform there's no difference in how well you'll shoot in a SD shooting. That's a very small portion of combat shooting. Gun games let you use whatever you want as long as you stay in the rules.

[Vlad G 345]

I agree with you that if sufficient training is applied any platform can perform equally. At that point it becomes a matter of shooter preference. But as you mentioned training people to be minimally competent with a striker fire guns is quicker, and lets face it, lots of training is about minimally competent.

 

I guess the question raised to me by the original topic is should "we" switch back to DA guns because they are safer with less training or stay with striker guns because they are easier to train to competency with less training? Assuming sufficient training there is probably no difference.

 

Framing the question differently,  lets forget police training for a bit, and look at a CCW course in a medium-free state that shall issue one after 8 hours of training. Odds are 4-6 hours of that training are in a classroom talking about laws and storage and such. If you are lucky you are talking about 4h of range training which may be ALL that person will ever receive as training before they are carrying a gun. Would that person be better served with a DA gun that may be safer for everyone around them or with a striker gun that they may be more competent with if having to defend themselves?

 

I think that is where the hard question hides, because someone operating at the higher levels of proficiency has a much different set of concerns.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Vlad, as far as what someone chooses to carry for a CCW it comes down to what they are comfortable with. This most likely will be influenced by advice from people who may or may not know what they are talking about. A lot of people who get a carry permit are not gun people. They are not going to spend hours on the range developing their proficiency. Some that do go regularly are satisfied with a mediocre skill set.

 

While I am a fan of training I have mixed emotions about required training for a carry permit. You shouldn't have to have training to exercise a right. Some states require training to get a carry permit. The training ranges from a few hours on use of force to including a minimal qualification course.

 

I spent a lot of time in the PAARNG. PA has no training requirement. I met people who carried guns they "haven't gotten around to firing yet". I met people who really didn't understand the laws concerning use of force. Some said they would shoot someone who trying to steal their car. Some of the same people said they couldn't use their firearm if attacked by 10 unarmed thugs. Firearms selection is a small part of deciding to carry a gun. It's all the rest of the stuff that can get you in trobule either with the law or getting hurt or dead because you didn't use the gun when you could have used it.

 

I like to start people with a DA revolver. Learning a DA pull is not that hard although many think it is. Most of the people I've trained had the DA trigger down in the first range session. Not fast but able to shoot a hand size group at 7 to 10 yards. Malfunction drills are pretty easy with a DA revolver.

 

Being comfortable with whatever firearm you're carrying is more important than which firearm you're carrying. If it requires a little more training is a moot point.

[JimB1 554]

I am not sure it is inherently safer any more then a da revolver is inherently safer but I think the manual of operation for a da/sa is simpler then say a 1911 style SAO. So maybe simplicity under stress makes it safer for someone who doesn't have a lot of trigger time? Far as a striker fired goes, there are so many different setups, it's tough to say. Pretty much it comes down to training to me...

 

JMHO

-Jim

[High Exposure 5,664]

Meh, this argument has been back and forth for years.

 

NDs are a software issue, not a hardware one. If your finger is off the trigger until you are justified and ready to shoot, you won't have a problem. If your finger is on the trigger when it shouldn't be, you will one day get the dreaded "unexpected loud noise".

 

There have been just as many NDs with DAO guns as with SAO/Striker guns - all because fingers were on the trigger.

 

The trigger finger can exert upwards of 32lbs of pressure in a startle, sympathetic, or postural disturbance response. Until they make a gun with a 35lb trigger, we will continue to have NDs if people violate the 3rd rule of firearms safety.

 

I do not buy the "long trigger pull gives you time to decide to not shoot" theory. I don't care how long the trigger pull is, it will never be long enough to change your mind mid-trigger pull - not to mention that you will not be able to stop your finger that fast if you already made the decision to shoot. You may stop from firing twice or more, but that first shot is going when faced with deadly force.

 

When it comes to holstering - yes it is nice to have that hammer under your thumb. But, you should be looking at your holster when you put the gun away.

 

If you can't take your eyes off your immediate surroundings, or a threat you just stopped, for a split second to make sure you holster safely and securely, you should probably be keeping your gun out, not putting it away.

 

My first issued gun was a S&W 4013TSW DA/SA gun. I shot it very well. Hell, I passed Firearms instructor school with it when everyone else was shooting Glocks and 1911's and having trouble.

 

Personally I have a bigger problem with grip size than I do with trigger types, for I have the hands of a 12 year old Swedish girl. For example - when shooting a Beretta 92 my trigger finger can barely reach the trigger face in DA. In SA, I can reach the trigger easily. It's not a DA/SA trigger issue, it's a LOP issue.

 

I do see a significant improvement with shooters using guns with a single trigger pull (regardless of DAO, SAO, or striker) over pistols with two different pulls. In my experience, a marginal shooter with a DAO gun will be a more consistant shooter than a marginal shooter with a DA/SA gun - all else being equal.

[n4p226r 105]

To me, the biggest advantage of my glock over my sig is height over bore. I can more easily control recoil and follow up shots with the lower bore axis of the glock.

[Newtonian 453]

I watched the video this morning (they have pretty good videos on their channel). He does make the case that you need more training to make sure you are comfortable with the DA/SA triggers and also get used to always decocking. Some people are going to get them because they are "safer" but not get the training. In the stress of an encounter I still believe the less you have to do the better. One could make the case that a revolver fits the bill with less things to learn and do under stress.

You don't decock under stress. I'd think that disengaging the safety during an incident would require a lot more training than decocking after cleaning. 

[Newtonian 453]

I don't buy it. Todd Green and Earnest Langdon have been pushing this lately in various media (Well not Green anymore, but you know what I mean). You can listen to Langdon go on about it at some length in an interview with Mike Seeklander on the American Warrior podcast, it was a very good conversation.

 

I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm saying they are biased. I think if you are a professional or competitive shooter, someone who spends a LOT of hours with a gun in their hands, you have the luxury of choosing exactly which fine aspects of the shooting arts you want to select for. I have no problems shooting DA/SA guns, having shot a CZ for like 7 years in USPSA. But given a choice I'll shoot a SA or striker gun. My reasons are very specific to me and my needs and while not blind to Greens and Langdon's arguments I find them not relevant to someone who is reasonably well trained, or at least less important then other components playing into it.

 

The argument that a DA gun is safer for a new shooter that needs to carry a gun is probably correct, but it is quickly countered by the training requirements. The proponents of DA guns don't deny that striker guns are much faster to train a new shooter (cops included), or at least getting a new shooter to a certain acceptable level of skill. They argue that in the race to bottom, and trying to get people competent quickly, the world move to striker guns instead of the most training intensive DA guns.  The question I have is if we assume that funds and time existed for the increase training time you would need for the average person to be competent with a DA gun, how much more competent would they be with a striker gun given the same time spent training?

 

At the end of the day I think it is cyclical. Things come in and out of vogue, and then they swap again.

Again, I'm rather inexperienced. I own both DA/SA and SA only.

 

Safety is not as much of a concern when you're aiming at a target as when you unholster in a defensive situation. Were I a competitor I would use SA only at events. I'm sure the authors do the same.

 

The authors are not talking about target shooting, however, but of everyday defensive carry.

[Zeke 5,504]

HE has made good points imho.

But that doesn't change the fact Mrs Zeke isn't comfortable with my sig. Wants a decocker/safety.

At the end of the day, the best gun is what your comfortable with. And yes, that's a software issue.

[High Exposure 5,664]

At the end of the day, the best gun is what your comfortable with. And yes, that's a software issue.

Agreed - but remember, software can be de-bugged and upgraded.

[Zeke 5,504]

Cough, what? You reprogram your wife and let me know how that works out. Umk

[High Exposure 5,664]

As she gets more comfortable with guns, as she gains experience, as she learns new TTPs, as she sees what else is out there, she may decide she is OK with something other than a DA/SA pistol.

[Zeke 5,504]

I know.

lol

I know

[JohnnyB 4,325]

All wives want the ability to decock. Look at Lorena Bobbett! Just sayin.

[Kevin125 4,772]

I don't have a substantiated opinion on the safety issue, but as someone who is learning to shoot with a DA/SA (Beretta M9) and a DAO (Sig) I have to say proficiency seems to come slightly easier with the DAO. It's not that I can't shoot reasonably well (at rare times) with the DA/SA handgun, it just takes more effort at this point for me.

 

Safety? I'm leaning toward the software case. I think it's possible to screw up with either type of handgun. My opinion thus far is that there is a little more going on managing the DA/SA handgun. If I screw up and holster the Beretta cocked.... Something bad could happen if I've become dependent on the heavy DA state trigger saving me me from a mistake.

 

Whereas with the DAO, my awareness of the constant state of the trigger may keep my software working better...and my friends safer.

 

This just one hypothetical scenario probably having to do more with inexperienced shooters. It may not be likely, but possible I suppose. If there are guys that twirl around for God know what reason...there is probably someone who could make a mistake like this. I will just do everything I can to make damn sure that guy is never me.

[mipafox 438]

DASA Sucks balls except for target.

 

First good hole. It may take several tries under many conditions.

[Zeke 5,504]

All wives want the ability to decock. Look at Lorena Bobbett! Just sayin.

Ok, this was funny

[345Sire 158]

All wives want the ability to decock. Look at Lorena Bobbett! Just sayin.

OUCH!!!!!!!!!