Why the move from SA autos to DA


PDA






SHusky57
April 18, 2009, 08:01 PM
Why is it that the elite units seem to be switching from single action to double action?

I heard the British SAS has replaced most of their hi-powers with Sigs... and you just don't see many 1911s or Hi-powers anymore.

What caused the change?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why the move from SA autos to DA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
desert gator
April 18, 2009, 08:16 PM
Well im new to guns and not as well taught as allot of other guys on here yet. To me though I think that a da is a form of safety having the longer trigger pull. You still can carry chambered and just pull the trigger to shoot, but I feel the long trigger pull reduces the chance of accidental shots. Just my opinion, I could be way off though

TMM
April 18, 2009, 08:28 PM
i agree with desert gator. simpler to use - unholster, pull trigger, bang. SA's might require training. i remember someone else here on THR said the same thing.

TMM

wyocarp
April 18, 2009, 08:34 PM
Yep, you have gotten your answer.

TestPilot
April 18, 2009, 09:19 PM
It's slightly more complicated then that.

Each unit has their own specific reason. While it is true that P228, P226 do not have manual firing inhibit levers to deal with, it also means the operators have to deal with the longer and heavier DA trigger pull for the first shot.

With that specific issue, it's a matter of preference. I decided the burden of DA and the risk associated with it was less than the burden and risk of having to manipulate a manual firing inhibit levers, especially when medium pressure DA such as SIG DAK, Glock Safe Action trigger, etc. are available. Number of Europian special forces have gone with DA/SA or Glock. Having to flip lever a lot is not desirable in combat. With the amount to training SAS gets, I'm sure they can manage either way. But, thenagain, why deal with it when you don't have to? But, at the same time, number of US Special forces still uses 1911 with manual firing inhibit lever for its great single action trigger.

Also note that , in case of SAS, even though Brownig Hi-Power was a good reliable design for it's time, it's an old design. SIG has a good repulation for reliability, and I'm not sure if a Browning can match more modern engineering. Also, the trigger is heavier than the other popular SAO pistol, the 1911, and its manual firing inhibit lever is not so easy to manipulate as 1911, according to user reviews. If the SAS was to replace the Browning with another SAO 9mm, they have a very limited choice. But, there are lot more choices of quality 9mm pistols in the DA category.

christcorp
April 18, 2009, 09:30 PM
Manually lowering a hammer is dangerous. A decocker is great, but you sort of need double action after that. Manually pulling the hammer back would be an option; but double action pull is better. And contrary to what some may say; "Cocked and Locked" is NOT the best way to carry a pistol. Way too many things to go wrong. However; with a 1911A1 or similar; your choices are 1)Don't have a round in the chamber (My method). 2)Manually lowering the hammer and/or half cock. (Quite Dangerous). 3)Carrying the gun "Cocked and Locked". (Nope; ain't going to happen for this kid).

Thus, double action; especially with a decocker like a SigSauer is the best of all worlds. And while I love my Springfield Armory 1911A1, which I've had now since 1985 when it was brand new and STILL LOOKS IT; my SigSauer P220 45acp is in a class all it's own. Much better to carry and use than the Springfield 1911A1. And MUCH safer. A better gun all in all.

wyocarp
April 18, 2009, 09:36 PM
It's slightly more complicated then that.

No, it really isn't. They feel they will be safer and have fewer accidental discharges. Each "unit" might have their reasons, but it's the same reason.

christcorp, hey, it is always nice to see others on here from Wyoming.

Oro
April 18, 2009, 09:49 PM
and its manual firing inhibit lever

Is that the military term for a thumb safety?;)

SHusky57
April 18, 2009, 10:08 PM
actually Christcorp.... I am pretty sure that cocked and locked is about as safe as it gets. Certainly as safe as if not safer than a Glock or any other DA/SA.

Think about it.
1911 with 5.5 pound trigger has grip safety and thumb safety, and most new 1911s have firing pin safety.
Glock with 5.5 pound trigger has no external safeties.

Neither will fire without a trigger pull.
The Glock or DA auto will fire if something gets caught in the trigger guard while holstering or unholstering.


I don't see how you can reasonably arrive at "the 1911 cocked and locked" is less safe than any DA auto.

The main reason I am curious is inspite of my Glocks, I find myself wanting a hi-power (or 1911). The polymer pistols are just fine, but I want a steel framed pistol that is capable of super accuracy.

fineredmist
April 18, 2009, 10:13 PM
In my way of thinking a consistent trigger pull is required for safe and accurate shooting of a handgun. DA/SA pistols are not the way to go as your grip has to change to transition to the SA mode and that can cause problems in a combat situation. Once you have gone over to the SA mode the trigger pull is very light and I thought that was the concern about accidential discharge. If you really want the "safety" of the long double action trigger you must have it with every shot to be "safe". A DA only or a striker fired weapon (with a heavy pull) are the only ways you can make the weapon "user foolproof".

TestPilot
April 18, 2009, 10:41 PM
Quote:
and its manual firing inhibit lever
Is that the military term for a thumb safety?
No. :)
It's what I believe is the correct description of what people call "manual safety", because that is what the thing actually does.

It does not make the gun safe. It inhibits fire when engaged regardless of whether if the user wants it to or not, and it lets the gun fire when disengaged whether if the user wants it to or not.

It also gives ignorant people the impression that guns without it are unsafe.

JohnBT
April 18, 2009, 11:20 PM
" inhibits fire "

Sheesh. Give me a break. What, it makes the gun ashamed and so afraid that it won't fire? It's inhibited?

It's a safety. Who should I believe, you or Mr. Browning?

John

TheVirginian
April 18, 2009, 11:30 PM
The BHP is easy to operate, intuitvely so. It's accurate, reliable, high capacity, and of course, high power. The trigger is very smooth on modestly tuned or broken-in examples.

The only reason for a change would be due to the age of the current armory and the ability to make new choices. Bids go out in response to requests for new arms by the militaries and they often decide on price if a couple of designs meet their requirements. It may be that the trend is to make DA units for the police and private markets and that these same designs find their way into the hands of the military.

It might not take quite as many brain cells to pull a trigger as to flip a lever and pull a trigger, but the designs are both workable alternatives. Many of the more recent side arms offer picatinny rails, which would make them more flexible by adding accessories, some of which have not even been introduced. Many models offer SA/DA and manual safties, so as long as they meet the requirements and the cost, there is no reason not to include them.
-Bill

twofifty
April 18, 2009, 11:34 PM
What does the US Army's Model 1911 Manual of Arms say about "cocked and locked" being the normal carry condition?
Has the manual of arms' recommendations in that regard changed between say WW1, WW2 and Vietnam?

I would be surprised if one in the pipe cocked and locked was ever recommended unless on active patrol in a combat zone.

David E
April 18, 2009, 11:36 PM
Who cares what ignorant people think? They're ignorant because they do not want to learn.

Saying a gun has a "fire inhibitor lever" is going to accomplish just as much as saying it launches "dissuader pellets" :rolleyes:

HammerheadSSN663
April 18, 2009, 11:49 PM
I gotta agree, the 'necessity' of carrying cocked and locked is nonsense.

If you don't have time to reach and rack its too late anyway - you've let the bad guy inside the 'kill zone'.

IMO, if you feel the need to be in combat ready mode, you 1) probably shouldn't be in that area in the first place which leads to point 2) you have not made a proper assessment of those surroundings.

IMO cocked and locked is another term for suburban cowboy.

TestPilot
April 19, 2009, 12:02 AM
" inhibits fire "

Sheesh. Give me a break. What, it makes the gun ashamed and so afraid that it won't fire? It's inhibited?

It's a safety. Who should I believe, you or Mr. Browning?

I don't particularly care who or what you believe in. I just call it that because that's what I think it is. I only explained in detail because someone asked me why I was calling it. I'm not trying to force you to call it anything, so why would you need a break from me?

Besies, yes it make a gun not fire because it locks the trigger or firing mechanism. Isn't that what it is designed to do?
Who cares what ignorant people think? They're ignorant because they do not want to learn.

Saying a gun has a "fire inhibitor lever" is going to accomplish just as much as saying it launches "dissuader pellets"
I just call it "manual firing inhibitor" because that's what I think it is. It's my freedom to do so. It's same as John Farnam calling DA trigger "trigger cocking." I'm not forcing anyone to call it anything.

Besides, it actually does inhibits fire while bullets does not always dissuade. Calling it a "safety" is more like calling bullet a "dissuader pellet" because "on safe" may not actually be safe when you need to fire.

TestPilot
April 19, 2009, 12:07 AM
Quote:
It's slightly more complicated then that.
No, it really isn't. They feel they will be safer and have fewer accidental discharges. Each "unit" might have their reasons, but it's the same reason.


Then why do U.S. Army and Marine special forces stick to 1911s?

weisse52
April 19, 2009, 12:50 AM
IMO cocked and locked is another term for suburban cowboy.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion....Not sure anyone who has carried a 1911 for 30+ years would agree, but you entitled....

skinewmexico
April 19, 2009, 01:00 AM
Then why do U.S. Army and Marine special forces stick to 1911s?

Who said they do? (And movies don't count)

skinewmexico
April 19, 2009, 01:01 AM
Double

sohcgt2
April 19, 2009, 01:19 AM
Everyone who posted here after the 4th post really needs to look at the top of the page. this thread doesn't look like its on the high road to me. Militaries like KISS and thats why the switch just like Gator, TMM, and Wyocarp said. The ensuing argument over what to call a thumb safety is just siilly.

TestPilot
April 19, 2009, 02:01 AM
Quote:
Then why do U.S. Army and Marine special forces stick to 1911s?
Who said they do? (And movies don't count)
I've actually seen US SF guys with 1911 in Iraq. Why would I need someone to tell me they do? I don't work with people who can't tell the difference from movies and reality, if that's not your reality that's your problem.

TestPilot
April 19, 2009, 02:13 AM
... Militaries like KISS and thats why the switch just like Gator, TMM, and Wyocarp said. ...
That's a broad generalization. It may be true that SAS in particular thought the P226, P228 system is more simple to operate, but I believe why many SF units in U.S. military has chosen otherwise, SAO 45 with manual firing inhibit lever, is worth a discussion.

Besides, if all military chooses based on KISS then can you tell me why U.S. Army issues M9 which has a DA trigger AND a manual firing inhibit levers?

HorseSoldier
April 19, 2009, 02:30 AM
Why is it that the elite units seem to be switching from single action to double action?

I heard the British SAS has replaced most of their hi-powers with Sigs... and you just don't see many 1911s or Hi-powers anymore.


For the most part, that switch happened some time ago.

The SAS pretty much shot their High Powers to pieces before replacing them with Sigs, but that was years ago. The SEALs went to the P226 in the 80s, Army SF got the M9 in the same general time frame, etc. The super cool kids in Delta stayed with the 1911 longer, but it's worth noting they mostly traded in their Caspian custom-builds for Glocks more recently.

I actually think it's more accurate to say that some special operations units have moved back towards single action pistols, rather than moved away from them in favor of double actions. Double actions (and Glocks) have been the industry standard for a long time, primarily since that's mostly what industry was bringing out for years -- a new design pretty much meant DA/SA in the days before Glock really got market share and everyone needed a competing design with a similar trigger set up.

As for why the switch back towards single action, I'd theorize that it's cross-pollination from IPSC gun gaming with the military. When I was on active duty, the serious 1911 guys in the SF unit I was assigned to (as a support guy, not a team guy) were almost all also serious competition pistol and three gun shooters.

I've actually seen US SF guys with 1911 in Iraq.

The vast majority of our guys, including the ODAs, carried boring old M9s. A few ODAs I worked with had USGI 1911s they'd scared up (and refurbished) but they were the exception, not the rule.

TestPilot
April 19, 2009, 02:31 AM
What does the US Army's Model 1911 Manual of Arms say about "cocked and locked" being the normal carry condition?
Has the manual of arms' recommendations in that regard changed between say WW1, WW2 and Vietnam?

I would be surprised if one in the pipe cocked and locked was ever recommended unless on active patrol in a combat zone.
When inside what is believed to be safe zone, no weapon is loaded. But, when in operation soldiers chamber the round and put their weapons on fire inhibit mode. This goes for M4, M9, but I have no reason to believe M1911 was any different.

Since we are discussing operational SF pistol use, why would what is recommended for soldiers who is not on active patrol relevant? Some police departments authorize 1911 for duty use, and I am not aware of a single department in U.S. directing anything other than "cocked and locked" for 1911.

TestPilot
April 19, 2009, 02:35 AM
Quote:
I've actually seen US SF guys with 1911 in Iraq.
The vast majority of our guys, including the ODAs, carried boring old M9s. A few ODAs I worked with had USGI 1911s they'd scared up (and refurbished) but they were the exception, not the rule.
I have no problem believing you on that part. But, I highly doubt the ODA people who had M9 took that over 1911 as a preference.

HorseSoldier
April 19, 2009, 02:42 AM
But, I highly doubt the ODA people who had M9 took that over 1911 as a preference.

Never did a survey or anything, but I'd venture to guess you're right -- not so much because the 1911 is universally loved, as because the M9 is pretty universally despised. I'd guess if you took a poll of the team guys I worked with on a preferred alternative to the M9, the top two options would be the 1911 and some flavor of Glock. Not really sure which one would top the list.

TestPilot
April 19, 2009, 02:52 AM
Quote:
But, I highly doubt the ODA people who had M9 took that over 1911 as a preference.
Never did a survey or anything, but I'd venture to guess you're right -- not so much because the 1911 is universally loved, as because the M9 is pretty universally despised. I'd guess if you took a poll of the team guys I worked with on a preferred alternative to the M9, the top two options would be the 1911 and some flavor of Glock. Not really sure which one would top the list.
Knowing gun people who wants maximum efficiency, it is highly unlikely they'd pick a pistol that has both DA trigger AND a manual firing inhibit device, especially when the lever is on the most difficult place to manipulate(slide).

So, it's either a SAO or DA/SA, or DAO with medium pressure trigger. So, it's no wonder elite teams end up with SIG, Glock, or 1911. HK pistols had manual firing inhibit levers on USP, but even German GSG-9 used SIG and then Glock after they were done with P7. Only elite team I am aware of that use a Beretta is GIGN, and they use a "G" (Decock only) model. And, when they did the Air France rescue years back they were using SIG. So your guess is highly likely accurate.:)

sohcgt2
April 19, 2009, 02:57 AM
When inside what is believed to be safe zone, no weapon is loaded. But, when in operation soldiers chamber the round and put their weapons on fire inhibit mode. This goes for M4, M9, but I have no reason to believe M1911 was any different.

Since we are discussing operational SF pistol use, why would what is recommended for soldiers who is not on active patrol relevant? Some police departments authorize 1911 for duty use, and I am not aware of a single department in U.S. directing anything other than "cocked and locked" for 1911.

Carry condition is reletive to ROE, officially empty chamber unless engaged.

TestPilot
April 19, 2009, 03:10 AM
Carry condition is reletive to ROE, officially empty chamber unless engaged.
Chamber empty unless engaged is not the universal ROE.

Besides, do YOU think that's a smart ROE?

Why would police departments recommend cocked and locked for 1911 in this sue happy era if it's more risky than chamber empty carry?

Straight Shooter
April 19, 2009, 03:38 AM
I gotta agree, the 'necessity' of carrying cocked and locked is nonsense.

If you don't have time to reach and rack its too late anyway - you've let the bad guy inside the 'kill zone'.

IMO, if you feel the need to be in combat ready mode, you 1) probably shouldn't be in that area in the first place which leads to point 2) you have not made a proper assessment of those surroundings.

IMO cocked and locked is another term for suburban cowboy.

You are correct. If you find yourself in close quarters with a BG it would be very difficult to draw, rack the slide and fire. However, drawing, swiping the safety and firing from retention might still be accomplished as it only requires one hand.

Just because the BG got too close doesn't mean you should give up.

chieftain
April 19, 2009, 05:20 AM
Manually lowering a hammer is dangerous. A decocker is great, but you sort of need double action after that. Manually pulling the hammer back would be an option; but double action pull is better. And contrary to what some may say; "Cocked and Locked" is NOT the best way to carry a pistol. Way too many things to go wrong. However; with a 1911A1 or similar; your choices are 1)Don't have a round in the chamber (My method). 2)Manually lowering the hammer and/or half cock. (Quite Dangerous). 3)Carrying the gun "Cocked and Locked". (Nope; ain't going to happen for this kid).

After you get some combat experience you will probably change your tune. I know of no man with combat experience, particularly with a single action weapon that would agree with you. You probably can find someone, there is always the exception that is proof for the rule.


Thus, double action; especially with a decocker like a SigSauer is the best of all worlds. And while I love my Springfield Armory 1911A1, which I've had now since 1985 when it was brand new and STILL LOOKS IT; my SigSauer P220 45acp is in a class all it's own. Much better to carry and use than the Springfield 1911A1. And MUCH safer. A better gun all in all.

I have no gripe with a shooter using and believing a DA/SA weapon is not a fine fighting weapon. I have carried both the 1911 and the SIG 220 for business and pleasure. I stick to the 1911 I would not carry a 220 again as a fighting weapon. I cannot use the SIG trigger appropriately anymore for medical reasons, so when I go to 9mm these days, it ainít one of my SIG 228ís it is one of my Highpowers. (which I also carry locked and cocked.)

I have found over the years that my 226Ďs, 228Ďs, and 229Ďs to be more reliable than my 220Ďs or 225Ďs. My 1911ís in 45acp are very reliable.

Because YOU can NOT be safe with a single action, does not mean I cannot be. I am trained well enough so as to not had a problem with the single action locked and cocked or DA/SA, or DAO, or what have you.

Just because I prefer a single action, doesn't mean any man using another kind of action is at a disadvantage, as long as he trains with quality instruction, and does quality practice, not just shooting at stationary targets at his local range. It is about the man, the software, not the tools.

I am very glad to see a man who knows his limitations. It sure ainít the weapons, limitation, it is the operators, with any action.


In my way of thinking a consistent trigger pull is required for safe and accurate shooting of a handgun. DA/SA pistols are not the way to go as your grip has to change to transition to the SA mode and that can cause problems in a combat situation. Once you have gone over to the SA mode the trigger pull is very light and I thought that was the concern about accidental discharge. If you really want the "safety" of the long double action trigger you must have it with every shot to be "safe". A DA only or a striker fired weapon (with a heavy pull) are the only ways you can make the weapon "user foolproof".

Just for the record, "user foolproof" don't exist. If you are relying on the gun to prevent an AD/ND you are already in trouble. IT is about the operator, the user, the software, not the hardware.

Just because you were not able to pull DA then transition to SA without moving your hand, please donít accuse all of us of that. Some of us do know how to run DA/SA weapon competently. Post revolver, I preferred the SIG 228 to any other semi auto, including 1911ís. (I am not a caliber maven. I chose a gun/platform, then use the caliber it was designed for. If I do my job, and choose to use modern effective ammunition, per FBI/Dr Roberts, I will be as effective as any weak cheese handgun caliber can be. Most of my combat experience is with the 45acp though. Wasnít to impressed with 45ís capability either.)

AS to trigger weight. My fighting 1911ís/Highpowers all have triggers of at least 4.5 lbs. I prefer 5lbs. IN fact in the only Glock I ever considered carrying (I do not like how it feels in my hand) I put a 3.5 connector with a NYSP #1 spring (8lbs), for safety. In my 54years of shooting, I have seen more AD/NDís from Glocks than any other marque. It ain't the weapon, it is the folks using it. Don't put your finger on the trigger,and it gets very hard to make it go bang. (I have seen on rare occasion, thumb break strap or such get tangled up in the trigger guard and set off a striker fired pistol usually a Glock.)


It does not make the gun safe. It inhibits fire when engaged regardless of whether if the user wants it to or not, and it lets the gun fire when disengaged whether if the user wants it to or not.

Just as a weapon with out a safety will fire when the trigger is pulled/pushed whether the operator pulls/pushes the trigger or not.


It also gives ignorant people the impression that guns without it are unsafe.

Every well maintained weapon is safe or unsafe based on the person operating it. If you think the way you choose to operate your weapon is ďbetterĒ or not is about you, not the weapon.

I am sure your combat experience is the basis for your statements though. Otherwise they are really just an opinion, right?


What does the US Army's Model 1911 Manual of Arms say about "cocked and locked" being the normal carry condition?

Just like the service rifle.


I would be surprised if one in the pipe cocked and locked was ever recommended unless on active patrol in a combat zone.

Why carry at all, in your world then? Depended on your Commanding Officers. Most of those with Combat experience allowed Cocked and locked. Many, not all, of those without combat experience would worry about it. It is about experience and knowledge, not rules. Those of us with experience would ignore a dangerous order, our weapons were always cocked and locked, even in the rear "safe" areas.


I gotta agree, the 'necessity' of carrying cocked and locked is nonsense.

Obviously you have never needed it and used it from locked and cocked. I have.

I donít doubt your combat experience is vastly superior to mine, with single action weapons.


If you don't have time to reach and rack its too late anyway - you've let the bad guy inside the 'kill zone'.

You may drop your rifle because your magazine went dry, while being overrun, I did not, and donít. I finished the closest NVA, and as soon as possible reloaded my rifle. The term used today, and I like it, is called transition. Many of todayís tactical schools can teach the technique to you.

In the civilian self defense scenario, I may have to keep a hold of my child, woman or both while engaging the bad guys. And make no mistake, if you get attacked, they will not telegraph their move, they most often, not always, will attack you from as close as they can get.


IMO, if you feel the need to be in combat ready mode, you 1) probably shouldn't be in that area in the first place which leads to point 2) you have not made a proper assessment of those surroundings.

If you get attacked, and thought you were going to be attacked, you should have a rifle or shotgun. A handgun is ONLY for convenience, long arms are for fighting.

My point is the reason you are using a handgun in the first place is because you did not expect to be attacked. The attacker has the time, place and means of attack and adrenalin advantage, BEFORE YOU KNOW YOU ARE BEING ATTACKED.

Bad vibes are not an excuse to draw on a person. There MUST BE AN OVERT ACT of criminality, for you to justify your weapon. That putís you behind the power curve. Your own skills of observation can marginally increase the time you do have, most of the time, But not always. Any man that truly believes he ďneverĒ can be ďtakenĒ by surprise by a properly laid ambush/attack, is at minimum a fool. Why you may ask? For one who truly believes that they cannot be surprised will never train or practice for that eventuality.


IMO cocked and locked is another term for suburban cowboy.

Spoken like an inexperienced amateur, with little or no quality training. A single action weapon, chosen for self defense, should be carried in the locked or cocked mode. If you donít trust yourself, or are afraid of that action and mode, carry a different type firearm. Doesnít make you better or worse.

Please do not project your inability on the rest of us.

There is a reason that some of the most experienced gunmen in the world, given the choice, choose single action Locked and cocked. I know of no experienced and or professional (military or LEO) gun fighter, carrying a single action weapon, without it being cocked and locked. No doubt you have vastly greater experience in on this subject.

Just donít let your fear, inexperience, or inability, allow you to call those of us that donít have your fear and inexperience or lack of ability, and do have the experience of carrying and fighting single action weapons, names. It tells us a lot more about you, then us.

Sheesh!

Go figure.

Fred

loop
April 19, 2009, 08:32 AM
First, Chieftan,

Well said.

Carrying cocked and locked is how it is done. I've done so since the '60s and never regretted it. My Backup has one up the pipe and no safety and has never discharged accidentally. I've carried it longer and under more dire circumstances than my primary, but never pulled the trigger except on the range.

My primary has always been cocked and locked. It has only been fired twice in confrontations. Despite having been knocked out of its holster and skidding across rough terrain it never accidentally discharged. The only times it has ever gone bang is when I pulled the trigger.

Anyone who will say a gun should always be carried in safe mode never rode point in Nam. My lifelong best friend never took his finger out of the trigger guard of his Ithaca 12 ga. from the time he sat down in the Jeep. He shot everything that moved, and I was glad he did.

The best safety is your trigger finger being outside of the trigger guard.

And, guys, give test pilot a break. He's a Limey. There's a language barrier. Can't you tell?

His accent is killing me <LMAO>.

Never met one yet who had his head screwed on straight.

The Lone Haranguer
April 19, 2009, 08:39 AM
Why is it that the elite units seem to be switching from single action to double action?
Interesting and paradoxical question. DA is supposed to be for large numbers of people with minimal firearms training, but this should not apply to elite units who train extensively.

TestPilot
April 19, 2009, 12:31 PM
Quote:
It does not make the gun safe. It inhibits fire when engaged regardless of whether if the user wants it to or not, and it lets the gun fire when disengaged whether if the user wants it to or not.
Just as a weapon with out a safety will fire when the trigger is pulled/pushed whether the operator pulls/pushes the trigger or not.
Not relevant. My point is not DAO or DA/SA without a manual firing inhibit device is more or less safe than pistols that do have a manual firing inhibit device. What I am arguing about is that "on safe" firearm is actually a fire inhibited firearm, and there is a difference between a safe firearm and a fire inhibited firearm. Fire inhibited firearm is not safe if the user needs to fire it.

Quote:
It also gives ignorant people the impression that guns without it are unsafe.
Every well maintained weapon is safe or unsafe based on the person operating it. If you think the way you choose to operate your weapon is “better” or not is about you, not the weapon.

I am sure your combat experience is the basis for your statements though. Otherwise they are really just an opinion, right?
I never said DA/SA or DAO is better than SAO with manual firing inhibit devices. I just said the device inhibits or enables fire on a weapon, not "safe" or "unsafe" the weapon. Just like you said, safe or unsafe is based on the person operating it, for the most part that is.

Actually I do think DA/SA, DAO, or SAO with manual firing inhibit device is better than a pistol that has DA/SA AND a manual firing inhibit device for ME. But, that's another story.:)

SHusky57
April 19, 2009, 12:32 PM
I don't see why SA are considered harder to learn.
Safety on, finger off trigger, holster. Draw, safety off, bang. Repeat?

The Glock almost feels like a SA trigger (compared to my Sig or Beretta), but it has no external safety. Basically, I just want something with a Glock like trigger (5-6 pounds) with an external safety.... the hi-power seems to fit the bill; and I was wondering why they fell out of favor with military.

TestPilot
April 19, 2009, 12:38 PM
I don't see why SA are considered harder to learn.
Safety on, finger off trigger, holster. Draw, safety off, bang. Repeat?
"Safety on, finger off trigger, holster. Draw, safety off, bang. "
"Finger off trigger, holster. Draw, bang."
Which is more shorter?
Which has less steps that one can mess up?

Like you said, it may not be "hard" but it is "harder." But, then again DA trigger may be harder for some compared to a SA trigger, so dealing with the manual firing inhibit device may be worth it for some. It's all about risk versus benefit. Not everyone comes to the same conclusion.

christcorp
April 19, 2009, 12:45 PM
Yea Chieftain; I guess those 21 years in the military; including trips to the sandbox, central america and such isn't good experience. I love my 1911A1 Springfield Armory. But unless I'm on patrol with it as my side arm, I'm not leaving it cocked and locked. Believe what you want. I really don't care. If you're "Concealed Carry", then you aren't "On Patrol". As mentioned before, if you don't have time (Less than 1 second) to chamber a round, then you did not do your job as to being aware of your surrounding. Yes, with grip safeties and such, a "Cocked and Locked" condition is relatively safe. However; mechanical problems do happen. A lowered hammer can't go off; except in older guns where a dropped gun can create such a condition.

But do whatever you want chieftain, it truly does not bother me. And while most of the military doesn't carry 1911's any longer, some do. (I've trained them at CATM). They are usually under cover type positions. And the majority carrying a 1911 (Not in a combat zone), do not carry the weapon in "Condition 1" (Cocked and locked). But you are more than free to do so.

TestPilot
April 19, 2009, 04:09 PM
But unless I'm on patrol with it as my side arm, I'm not leaving it cocked and locked. Believe what you want. I really don't care. If you're "Concealed Carry", then you aren't "On Patrol". As mentioned before, if you don't have time (Less than 1 second) to chamber a round, then you did not do your job as to being aware of your surrounding.
Your concealed carry statement is not sound. Pulling the slide to chamber a round requires the pistol to be drawn, which CANNOT be legally done if the threat has not risen to the level of serious bodily harm or death. You cannot draw and chamber a round just because a thug approaches you. What if you are in a situation where you cannot evade a thug approaching you, and the thug presents a deadly threat only after he is already on top of you?

Saying use situational awareness to avoid and prepare for trouble is sound. Saying situational awareness will always buy you a second to rack a slide is a wrong assumption.

I've been in the sand box, and on the streets in major U.S. cities. The situation is very different. I'm not saying you are wrong for choosing to carry chamber empty with a 1911. That's your choice. But, the assumption that situation awareness will always buy you time is simply not true.

And, no police department I am aware of says "Cock and lock your 1911 only on duty, then carry chamber empty when you go off duty."

JohnBT
April 19, 2009, 04:26 PM
"yes it make a gun not fire because it locks the trigger or firing mechanism. Isn't that what it is designed to do?"

There's a word for that device: safety.

Why use 4 words (manual firing inhibit device) when one will do?

John

TestPilot
April 19, 2009, 04:35 PM
"yes it make a gun not fire because it locks the trigger or firing mechanism. Isn't that what it is designed to do?"

There's a word for that device: safety.

Why use 4 words (manual firing inhibit device) when one will do?
I already explained that. Because, I believe the 4 words more accurately describe the nature of the device.

You don't have to call it that. I'm using the term at my inconvenience or convenience, so you lose nothing.
Some say it's a silly argument, but I'm not the one who started it. I just called the device what I think it is, and people asked
questions, so I answered. Why does it concern you that much about what I call the device?

SHusky57
April 19, 2009, 06:55 PM
Rather than debate the meaning of the word safety...

In response to Christcorp - what if you are in a situation where you can't justify brandishing your weapon but may need it immediately. I can think up scenarios if you would like.... I'm not talking about quick draw mcgraw stuff, but times when you can't yet draw nor should you draw - but you may need your weapon instantly.

Testpilot - I agree DA is slightly simpler, but with that simplicity also comes the fact that a) should your weapon be taken from you (1 in 5 cops that die will die from this) your assailant can utilize it.... whereas with a BHP you can engage the safety or drop the mag to prevent firing and b) in stress, if something gets caught between the trigger and the holster, there is nothing to prevent a ND. I know training can overcome this, but isn't the point of a DA that it requires less training?

And if the safety is incorporated into all handling training, then it becomes second nature. If one cannot disengage a frame mounted safety, are they equally capable of drawing and accurately firing their weapon under stress?

distra
April 19, 2009, 06:58 PM
It seems the discussion has drifted a bit from the OP's original question into a SA vs DA safety argument. SA is no less safe than a Glock (DAO) or Sig (DA/SA), nor are they any "harder" to learn or slower to deploy. :rolleyes: One can not overlook the power of marketing, economics and politics in the switch. Firearm manufacturers compete for contracts to build pistols requested by the military. The funds for which are approved by politicians. Somewhere along the line someone, either military brass or political figure, thought SA cocked and locked looked either less safe or too aggressive to them. Many more outside factors come into play when selecting sidearms for the military and funding is major contributor. Increased capacity is another factor as well as second strike capability. Just my $0.02

HammerheadSSN663
April 19, 2009, 07:41 PM
So you say Chieftan.

Sorry, but if you feel you need to be in constant combat mode while cruising through the canned fruit section of local grocer, or can't ever leave the house without your piece, you're living in the wrong part of town.

Like I said, If you don't have time to rack it, its too late or you made the mistake of not knowing what's going on around you in the first place.

Considering the only thing separating my family, myself and those around me is a click of a safety and hair trigger, I'll take my 1 and billion chances that i won't have time to take 2 seconds and rack a slide.

I stand by my 'inexperiened' statement.

metallic
April 19, 2009, 07:51 PM
I stand by my 'inexperiened' statement.

This is getting really off topic, but why is carrying in condition one such a bad idea? My Kimber has a manual safety, a grip safety and a firing pin safety. This thing isn't going off unless I pull the trigger.

JohnBT
April 19, 2009, 11:30 PM
"or can't ever leave the house without your piece, you're living in the wrong part of town."

How cute, the wrong part of town. Think that up yourself? Some of us live where we do and manage to survive by staying prepared. Have you looked at the crime stats for Richmond VA over the past 37 years? That's how long I've lived here. In the city, not the burbs, but they're having more and more problems too.

At least I don't live in D.C. anymore. :) Or Baltimore. I like Baltimore, but watch your back.

John

SHusky57
April 20, 2009, 01:34 AM
I apologize for going off topic, and this will be my last post in this thread....
but since when was the suburbs immune from violence?

Wasn't there that Luby's in Texas among others?

christcorp
April 20, 2009, 02:04 AM
i will say that if I draw a weapon, it's NOT to scare anyone away. I will be pulling the trigger. That has to be the first thing people understand. Some believe it's OK to scare someone with pulling a gun if they come at you with a knife, forceful manner, etc... IF, I will say again, IF, i pull my weapon, I WILL be pulling the trigger. There are so many options. If you agree that if you pull your weapon that you will shoot the person; then I can confidently do the same thing. Even with chambering a round. If you don't like doing that, then that's fine. I'm not here to tell you how to feel comfortable. I'm simply saying that "Cocked, Locked, and Ready to Rock" is not the only option for a 1911 style of gun. And of course, with the many other types of guns; namely the DA types; some are better than others at how they are carried. I.e. A Sig P220 has a decocker, but no safety. But for some, that's not a problem because it's like having a revolver. Depending on how it's carried. Others, have a decocker that are also a safety. Those don't allow the hammer to come up or the trigger pulled if the safety is on. And that's with one in the chamber. Of course, there will be those here that believe that you shouldn't have the safety on and just leave it like a normal DA revolver/pistol.

It's whatever you are comfortable with. I know what I'm comfortable with and what my capabilities are. But this thread is about what the move from SA to DA. Mainly for safety, but also because of better technologies that allow for a ready weapon.

But if we really want to talk about the fastest and most effective weapon for carrying; then it would be an internal hammer, double action, revolver. (Oooo Taboo; this is an autoloaders section). I know; I love my P220 the best of all my guns. But the truth is; the internal hammer DA revolver is the best gun for carrying if you're worried about all the possibilities. Then again, many people choose the semi-auto because they feel they need 14 rounds in the magazine. Maybe some people do. I don't. I'm quite comfortable knowing that I will hit what I aim at with all 6 or 7 rounds in whatever gun I am carrying at the time.

TestPilot
April 20, 2009, 02:57 AM
Testpilot - I agree DA is slightly simpler, but with that simplicity also comes the fact that a) should your weapon be taken from you (1 in 5 cops that die will die from this) your assailant can utilize it.... whereas with a BHP you can engage the safety or drop the mag to prevent firing and b) in stress, if something gets caught between the trigger and the holster, there is nothing to prevent a ND. ...


All have strength and weaknesses, risks and benefits. That's why I never argued that a pistol without a manual firing inhibit device is more or less safer than pistols with them.

It's also possible that manual firing inhibit lever on a pistol with one can get snagged and go into fire enable mode in which condition accidental discharge can happen even more easily.

It's even more dangerous when the lever gets snagged and go into fire inhibit mode when the user thinks it is in fire enable mode then sqeeze the trigger to see nothing happen then get shot by an opponent.

I'm not trying to convince you that a pistol without a manual firing inhibit device is better or worse. I'm just illustrating that both type has its own risks and benefits. To decide which one suits you well is up to you.

...I know training can overcome this, but isn't the point of a DA that it requires less training?
...

No. The point of DA is to carry a chambered pistol without having to deal with a manual firing inhibit devices. But, if it does require less training, why would that be bad? I don't think it requires less training. I just think it has less steps to be fumbled.


...And if the safety is incorporated into all handling training, then it becomes second nature. If one cannot disengage a frame mounted safety, are they equally capable of drawing and accurately firing their weapon under stress?
Everything is a matter of probablity. More the number of critical task, more probablity of failure. Training reduces the probability, but it cannot eliminate the probability of task failure. It is possible to train to a point where the probability appears as negligible to some. But, the proabability is always there. The only way to eliminate the probability is to eliminate the task.

Besides, the one reason manual firing inhibit lever advocates preach it is because the possibility of trigger finger fumbling and accidently pulling the trigger. It's basically saying that no matter what the training, the trigger finger can accidently pull the trigger. But, at the same time they are saying the thumb fumbling while manipulating the manual firing inhibit lever is not a problem when the shooter train enough. That seems like paradox to me.

SaMx
April 20, 2009, 12:03 PM
I don't think double action pistols replaced single action pistols as much as they replaced double action revolvers. For most police departments and civilians, double action revolvers were the standard handgun because they were fast and simple to use. When semi-auto handguns started to become standard, they were also double action, for the same reason.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why the move from SA autos to DA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!