[TargetTerror]

The thing I actually like most about Glocks is that there is virtually no takeup before you reach the engagement point where the trigger breaks. For me, this makes rapid fire MUCH easier/more accurate than in traditional style DA guns, as I find the takeup throws off my aim as my trigger finger has to move around much more.

I just can't figure out why there are no hammer fired DA guns without all that takeup. All the Berettas, S&Ws, Sigs, and Rugers I've shot all have a ton of takeup.

Edit: I realize I only put this in the title: I'm talking about the SINGLE ACTION pull on these DA guns, NOT the DA pull. I understand obviously that you need such a long pull for DA to cock the hammer. I'm perplexed as to why they all tend to have so much dead travel on SUBSEQUENT SA shots.

[9mmepiphany]

the reason for the travel lenght is that the DA trigger pull has to draw back to hammer for the first shot.

the striker doesn't have the same lenght of travel and is already partially cocked by the slide.

the striker fired Glock cannot be fired without the slide being pulled back and released, the DA/SA pistols use the DA trigger pull to take the hammer from "rest" to fully cocked and then release with each stroke of the trigger.

in spite of their advertising, the Glock does not use a DAO trigger

the longer trigger stroke is safer when tension and stress is heightened

the DA trigger is just as fast and accurate as any other in real world use...you just have to know how to use it and be willing to practice with it

[TargetTerror]

I mean that when most DA gun are in single action mode, there is a significant amount of dead travel before you get to where the trigger breaks. I'm not talking about the DA pull.

[Mike J]

Once you fire the first double action shot you don't have to completely come off the trigger-all you have to do is move your finger just enough forward for the trigger to reset-then you can pull again. It takes practice but you can learn it.
If you are interested in using a DA/SA gun this thread might be of interest to you www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=479645

[9mmepiphany]

sorry...i misunderstood

if you mean the takeup/slack between SA shots, Mike J hit the nail on the head

it's only long if you let the trigger all the way out to the forward end of it's travel. you only have to let it out to the reset point. the extra distance is for the leverage needed for the DA trigger stroke

[TargetTerror]

Touche gentlemen, I do indeed always let the trigger all the way out. I actually never really considered not letting it out all the way, but obviously that makes sense. That probably comes from too much rapid fire with a revolver - if you don't let trigger out all the way the action essentially freezes until you stop and let it out the rest of the way (and I believe in some models doing that will cause it to skip over the next cylinder too).

[Mike J]

I understand Target I shot semi autos mostly for the last couple of years. A couple of months ago I got my old Dan Wesson .357 back & it took me a minute to figure out that the reason the cylinder wasn't advancing properly was because I wasn't releasing the trigger fully.

[Magnumdood]

Why such a long SA pull on DA semis?

Attorneys.

[9mmepiphany]

Why such a long SA pull on DA semis?

Attorneys.

that makes no sense, what effect do lawyers have of simple physics.

next you're going to say the a DA/SA is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist :D

[GLOOB]

Probably has something to do with the way the disconnector works on various guns.

The GLOCK trigger is fairly unique in the way it has a very short reset, it "clicks" very distinctly when it resets, and once it's reset, there's no slack. It resets right at the breaking point.

There is a trade-off though. The GLOCK trigger has more over-travel than many other automatics. It's almost like the GLOCK trigger is backwards. A traditional trigger breaks, then moves forward to reset, then back again to take out the slack. The GLOCK trigger breaks, then moves back, then forward again to reset with no slack. But because the "over-travel" happens with the shot, all you have to do between shots is let the trigger forward a bit. So the GLOCK trigger might be considered faster, in a sense, for rapid fire.

[NMGonzo]

Wow ... must really have really short fingers.

[railroader]

I have a charles daly dda which is a cz clone and it has very little take up or overtravel in single action. I use to have a cz 75b that was the same way. I know what you mean on the take up, I have 2 ruger p series autos. Mark

[SouthernBoy]

The Glock is a DAO (Double Action Only) pistol. The trigger performs two tasks: it completes the cocking of the striker and it releases the striker to fire the pistol. Even the ATF classifies the Glock as a DAO design.

[9mmepiphany]

that the ATF classifies the Glock action as a DOA is a testament to Glocks ability to spin...and isn't worth arguing. just as it isn't worth arguing the basic safety fault in the procedure to field strip the gun.

but let me ask you this.

which other generally acknowledged DAO pistol does not have a 2nd strike capability?

the trigger of a Glock will not cock the hammer once released, unless the action is cycled either by the discharge of the cartridge or by manually retraction the slide...i would say that this makes it somewhat less than a DAO

[SouthernBoy]

To 9mmepiphany;

I certainly understand your take on whether or not Glock is a DAO gun. But please consider this. Kel-Tec uses a hammer for its ignition system and it describes its actions as DAO (ref: the P11). The P11 has second strike capability, too. Now consider the Kahr system. They also refer to their actions as DAO. They use a striker for ignition, like the Glock, and do not have second strike capability. In the case of the Kahr and the Glock, the slide's action rearward partially cocks the striker; the trigger has nothing to do with this task. I can only complete the cocking of the striker, then release it to fire the pistol. And that is where the DAO description comes from.

I know the Glock action has been discussed many times on a number of sites (I certainly have been party to this), but traditionally, the action label in these contexts always refers to what the trigger does, not the slide or the hammer or anything else.

[9mmepiphany]

OK...like i said it isn't worth arguing

[GRIZ22]

Once you fire the first double action shot you don't have to completely come off the trigger-all you have to do is move your finger just enough forward for the trigger to reset-then you can pull again. It takes practice but you can learn it.


What Mike describes is the proper way to use a DA/SA trigger. Doing it this way eliminates the tendency for the first two shots to spread.

[GRIZ22]

The Glock is a DAO (Double Action Only) pistol. The trigger performs two tasks: it completes the cocking of the striker and it releases the striker to fire the pistol. Even the ATF classifies the Glock as a DAO design.
__________________

You are correct in the functioning of the Glock but it is not a true DAO as the striker is partially cocked. The reason ATF classified the Glock as a DAO is because that was close to it's actual function. There was nothing like it on the market at the time.

[9mmepiphany]

The reason ATF classified the Glock as a DAO is because that was close to it's actual function

the big upside for Glock was that it allowed them to bid on LE contracts that specify DAO pistols and it lets them compete in IDPA's Stock Pistol division ...of course it didn't help them in the M9 trials

[easyg]

The Glock trigger....



Call it whatever you want to, but I LIKE IT! :)

[Shadow 7D]

Um, the second strike capability has to do with design, the striker is reset by the slide and only engages once the slide is forward, for a glock to have second strike, the trigger would have to be able to engage an uncocked striker. Early Kel Tec don't have second strike, the redesigned the hammer block to allow the trigger to engage it when the hammer was forward and not cocked.

[Autopistola]

The important part is the Glock feels like an SA trigger, and has a very short reset like a SA. I like the reset on my Taurus 24/7 Pro; you can work the trigger faster than the lightweight .45 pistol can recover from recoil, though.

[Steve C]

Glocks strikers start at the half way position being held there by the trigger mechanism after cycling the action. When you fire the Glock 1/2 the pull has already been done for you.

With conventional DA auto's the trigger pulls back the hammer for its full travel until release so you have to do all the work. That's why the pull is longer.

There are some hammer fired DA systems that don't have the long heavy trigger pull. The Dawoo DP pistols have a tri-action or fast-action or some such name that allows you to simply push the cocked hammer forward to rest in the uncocked position. When the trigger is pulled the hammer is brought back to full cock by the action with little effort as the mainspring remains compressed giving you something between DA and SA type trigger pull. The trigger will also work as the typical DA pull on the first shot if the hammer is decocked rather than pushed forward after being cocked.

I understand some of the later Browning DA HP pistols had a similar type system from what I could tell reading the description in a magazine.

[GLOOB]

Once you fire the first double action shot you don't have to completely come off the trigger-all you have to do is move your finger just enough forward for the trigger to reset-then you can pull again. It takes practice but you can learn it.

Yes, but on many DA/SA guns, the reset point is noticeably forward from where the break point is. This means that once reset, you still have to stage the trigger before getting back to the break point. So even if the reset is the same distance as a GLOCK trigger, it may feel like it's longer. I think that's one of the reasons why many people comment on how short the reset is on a GLOCK. It's really a matter of having a pretty short reset, and near zero pre-staging once it is set.

Beyond that, some guns don't have any tactile feedback at the point where the trigger resets.

Guns like those are easier to short-stroke/whiff.

[fastbolt]

which other generally acknowledged DAO pistol does not have a 2nd strike capability?

S&W metal-framed DAO models.

Couldn't resist. ;)

You're right in that everything else is silly to argue about, though.

One thought I'd like to express is an opinion that shooting to trigger reset in SA mode can be a potentially dangerous thing to do, depending on the circumstances.

Shooting to SA trigger reset in a dedicated safe target/bulls eye shooting situation is one thing, but trying to keep a finger on the trigger and only allow SA trigger recovery to the 'reset' point in any other conditions, especially those involving a perception of heightened risk and an unlawful threat of serious bodily injury or death, can arguably significantly elevate the potential risk of a ND.

I've seen any number of folks unintentionally 'double' when qualifying on a course of fire when they kept their fingers on the trigger after the intentional first shot. Some really surprised faces. In most cases it seemed to be caused by 'rocking under recoil' with a finger on the trigger, although I can think of some where the shooter seemingly just lost focus of what they were doing with their trigger finger, which was still on the trigger in SA mode, and they twitched or tightened their finger without realizing it. Not good when bullets fly unintentionally.

Now, S&W traditional double action pistols have always enjoyed the reputation of having the shortest and 'fastest' SA trigger reset among TDA semiauto pistols. (Although, the Walther AS model's single action sear function is pretty short in the 99 series, too.) When I attended a Sig armorer class I was told that the Short Reset Trigger option (a different sear and sear spring) had originally been designed to compete against S&W in a large LE contract bid, and that the new design was actually mechanically shorter in operation than the S&W design. If I remember right, someone from Sig at that class said the difference was something along the order of the Sig design having approx a 20 thousandths of an inch shorter SA reset. Maybe so. I couldn't tell the difference by finger, that's for sure.

Considering all the different handguns I shoot (revolver & pistol), I've long since reverted to having my trigger finger allow complete trigger recovery when shooting, even when shooting intentionally fast shot strings. It only took a few instances of short-stroking a trigger when using a different gun - (switching between different designs of semiauto pistols as well as between pistols & revolvers) - to convince me that full trigger recovery was a good thing in stressful situations.

If I'm working on a specific trigger press skill on a target/bulls eye range, that's one thing. If I'm working to complete a course of fire including multiple targets, movement across uneven ground, in variable/low light, as well as having to identify threat/non-threat situations, I let my trigger and finger fully recover and keep my finger away from the trigger between intentional shots.

Personally, I'd not like to try and explain to a jury how allowing a trigger to only recover to the 'reset point', and keeping my finger on it to keep it from moving farther forward in case I may decide to fire again ... and then having the gun unintentionally fire because of an interlimb interaction (also called sympathetic squeeze), which is the involuntary contraction of an individual’s hand and finger muscles ... is somehow different than just having a finger on the trigger and triggering a ND. :scrutiny:

The fine distinction in intention might be lost on the jury.

There have been some excellently skilled 'trigger slappers' who showed that it was possible to shoot both fast and accurately when allowing full trigger recovery between each shot, too.

I cringe whenever I hear another instructor teaching someone to 'just let your trigger finger go forward until the trigger resets'. What are the circumstances being considered and addressed at the moment? Is it for shooting a timed bulls eye course of fire, where a fine SA trigger stroke using a competition trigger may mean the points for winning? Or, for if the shooter ever finds him/herself in a chaotic, rapidly changing, physically tumultuous life threatening situation when their fine motor skills may be in short supply and their attention and focus may be distracted from realizing a fraction of an inch of movement of their finger has occurred against a trigger face ... until it's too late?

As far as the original question?

Probably because different traditional double action (DA/SA) semiauto pistol designs have to accomplish both mechanical actions (DA & SA modes) taking into consideration the inherent limitations of combining both operations in their various designs. Some seem to have achieved it better than others.

Even the various DA/DAO trigger operations can have some variance in both trigger movement and trigger pull weight, though.

Then, there's the growing number of diverse designs which don't easily allow for them to be exactly pigeon-holed into the simple designations we've commonly accepted over the years.

Hey, just my thoughts. I'm certainly nobody's 'expert' anything at this stuff.

There are some serious potential issues to consider when discussing 'shooting to trigger reset', and discussing it in person with a trainer might offer some helpful insight into the subject.

[9mmepiphany]

fastbolt - well written and thought out reasoning. it seems like it would argue well for the adoption of the Sig DAK or HK LEM pistols as LE issue.

i've been told that there is a well know shooting school on the East Coast that teaches coming completely off the trigger between shots. i suppose this might be part of their reasoning.

when i started in LE, we had revolvers, so there wasn't much option. i would think the only downside to coming off the trigger would be the temptation to slap through the trigger rather than press off the next shot.

BTW: what you heard at Sig is correct. Sig introduced the SRT to compete with S&W for the CHP contract

[okierifleman]

The SRT that Sig came up with is awesome! The reset is so friggin short its unbelievable, leaving almost no overtravel whatsoever. I had one installed on my P226 and it took it from a pistol I didnt much care for to one that goes in the bag every week.

[fastbolt]

Yep, there's some cause for careful consideration when it comes to such things.

The old trigger slap versus trigger press is more of a training perspective and skill issue than anything else, I'd think. Some folks have a problem no matter what you try and do with them, but some seem to do 'better' with one over another.

Sometimes working to the 'lowest common denominator' can have some unexpected and interesting (and not in a good way) consequences.

Sometimes we have to work with what we have and what we're given, though.

Personally, I've always preferred teaching a revolver shooter to transition to a semiauto pistol than the other way around. I've always felt that a solid foundation gained as an effective DA revolver shooter develops a well rounded set of handgun skills that are easily adapted to pistols. Yes, it generally seems as though it takes longer to make a reasonably skilled revolver DA revolver shooter than a reasonably skilled pistol shooter, but the results would seem to be worth it ... if you have the time achieve that goal. And there's the rub ...

I knew it was the CHP contract, BTW, but didn't think it necessarily relevant to point out in my post. ;) We get a fair amount of 'brand loyalists' frequenting many threads who sometimes get miffed if their brands are perceived as being slighted, such as being told that their favorite brand wasn't chosen for some isolated LE/Gov contract somewhere (as if it matters).

The whole debate of the TDA vs DAO designs used in LE work seems subject to a never ending ebb & flow.

I remember thinking it somewhat ironic that while the Sig armorer instructor said that the original SIG DAO was proof that even Sig could make a bad trigger (meaning heavy, it seemed), that the DAK came with its own potential considerations, such as the intermediate (shorter) trigger reset having a heavier trigger pull - by design - than the longer DA trigger stroke. When I asked why the shorter pull was heavier than the longer pull (which is sort of backwards of how it works in other designs, including even Sig's TDA guns), I was told that Sig engineers had decided that it was safer for cops to make the shorter reset trigger stroke heavier than the longer trigger stroke. Go figure.

I've known guys who couldn't qualify as well, or as easily, using some DAO-type designs (including the LEM) as they could when using TDA guns. And those were instructors. :uhoh: I'd think that some skills development and refinement might be in order for those folks, myself ...

And then I've known and helped train the other end of the spectrum when it comes to skill sets.

I miss the days when revolvers were commonplace in LE holsters.

Yes, we saw qualification scores rise when transitioning from .357 Magnum revolvers to 9mm pistol ... less recoil can do that for many folks ... but as the years passed it seemed the ability (and desire?) to make 'precision' shots (bulls eye) was slowly lost by some of the younger crowd as they seemingly felt they could offset some amount of 'precision accuracy' by virtue of increased capacity/firepower. Not a lot of folks liked having it pointed out that more misses aren't any better than fewer misses ... and are actually more liability laden.

As a firearms instructor who is still working with LE folks even though I'm retired, I'm not as amazed as I once was by seeing how so many folks are intent on looking for a way to re-make the wheel in its round configuration.

Time marches on and the wheel goes round & round ...

Best regards. :)

[fastbolt]

BTW, since the subject of the Sig SRT came up ...

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Sig is now carrying the torch for traditional double action, metal-framed pistols ... which were once the purview of S&W, and which they've continued to improve, but have stopped selling in the commercial market?

The 4566/4006TSW's, have continued to benefit from improvements and manufacturing refinements, and have also received an integral machined frame rail (finally) ... but they're only being marketed to LE/Gov customers.

[9mmepiphany]

i think it's there's a cost factor in trying to compete with the poly framed Glock. folks just are less willing to pay the price for a steel framed gun. makes you wonder about what HK charged for the USP and now the P30 and HK45. Sig even has their Sig Pro...which runs very well... and their new 250

the public really base many of their buying decisions on what LE is using.

what i find funny about LE qualifications is the moaning and whinning when we asked officers to shoot from the 20 yard line (our department issues the Sig line in 9mm and .40)...when i think about qualifying from the 50 in DA

i find it ironic that departments that shunned the 1911 as too dangerous are welcoming the Glock family because they got the ATF to accept that the action is DAO and it lacks a hammer and thumb safety

[1SOW]

The DA/SA guns have a firing pin interrupt that requires a certain amount of travel to disengage.

In the CZ I'm familiar with, it contributes to a very long DA and a less than optimum SA.

Many Da/SA guns cam the hammer 'back' before releasing from the sear. This is unneeded pull.

A CZ with a competition hammer and some quality trigger work is a whole new animal.
It has a shorter -smother DA and the SA can (arguably) match a quailty SA only gun.
(I didn't want to say .45, because I didn't want to start another debate.:uhoh:)

[android]

Considering all the different handguns I shoot (revolver & pistol), I've long since reverted to having my trigger finger allow complete trigger recovery when shooting, even when shooting intentionally fast shot strings. It only took a few instances of short-stroking a trigger when using a different gun - (switching between different designs of semiauto pistols as well as between pistols & revolvers) - to convince me that full trigger recovery was a good thing in stressful situations.

I've not been shooting long, but noticed this pretty quickly. The other option is to stay within the same "family" of guns. I've got an HK P2000SK and a P30L. Both are v3 with DA/SA and the trigger mechanisms are pretty much the same as to travel and feel.

I've also got an Inglis Hi Power and a Walther P22, but I don't really shoot them enough the memorize the feel and the reset points. The HP has to go all the way forward just like your revolvers I think. The P22 acts sort of like the HKs.