So an inconsistent trigger is a complete non-issue for the 'non-addle-headed'? An interesting perspective.
I would think the goal of a weapon meant to be used rapidly (some would say 'instinctively') would be simplicity of operation; simplicity implies consistency, as the fewer modalities to learn, the more quickly they can be mastered.
Reducio ad absurdum: would anyone argue a pistol whose trigger changed from a 3/4", 10# pull for the first shot, to a 1/2", 5# pull for the second, a 3/8", 3# pull for the third, a 1/4", 2# pull for the fourth and so on, would be an easy pistol to shoot accurately and quickly?
COULD it be done; sure. Would it be more difficult than a pistol that had a 3/8", 3# pull for every shot? Most 'non-addle-headed' folks would probably think so.
Larry
IDK anything about "addle headed" but DA/SA is pretty simple.
You pull the trigger. Then keep pulling the trigger.
I have no trouble teaching this to first time shooters. For many of them the first shot is
better than the second shot because they do not know when to anticipate the recoil.
If you hold still until the gun goes off, regardless of which shot it is, you will hit your target.
The trigger will return to the same position after every shot.
I don't think the argument is that the first shot is especially easy, but it isn't especially hard.
as many have said, with proper practice, technique and familiarity and DA/SA transition is not a big deal. For defensive/combat related uses, the training time could be better spent on other skills besides Fundamentals of trigger control. Evolve the problem, drive up the speed, work on footwork and movement while shooting and allow the trigger to be muscle memory. others may disagree and that is ok.
While I agree with a good 90% of this, a person training for defensive purposes should be expected to be a reasonably competent shooter with whatever platform they choose.
That would include being ready to work safeties and/or de-cockers and holster safely.
I do want to know, in 2018, what is the advantage of a DA/SA transition in a firearm over other designs?
Safety mostly. Gives me the warm and fuzzies.
But also simplicity; no safeties to worry about and the SA of the DA/SA is usually quite forgiving.
if you had to design your own pistol would you make it a DA/SA gun?
Yes. Especially for combat/carry purposes.
if you had to use one gun in competition or to defend yourself would you choose a DA/SA gun? I would not. If you would choose a DA/SA gun please explain why, I might learn from your perspective and be able to become a better shooter because of it.
For a carry gun, it is a really safe design. I can holster with a thumb on the hammer, I have to fully commit to the first shot which means accidents are less likely to happen (obviously trigger discipline largely negates this, but it is still worth mentioning)
I regularly shoot a DA/SA at IDPA, USPSA and 3 gun matches. I do alright for myself.
I shoot a Sig.
For a strictly range gun, SA is where it is at, for me.
For carry/defense, I like DA/SA.
Its alright if you make a different choice.
I am not trying to argue that DA/SA is
better than, say Striker or SAO, it is different and has features that I consider to be advantages for
my intended purposes.