What is a "DA/SA transition"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think all the "DA/SA transition" thing is about the first shot, not the second. For many many guys the first DA shot turns in a bad shot or in a miss. That could be very embarassing in a IPSC competition but alot worse in real life.
The answer is practice, practice, practice.
 
The "pro-timers" are showing that DA/SA guns are at least as fast as striker guns in competition, at least for shooters who practice a significant amount.

For shooters who aren't really shooters at all - like most cops, for instance - the challenge of the DA trigger is probably an actual impediment.
What is "a significant amount"? "Professional shooters" (like the ones who are sponsored by manufacturers) will almost always be off the charts, and will outperform just about everyone else, with whatever they are using. There are cowboy action shooters that can shoot with more speed and accuracy with their single action revolvers than SEALs with their Sig 226's.Of course, a key component to this scenario is that "professional shooters" don't have the multiple skill sets of SEALs, Rangers, SF operators, etc. The data we saw in the military showed a smaller gap between shots 1 and 2 when we switched from the M9 to the Glock, with shooters who had cut their teeth on the M9 and later transitioned to the Glock, with few exceptions.
 
What is "a significant amount"? "Professional shooters" (like the ones who are sponsored by manufacturers) will almost always be off the charts, and will outperform just about everyone else, with whatever they are using.

I'm talking about C- and even D-class* production shooters in USPSA who have no difficulty learning to manage DA/SA triggers as they go from a Glock to a gamer-oriented gun like a CZ or Tanfoglio. If you dry fire a bit in your basement, it is NOT a problem. If your only training time is 50 rounds at the range once a quarter, yeah, that might be a problem.

If you are a real shooter - i.e., someone who enjoys shooting and devotes time voluntarily to it - this is a non-issue unless you have made it into a psychological barrier.

* There is no E-class.
 
99.9% of people who talk about "the problem of the DA/SA transition", are really just talking about their lack of ability or desire to properly train for the first shot. They aren't actually talking about a transition, just the first shot, and how they don't think they can fire it as fast or accurately as they can a Glock, etc. And with zero to minimal actual practice and training, they might be right.

As a guy who has shot both striker and DA/SA a lot, when I first went to DA, I dry-fired up the DA for a week, and by the time I got to the range, even from day one onward, the DA shot wasn't really a big weak point. The SA on the other hand... I was used to shooting a ~4-5lb striker, and the first couple sessions with a ~2lb single action had my accuracy at speed down a little, due to often breaking the shot just prior to when I really wanted to. I had to retune my brain around the lighter single action, and that actually took more time than getting to the point of being able to shoot the DA effectively. I feel the reason is that the DA is very easy to dryfire a lot, and the SA really isn't.

If I had to re-position my finger on the trigger though, for whatever reason (reach or pull weight) I would not find that acceptable, and would fix it by getting a different gun or changing the characteristics of the trigger pull.

That doesn't mean I think DA/SA is the best for everybody in all circumstances, but if you can't make the most of DA/SA, it is a shooter/training problem 99% of the time. And that is what I feel people really mean when they talk about the "difficulty of the transition" or whatnot.
 
DT Guy said:
It's introducing another variable into trigger control; this is far more of an issue (or perhaps ONLY an issue) when shooting fast.

Given that many self-defense firearm confrontations are done at relatively close distances -- from almost contact to maybe 30' -- speed may be a CRITICAL factor in one's survival.

This is especially true when your key objective is to STOP an attack.. That generally requires a central nervous system hit to end things quickly and THAT, in turn, means accurate shot placement. (Even a hit to the attacker's heart can give the attacker an extra 30 seconds to a minute to STOP you before he or she goes down.)

For most of us this (I hope) will remain a theoretical discussion.

Some years back I was pretty heavily into IDPA, and I spent a lot of time as a safety officer, scoring targets after the string was completed. When the shooter was using a DA/SA firsearm and the first target after the start required two shots to the same place on the target, the first and second shots were almost always bigger groups than any two or three subsequent shots. (There were exceptions, but they were clearly exceptions -- and the only time constraints in a gun game are in YOUR head!) If it wasn't a gun game, and the target is shooting back or coming at you with a knife, the stress and time pressures are quite different, and time is NOT your friend.

Some shooters CAN devote many hours a day/week working on improving specific skills and maintaining them. Some of those folks are also gifted physiologically -- but, not all of us are equally endowed or have the free to spend as much time as we'd like to improve our skills.

If I have to shoot a DA/SA gun in a self-defense situation, I will be very conscious of the potential problems I face, but I mostly shoot my DA/SA guns at the range. If I have a choice I'll probably carry a SA or striker-fired gun -- or hope I have time to thumb cock that DA/SA gun before I have to squeeze the trigger.
 
Last edited:
A small amount of training eliminates the so-called "problem" for all but the most addle-headed.

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
 
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.

I do want to know, in 2018, what is the advantage of a DA/SA transition in a firearm over other designs? if you had to design your own pistol would you make it a DA/SA gun? 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.
 
DA/SA versus striker guns trade a longer and heavier first pull for every subsequent trigger pull being crisper and usually lighter than the striker gun. No magic to it either way. If you are doing enough reps to be competent with either type of gun, you will be doing enough reps to learn the longer DA pull.

FWIW, when I carry, it's either SAO or striker fired. I have only one DA/SA gun, and rarely even shoot it. My competition gun is SAO. I have no dog in this fight. I just have lots of experience watching amateur-level shooters have no difficulty using a DA/SA.
 
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.
 
I do want to know, in 2018, what is the advantage of a DA/SA transition in a firearm over other designs? if you had to design your own pistol would you make it a DA/SA gun? 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.
Well, competition and defending oneself are really two different things.

In competition, you're shooting just about every time you draw the gun out of the holster. You also know before you shoot, what your expected targets are as you've walked through the course of fire. The only downside to shooting the wrong target is a time/scoring penalty.

In defensive/concealed carry situation, you spend a whole lot more time not shooting something rather than shooting something. You also don't get walk through's, you don't know in advance who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, and the penalty for shooting the wrong target is a little higher.

This self inflicted gun shot is most often attributed to a bad holster.

https://www.usacarry.com/mans-leather-holster-causes-accidental-discharge/

However, it is unlikely that guy would have shot himself with a DA/SA pistol.

Nothing is perfect. You have to pick your poison. A striker fired gun is easier to shoot what you want to shoot. It is also easier to shoot stuff you don't want to shoot. If you're picking a gun that will be shot a high percentage of the time it is in your hand, like in competition, an easier to shoot gun is an advantage.

If your gun spends more time in a holster, or on a night stand, as would be the case for a concealed carry user or for a home defense situation, rather than shooting every time it is in your hand, there is some advantage to a gun that may be more difficult to have an unintended discharge since you'll spend more time administratively handling the gun than shooting the gun.
 
Last edited:
If you're picking a gun that will be shot a high percentage of the time it is in your hand, like in competition, an easier to shoot gun is an advantage.

And, yet, in the division that requires the use of either a striker-fired gun or a DA/SA, 7 of the last 7 national championships have been won by guys using DA/SA platforms, not striker-fired. There were striker-fired guns within 1% of the winner some of those years, but it's pretty clear that, at least for people who shoot a lot of competition, a striker-fired gun is NOT an advantage.*

*I don't think it's a big disadvantage, either.
 
It wasn't the first shot that go me it was the second shot. That said I have been shooting double action revolver in USPSA and IDPA competition almost exclusively for the past several years, so the first shot was pretty normal for me. At a club match I swap my Revolver rig for a friends CZ and shot Production and ended up with a few surprise double taps on the first target as I was already prep'ing the trigger for the next round as I do with my revolver before the sights where back on target only the gun was now in single action and that made it go boom sooner than I wanted. Lots of Alpha-groin-Delta on the first targets of the stages until I got my brain rewired.

From a carry point of view I do not want to have to think about what mode the fire control on my carry piece is in. Double action only or single action only is all I want. The second strike capability of a SA/DA is appealing but not enough to make me want to take the time to retrain my brain and muscle memory for it. Everything I am currently carrying is double action only... YMMV
 
Without stepping too deep into the debate here, I'll ask something from a different angle. What if you're just SO MUCH better at shooting the single action trigger on a DA/SA pistol than you are at shooting any other handgun, regardless of trigger type?

For me, I shoot no other handgun I've ever picked up nearly as well as I shoot a Beretta 92FS. I'm more accurate, I'm faster, and it feels like an extension of my hand. The all-metal construction (meaning minimal felt-recoil), the wide but rounded grip that comfortably fills the hand, the trigger reach, everything about the gun makes it feel perfect to me, and my targets show that. Between my 1911s, Sigs, Glocks, Kahrs, revolvers, you name it, nothing compares to the Beretta for me. Does my first double action shot with the Beretta take more control and concentration (when shooting at speed) to score a perfect hit than it would with a crisp SAO or striker pistol? Perhaps. But man oh man, the next 16 rounds of single action from my Beretta seem to all go into the same hole, even in rapid fire. It's embarrassing. So my fondness for how well I shoot those 16 perfect follow up shots makes it worth it for me to spend plenty of time practicing the first, slightly less-perfect shot.
 
OregonJohnny, sounds like you need to seek out one of the relatively few single-action-only Berettas! You may have to shell out a fair amount, but if it's the thing that suits you best...
 
OregonJohnny, sounds like you need to seek out one of the relatively few single-action-only Berettas! You may have to shell out a fair amount, but if it's the thing that suits you best...

Yeah, if I could find a Stock or Combat or Billenium without having to sell a kidney, I'd own one for sure. But none of my carry or home defense pistols have a safety that must be disengaged (not like I'd carry one of those SAO Beretta models anyway). I guess the DA pull on the 92FS (with a D spring installed) just doesn't bother me enough to switch platforms.

I've known shooters with DA/SA pistols that just insert a mag, rack the slide, and shoot the gun in single action mode all day long without ever decocking and practicing the double action pull. I am not one of those shooters. What's the saying? - "Train like you fight, and you'll fight like you've trained..." Or something along those lines.
 
That all sounds very well thought-out to me. I certainly think anyone who wants to devote a modest amount of effort to learning the longer trigger pull can do so.
 
With regard to the DA/SA semi-auto....
Corpral_Agarn said:
...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)

Anybody should fully commit to the first shot, regardless of the action type used -- and if they're not fully commited to pulling the trigger for THAT first DA shot their finger ought not be pressing the trigger until they are.

Re: thumb on the hammer as your holster.

I've got a couple of striker-fired guns that come with frame-mounted safeties. If someone can learn to put his or her thumb on the hammer when holstering, someone else can learn to click the safety lever before holstering. If its me carrying one of those safety-equipped striker-fired guns I can also click the safety off as part of the draw stroke -- and I also don't to cope with different trigger pulls.

What other SAFETY advantages does the DA/SA gun offer? A little extra time while pressing the trigger on the first shot? As noted above, if you're not fully committed to that first shot, you shouldn't be pulling the trigger.

There may be some convincing arguments to be made in favor of the DA/SA semi-auto, but so far, the ones I've seen seem to have little merit.
 
Last edited:
With regard to the DA/SA semi-auto....


Anybody should fully commit to the first shot, regardless of the action type used -- and if they're not ready to pull the trigger for THAT shot, their finger ought not be pressing the trigger until they are.
100% agree.

I've got a couple of striker-fired guns that come with a safety. If you can learn to use a thumb on the hammer when holstering, I can learn to click the safety lever on as I holster. I can also click it off as part of the draw stroke -- and not have to worry about different trigger pulls.
Absolutely.
Good habits and safety can be learned and practiced.

Sounds like a system that works for you.
 
I agree; and if used for defensive purposes, that's the magazine that will count.

It seems you missed my point entirely. The only time I am surprised by the difference between a firearms DA pull and SA is in the very first magazine (or cylinder) I fire in it. When the weapon is new, or new to me. With practice, it is not hard to be proficient with more than one trigger pull weight and distance.
 
It seems you missed my point entirely. The only time I am surprised by the difference between a firearms DA pull and SA is in the very first magazine (or cylinder) I fire in it. When the weapon is new, or new to me. With practice, it is not hard to be proficient with more than one trigger pull weight and distance.

I understand-I think you could see where it read either way.

I don't disagree that it's possible to learn to shoot a DA/SA well; as I mentioned, I did so. I just don't think there's an advantage to be had from inconsistent trigger pulls from shot to shot. For those who do, enjoy.


Larry
 
I don't disagree that it's possible to learn to shoot a DA/SA well; as I mentioned, I did so. I just don't think there's an advantage to be had from inconsistent trigger pulls from shot to shot. For those who do, enjoy.

As mentioned before, the advantage is safety in carrying concealed. However I do see the advantage in having a striker fire weapon with consistent trigger pull in a duty firearm. Which is why when my department opens up their firearm enrollment I will probably get a PPQ.
 
as many have said, with proper practice, technique and familiarity and DA/SA transition is not a big deal.


No, It really isn't. I even saw a few addle-headed types manage to do it without shooting themselves or someone else when we switched over to the M9. ;)


I just don't think there's an advantage to be had from inconsistent trigger pulls from shot to shot.
We are in agreement; I never said or implied it was an advantage. Indeed the only possible advantage would be safe carry over a gun that had to be manually cocked before it could be fired,(1911) even if the that gun had to be cocked before it is fired (how else are you going to get a round in the chamber?) , but has the option to be decocked, then fired DA for the first round? (M9) Mechanically there are only so many options. DA/SA is one that the US military and many LEO organizations thought useful for some time. Before striker fired, full sized pistols became popular, SA and DA/SA were the only real options. (A DAO semiauto is not the most mechanically safe or efficient design...)

Believe me, I didn't like switching from the 1911 to the M9, but I did it, and shot the M9 better than the 1911. After the first mag through it, I didn't even think about it, just adapted.
 
I carried and qualified with TDAs for several years and with SFAs and I objectively shoot better with the consistent trigger pull of the SFAs.

I can remember at least a couple of times that the feel of the two different trigger pulls through me off and once when I stopped because I thought the trigger was broken.
 
In a defensive encounter, if I shoot you once I am probably going to shoot you twice. If that second round goes off a decimal of a second sooner than I intended it is still going to land in the vicinity I am aiming at. Plus, if I am shooting you in a defensive situation I don't want two rounds in the same hole, I want the doc to have to deal with two leaky holes, not one.
 
Plan2Live said:
In a defensive encounter, if I shoot you once I am probably going to shoot you twice. If that second round goes off a decimal of a second sooner than I intended it is still going to land in the vicinity I am aiming at. Plus, if I am shooting you in a defensive situation I don't want two rounds in the same hole, I want the doc to have to deal with two leaky holes, not one.

When you examine targets after there's been a DA/SA transition issue, the differences are SELDOM as small as that "decimal of a second sooner" argument seems to suggest.

As long as you HIT the attacker, the attacker is gong to have leaky holes, but unless those holes are in an important place (like the spine, the head), that "leaking" attacker can still come at you. The objective is not to put holes in the attacker causing the attacker to bleed out -- as that takes too long. Even a shot to the attacker's heart may NOT stop him before he can stop you. If you can do well-placed 1st and 2nd shots, regardless of your gun's action-type, you'll do as well as the time and situation allows.

In years past we used to hear a lot about secondary wound channels. We now understand that unless the round fired travels at a very high rate of speed (maybe 2,000 fps or faster) -- and most handgun rounds don't move that quickly -- the damage caused by the secondary wound channel seems to have little immediate effect on the attacker.​

All this said, it is my belief, based on a lot of observation at ranges and while scoring targets at matches, that not nearly as many folks shoot small-grouped 1st and 2nd shots with DA/SA guns, when firing rapidly or when under stress, as they claim. I've seen the same phenomenon (let's call it "performance inflation") when shooters claim 2" (or smaller) groups on targets 20 yards away.

I know some shooters can pull off this level of performance fairly consistently, but I've seen or heard these claims far more often than I've seen it happen or heard of it being done in front of witnesses.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top