Is the Glock SA or DA or DAO?

John,
Apparently it is debatable, otherwise we would not have a hundred posts on it.
The technical term of Double action describes the two actions it takes to fire a pistol. 1. the cocking of the striker/hammer and two its release. The debate here lies in whether bringing the stiker/hammer into a fully cocked position and releasing it constitutes two actions.
I realize at this point we are clearly talking past one another, you believe you are right, I believe I am right, and that is probably how it is going to stay. That being said, I will reiterate that many of the people on this thread have been here long enough for people not to accuse them of 'trolling'
And all rhetoric aside if the brady campaign were to come out with a law requring a 'gun catalogue' i would still call it registration.

Walt,

The Bard also mentioned "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Click to expand...

Yeah but think about what happened to the character who spoke those lines.

Sorry I've been busy and haven't had a chance to post... It's that "real life" thing. Gets rather annoying at times.

There've been some interesting posts since my last.

Some good, some...not so much.

Oh well. That's the nature of the internet, I guess.

One of the things I keep seeing thrown up is how revolvers work, as compared to autos. And really, there is no comparison.

A DA or DAO revolvers does EVERYTHING from the power of some one or some thing pulling the trigger. Autos don't. They split the job of firing the cartridge and loading the next one between human/spring power, and the power of the round recoiling, then the spring that stored the energy from that recoil.

It's two separate and somewhat independent systems, working in concert.

You can "test" the firing system by pulling the trigger. Might have to cock the gun first, if it's a SA pistol, but even after that, all that pulling the trigger does is release a couple of internal safeties, then drop the hammer.

Cycling the slide, on the other hand, tests nothing more that the "loading/reloading" system for that gun, and the resetting of the hammer or striker, if the system requires such.

You can shuck as many magazines full of shells through it as you want, without ever touching the trigger, in most cases.

Pull the trigger on a revolver though, and you're "running" the entire thing... Doesn't matter if there are live rounds in it or not, the cylinder still advances the next chamber, locks it down, and sets it up to be fired. And all of this is going on while the hammer is being cocked, a "transfer bar" or "hammer block" is being moved, and anything else that needs to be "rearranged" is going on. All at once, all using the same power source. Only real comparison between auto and revolver is in what the springs have in common; they store energy.

With all that going on, it does indeed seem that the term "double-action" is an understatement at best.

But then again, whoever came up with the term, long ago, was probably only looking at the fact that pulling the trigger was moving the hammer to the firing position (cocking it), then releasing it.

I guess he or she should have been more observant, and more descriptive.

And even for an auto, with all the things that have to go on in a modern gun, just to get it to drop the hammer or striker, the term is not exactly telling the whole story.

But then again, we here have still managed, even through all the disagreeing, to narrow it down to one thing to argue over: How much of a percentage of cocking of the striker should be done by the trigger to constitute "Double Action" in a striker-fired auto?

Well, here's my "take" on it, from a strictly "function-related" point of view:
If the gun has a separate, dedicated sear, that serves only to "catch and release" the striker, it's a single-action trigger. Doesn't make any difference how long or short the trigger pull is, or how heavy or light. The XD guns fall into this category, as well as most of the older Browning designs.

On the other hand, if it uses a "trigger bar" with a "tab" of some kind that serves as a sear, but catches and MOVES the striker back to a point where it then drops it, due to that trigger bar "dropping out from under" the corresponding tab on the striker.... then it's a double-action.

Doesn't matter how far it pushes the striker before letting go... it's still doing 2 "jobs". Along with all that "other" stuff with the safety devices, that is.


So I guess, until somebody comes up with a rule or law, engraved in stone, about what percentage a trigger pull is allowed to move the striker, we're all stuck with our own personal definitions of what a "DA" auto is or isn't.


And by the way.... does anybody know if there's a striker-fired DAO auto that DOES have a separate sear, instead of the above-mentioned arrangement of "up-turned tab, somewhere on the trigger bar"? I've looked around quite a bit but still haven't been able to find one.

Or how 'bout a single-action, striker-fired gun that uses the tab-type thing? Anybody know of one?

J.C.

Walt,

"The Bard also mentioned "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Yeah but think about what happened to the character who spoke those lines.

Click to expand...

Yeah. The same guy talked to skulls, saw ghosts, lost his girlfriend in a swimming accident, had an old coot advising him not to get in debt, and had a mother that caused him some concern...

But, except for the "neither a borrower nor lender, be" bit, he doesn't seem all that different from a lot of folks I know. (Even us old coots are in debt up to our fundaments.) <grin>

Most of these folks didn't die in duels, though -- so your point is well taken. <grin>

Jamie C wrote:

A DA or DAO revolvers does EVERYTHING from the power of some one or some thing pulling the trigger. Autos don't. They split the job of firing the cartridge and loading the next one between human/spring power, and the power of the round recoiling, then the spring that stored the energy from that recoil.

Click to expand...

You keep changing your definitions and what you seem to feel are the technical parameters of an "action."

What you describe is whether is whether a pistol is semi-auto or not. We're talking about trigger/hammer interaction, not whether the gun is single-shot, a revolver, or semi-auto pistol.

A single-shot gun can also be double action, even though each round must be manually loaded. I'd argue that how the next round is loaded has nothing to do with whether the gun is single or double action.

No Walt, you just keep saying that I'm "changing my definitions".

If you'll go back and look, I believe I've been pretty consistent.

You, on the other hand, have waffled back and forth over whether it's the fact that there's no "second strike" capability with a Glock, to "The trigger doesn't FULLY cock the striker" as reasons why Glocks are not DA guns.

I believe that my very first post on the subject, back on the other thread, stated that the Glock was a DAO gun because pulling the trigger served 2 functions, as far as the striker went.

As a matter of fact, here it is:

In the strictest sense of the term, Glocks are indeed "DAO" pistols.
"Double Action" meaning that pulling the trigger does two separate things; one, it finishes cocking the striker, and two, it releases the striker.

It doesn't really make any difference that the slide has to be cycled to reset this system, the trigger still has two functions to perform.

A single action trigger, on the other hand, only has one function; it releases the hammer/striker/whatever. It plays no part in cocking or partially cocking the hammer or striker.

So it makes no difference how the trigger pull feels, or how far it has to travel, even though either type of trigger can feel or appear to be like the other.


J.C.

Click to expand...

And I've also consistently said that it didn't matter whether there's a "second strike" capacity, or if pulling the trigger only finishes cocking the striker.

I have, however, tried explaining my thoughts on these things every way I can think of, to both you and everyone else here reading these threads, so that you'll understand what it is I'm saying.

However, if you'll point out where you think I've been inconsistent, I'll explain further, if you wish.

That's what we're all here for, after all, to talk. Or type, as it were.


J.C.

And as we've noted in the past, "the trigger finishes cocking" the striker is not the same as "the trigger cocks" the striker. Especially if the trigger can't do it by itself.

That remains the big difference in our contrasting views of the Glock (and the similar Kahr.)

Is the Kahr just like the Glock, or is it 80% SA? (Was that YOUR comment, or someone else's?) Wouldn't that make the Glock about 60% SA?

Can a single-SHOT weapon be double-action? I don't see why not.

How the next round is loaded isn't part of the discussion; how the trigger/hammer is activated is what we're talking about.

That's what I mean by changing definitions.

(And as noted previously, by another participant, there is the Mateba, which uses recoil to advance the cyclinder; it acts like a double action revolver, but is apparently a single-action gun. Maybe we should call it SAFE ACTION, too? Seems to be the same issue...)

Clearly the Glock isn't SA based on its internal workings. There can be no argument

Click to expand...

At least we agree on that.

I am surprised that some of you don't INSIST on calling your CD player a phonograph.

As a courtesy to those who don't have a browser that opens links in a new window, or who may be on slower dial-up connections, or for those who just don't like to click on links, here is what the official Glock website has to say about it.
(This is the same link JohnSKa posted above.)

Conventional Trigger Systems

In Single Action (SA) systems the hammer must be cocked first before the gun is ready to fire. In this condition, usually, the trigger weight is very low and the trigger travel for discharge is also very short, which increases the risk of an unintended shot.

In Double Action / Single Action (DA-SA) systems the user has to deal with two different trigger pull weights and two different trigger travels for discharge. For the first shot the trigger pull weight is very high and the trigger travel is extremely long. For the second and the following shots the trigger pull weight is very low and the trigger travel is very short. Because of this there is a risk to fire a second, unwanted shot after the first one.

Double Action Only systems have a constant trigger pull weight and a constant trigger travel, but the trigger pull weight is very high and the trigger travel is extremely long - two aspects which have some influence on accuracy.


GLOCK "Safe Action" Trigger System

The GLOCK "Safe Action" trigger system offers a lot of advantages compared to the above mentioned systems:

• The moderate trigger pull weight is constant from the first round up to the last round.
• The adequate trigger travel for discharge is constant.


Three (3) automatic independently operating mechanical safeties are sequentially disengaged when pulling the trigger and are engaged when releasing the trigger

• No external safeties
• No hammers (which need to be cocked)
• The GLOCK pistol is safe but still ready to fire


© GLOCK 2000

Click to expand...

I am neither a Glockophile nor am I a Glockophobe. Even though the Glock is not my cup of tea I do respect them. I also respect Gaston for his design ability and his shrewd business sense. Therefore I accept his decision to call his system something else. Safe-Action or for ease of abbreviation Glock Action (GA)

Why can't we have SA, DA, DAO and GA ?

Okay, where is my cookie.

I called it a safe action many posts ago.

Who cares what it is, it is still a GLOCK.

That could be good or bad depending on your opinion.

Walt,
Actually McBeth said that, but he died in a duel as well.

What I said wasn't debatable was the fact that the Glock behaves externally exactly like an SA. That isn't debatable. It's easily verified. There is no EXTERNAL difference, they operate identically in terms of how the trigger behaves. Both require the slide to be cycled before the trigger will operate. Once the trigger has been pulled on either gun it will not operate again until the slide has been cycled again.

Click to expand...

Funny I racked the slide on my CZ SA about half an inch (presetting the hammer) then pulled the trigger and it dropped the hammer. Didn't break the primer. I would have thought it would have gone to the fully cocked position like the Glock's striker does if the two functioned the same.
I tried the same thing with my 1911 and nothing happened. Strange I thought it would have finished cocking the hammer and released it, just like a glock.
Now I tried the same experiment with my friends glock, half inch of slide movement and pulled the trigger, and the gun fired.
Huh, two single actions didn't fire but the glock did. maybe it isn't as easily verifiable as we thought.
If you mean that the trigger moves toward the rear like a SA gun I agree. But I am pretty sure most guns triggers follow that behavior.

"A firing action where a single pull of the trigger draws the hammer or striker to the rear then releases it, firing the handgun."

Click to expand...

What part of that statement does the glock not meet? 1. single pull of trigger, check. 2. draws hammer or striker to rear, check 3. releases hammer/striker check.
sounds like a fit to me. There is nothing in the definition that says the slide doesn't need to be moved or the cylinder rotated. It deals only with the firing of the gun and the fire control system.

Opinions are one thing, but when your definition clashes with that of established handgun experts like S&W and when you're promoting a definition that contradicts the material provided by the inventor and manufacturer of the system, it's probably worthwhile to stop and reassess your views.

Click to expand...

As you can see a careful reading of S&W definition does in fact apply to the glock.

underlining added for emphasis

the GLOCK website said:

The GLOCK "Safe Action" trigger system offers a lot of advantages compared to the above mentioned systems:

Click to expand...

Since Glock compares it's lockwork to the other types is an admission that it is DIFFERENT.
And since it is by their own definition different it, therefore, can NOT be the same.
Since it is not the same it must be something else.

I wonder how many people here who are demanding that the Glock Safe Action system MUST be considered as one of the more traditional systems are current or former Glock owners?

Is it the Glock owners or the non-owners who insist they know more than Glock?

I wonder how long it will be before someone speaks up and insists that Sam Colt was wrong and his revolvers were NOT really Single Action.
Or that Alexander Bell should not have named his invention the telephone because it didn't have a keypad.

Walt,
Actually McBeth said that, but he died in a duel as well.

Click to expand...

Indeed! I stand corrected.

I got the general story right, but attributed the quote to the wrong kingdom and key player. Demoted the speaker, too, while I was at it.

Memory is the second thing to go when you get older. I don't remember the first thing.

Dig out your Glock Armorer's Manual and read pages 10 and 11 description.

Well, actually, he (perhaps unintentionally) MISREPRESENTED what happens when the CZ SA slide is racked.

Moving the slide 1/2 inch just moves the hammer to the half-cock notch. And that's not "presetting" a thing. (Presetting implies there's a next "cocking" step -- but with the CZ SA, there is no next step, as that notch is not part of the CZ SA firing sequence.) The only way to get to that notch is artificially. It doesn't go there in the normal sequence of things.

From that "preset" position, the gun won't fire, can't fire, and is not designed to fire. Pulling the trigger does nothing but "decock" the gun from the half-cock notch. The only way to make the CZ fire is to thumb cock the hammer, or fully rack the slide.

Seems like a red herring, to me.

But... once that hammer falls it IS like the Glock (and unlike a true DA gun.) Nothing works until you rack the slide FULLY. With the glock you can do it just a fraction of an inch -- but you MUST do it at least a fraction of an inch. With a true DA gun, you don't need to move the slide at all, as the trigger (not the slide) is how the action is set.

I agree.

I just wanted to make the point that he's confused by the CZ SA action, too.

The Glock ACTS like a SA gun. But we've been saying that all along.

If the slide isn't moved, the Glock won't fire. If the CZ SA slide isn't moved, the CZ won't fire (unless you thumb-cock.)

Neither gun fully activates the action by trigger, alone.

Can anyone post a coherent reason to force the Glock action into a category it clearly does not fit when the inventor has already provided a term for it?

Click to expand...

Well no one has managed to do it in 120 posts and another 1200 won't make the result any different.

Well no one has managed to do it in 120 posts and another 1200 won't make the result any different.

Click to expand...

Okay, Blues, I'll have a go at it, just to keep you happy.


The original question was:

....why it's preferable to use a term that quite obviously doesn't fit rather than use the term that the inventor coined?

Click to expand...

It's pretty simple, actually.
It's because there's only 2 ways, mechanically, to make a gun go "Bang!".
Yeah, you can make an entirely new system based off of hydraulic or electrical controls, but as far as muscle or springs go, the DA or SA is all anybody's ever come up with.
Can these two systems be "adjusted", ad nauseum, to "look" like something else? Sure. But the "base" system will always be one or the other.

What Glock came up with is nothing more than a "short stroke" DA system. What was sacrificed to get that shortened trigger stroke, while keeping a minimal pressure requirement, was that "second strike" capability. Gaston just moved the "pick-up" point for the sear engagement up a bit in the trigger stroke, and eliminated the "excess" trigger movement. It's the same situation that you have with CZ's "decocker" models. They have to be "re-set" to fire from the "half cock" notch too, y'know. Otherwise it's from "Hammer down", which a Glock doesn't have ( Longer stroke, less "pre-set" in the springs). Does eliminating that option cause a "double action" to become a "single action"? I think we've all agreed it doesn't. Otherwise, S&W's DAO guns aren't DA either...

So, like a car with a V-8 still being just that, a car with a V-8, no matter if it's "adjusted" for "commuter driving", or to turn a good quarter-mile, a Double action trigger system is still just that, no matter how it's "adjusted", or how it gets "modified", function-wise.

Again, the only thing we're arguing here is what "percentage" of travel changes things from "DA" to SA" or vis versa. Well, it's what some of you are arguing, anyway.

For me, it still boils down to what the trigger is actually doing, not what it isn't doing.


So, we use "archaic" terms, because those are the ones that get back to the "basics" of what the system is, rather than what it might appear to be.


J.C.

John,
If you accept your defination, which you quoted from SW, the glock meets those criteria. I don't know what defination you are using for a double action, I guess if there is no defination, you are right, a glock can't be a double action.
What would you consider Para Ordiance's LDA series?
We are clearly at this point beating a horse that, if not dead, is in mortal danger of expiring.
Shoot Well.

The LDA is much like the Glock.

The Para's action is called a "light double action", but it is arguably a SA gun with the hammer down after its cocked. That's why, I think, there is a safety (which may be used or ignored.) The hammer spring has been preloaded by slide action when the gun is ready to fire.

If you pull the trigger on the LDA , the hammer will fall, but it won't fall with the next pull of the trigger unless you work the slide.

My DaeWoo DH-40 can WORK like that: it will function as a single-action gun that allows the hammer to be lowered. (Of course, that gun can also function as a true DA gun, if need be.)

With the S&W definition of double action, what OTHER action, beside trigger action, is needed to activate the firing mechanism? Nothing. And with most DAO revolvers, you can't even thumb-cock the hammer. Its trigger pull and trigger pull only.

The Glock or Kahr or Para LDA don't really do like the S&W DA guns. These two guns are called DA guns by some, but not by others. The "not by others" include, in the case of Glock, Glock itself -- as has been demonstrated, above.