Is the Glock SA or DA or DAO?

[JohnKSa]

Ok, what we have here is one of two things. It's either a group of people who don't understand DA and yet are trying to categorize a pistol as DA/DAO, or a group of people who are deliberately trying to misinform or troll.

We have one guy who says that a gun you have to manually cock for each shot is DA if the trigger still performs two actions. If we really say a trigger that does two things is always double action, then Ruger Blackhawks are DA because the trigger not only releases the hammer, but it also activates the transfer bar.

We have another who says that closing the cylinder on a revolver or releasing a safety is equivalent to cycling the slide on a Glock pistol. I don't even know where to start here...

We have a few who continue to claim that the striker is only set or reset by the slide when a simple examination of the action shows it's actually pre-cocked--cocked 60% or more.

The fact the striker must be set is meaningless.

No, what's meaningless is continuing to allege that what is happening to the striker is adequately described by the word SET. The striker is cocked by the slide--60% or more of the cocking stroke is performed by slide action. That is absolutely beyond debate and is extremely pertinent to this discussion.

We've got people claiming that the way a company markets their guns is a source of understanding for firearms technology. Why would Glock submit proposals when someone puts DAO in their bid request? Because it's impossible for anyone to put "Safe Action" in a general bid request given that the term is solely owned by a single company.

Then we have people quoting the BATF as if they're some kind of repository of firearms knowledge. It's not too hard to find examples of BATF rulings that fly in the face of common sense and the basics of firearm operation.

This topic is proof of the fact that determined people can confuse even a very simple principle with a little effort. It's also probably proof that we have people here who are intentionally trying to misinform the membership.

 

[Bobby Lee]

A modern automobile with a manual shift transmission cannot be started with the car in gear. Does this mean it's now an automatic transmission? Heck no.

All manaul shift cars can be started in gear. All you need to do is push in the clutch.

On my Glock when I pull it from my holster and fire it the trigger pull does a double action. It both cocks the striker to the rear and releases it firing the pistol.

This makes MY Glock basically a DA pistol. You can call it anything you like but BASICALLY the Glock CAN be called DA. There is no way it can be called single action.

How the gun works or does not work when dry firing it does not matter much to me.

Since we are comparing the to car design I can say my car has power steering but it only works when the engine is running. Using some of your logic then my car does not have true power steering.

 

[BluesBear]

My appoligies for such a long post.
Hopefully it is worth the read.


No MY defination of a DA/SA (or Traditional Double Action) pistol coincides with history's accepted definition.

In the beginning there was Sam Colt and he begat the first practical rotating cylinder fixed barrel revolver. And it was called Single Action. There were already double action pepperboxes that could only be fired double action.

A little later down the pike come the double action Starr revolver (I really don't know if they were the first but they were close). It was called a double action revolver even though your COULD if you so chose, cock and fire it single action.

Later the three largest big bore revolver companies, Colt, S&W and Merwin & Hulbert, designed and sold Double Action revolvers. These too could be fired single action if so desired.

Along comes the 20th Century, or almost, The first practical self loading pistol was the 1896 Mauser. It was hammer fired and was considered to be single action because, with the hammer down (pay attention folks this criteria will become very important)
As I said, with the hammer down it had to be manually cocked before pulling the trigger would accomplish anything.

The next few decades were owned by John Moses Browning, who designed many pistols both hammer and striker fired that had to be manually cocked (either by pulling the exposed hammer rearward or drawing back the slide to fully set the striker or cock the concealed hammer) before pulling the trigger would accomplish anything.

Now along came Carl Walther. He designed the PP. The first practical, workable Double Action Pistol. His design was based on the premis that, With the hammer down pulling the trigger cocked and released the hammer to fire the gun. No other action was needed, the trigger did it ALL on it's own. From there on out the slide fully cocked the hammer making it behave just like a single action pistol with a crummy trigger pull.

IF for any reason, the hammer found itself in the down position, simply pulling the trigger cocked and released the hammer. Once again the trigger did this all by itself. Nothing else had to be done. When the hammer was down, pulling the trigger cocked and released it.

Walther's guns were based on this design. J. P. Sauer's guns were based on this design. It was called a double action pistol even though 85% of its shots were probably fired single action.
In 1954 S&W thought so much of this action that they released the model 39. The very first American made double action 9mm pistol. In fact I believe it was only the second American made 9mm.
The S&W 39 was just the start of many many double action S&W pistols.

In the mean time, the American police officer was being further saddled with decreased budgets and red tape. Lack of training often created a dangerous situation where an improperly trained officer would cock his revolver and "accidentally" shoot some poor misundertood miscreant.

Therefore Police Chiefs, who after working their way upward through ther ranks and promptly firgetting what real life is like, decided that the problem was the equipment's fault. It was cheaper to neuter the guns than to properly train the officers.
So there became the Double Action Only (DAO) revolver. A perfectly good double action revolver which had all of it single action capabilities removed.

Instead of teaching officers how to properly shoot under duress, the simple solution was to equip them with guns that fired faster and more often.
But without the possibility of once again accidentially shooting some poor misundertood miscreant.
Thereby the DAO pistol came about. A semi-automatic pistol in which the hammer ALWAYS found itself in the down position. A pistol in which the ONLY mechanical motion needed to cock and release the hammer was a pull of the trigger. A pull of the trigger would always cock and release the hammer.

So there you have it. from Single Action (SA) to Double Action (DA/SA for autos-SA/DA for revolvers) and then reaching back all the way back to the pre-Sam days to revive Double Action Only (DAO)

Now perhaps the DAO pepperbox, which preceeded the single action Colt by a few decades should be called Double Action and the later revolvers that fired both ways should have been called something else. But they weren't. Since at least 1877 Double Action fire arms included single action operation unless specified differently.

So we have by tradition, if not by definition, had actions defined by what is happens when the hammer/striker is at rest, in the down position.

With Glock Action pistols, when the striker is in the down position it must first be cocked by the slide. (similar to SA) Which doesn't completely cock it. It only half cocks it. The trigger then has to finish cocking it before it can release it. (similar to DA) After firing the striker doesn't remain cocked. (similar to DAO)

So, a Glock Action pistol is part DA, part SA and part DAO. Since it is all of them it can be neither one of them. A Glock Action pistol is a HYBRID.


Mules and Jackasses are HYBRIDS.
A Mule is one half donkey and one half horse. Therefore it is both and yet neither. It is a Mule.
A Jackass is one half horse and one half donkey. It can be called neither a horse nor a donkey. It is and will always be a Jackass.
A dog that is one half German Shepard and one half Collie is still a Dog. But it is neither a German Shepard nor a Collie. So if you intend to breed a million of them a different label must be created.





(The Weber is hot and ready - I'll fix the mispelling after I fix dinner)

 

[BluesBear]

You're missing the point.

I can't believe I have to explain this...

All manaul shift cars can be started in gear. All you need to do is push in the clutch.

If you depress the clutch the car is NOT in gear. :banghead:

Cars with automatic transmissions have always been required to be started in neutral. Older cars with manual transmissions, when you turned the key the engine rotated whether in gear or out. Ask anyone who has mistakenly tried it just how far their car or truck jumped.
Nowadays ALL cars have a neutral safety switch. But then doesn't make them all automatics.
My comparision was that just because you change one feature you haven't necessarily changed the entire machine.

Since we are comparing the to car design I can say my car has power steering but it only works when the engine is running. Using some of your logic then my car does not have true power steering.

The pre-requisite for POWER steering (more properly called power assisted steering) is the application of POWER to assist the steering. Therefore you ONLY have power steering when the car is running. You have MANUAL steering when it isn't.

Power steering could be better conpared to second strike capability which I haven't discussed at all.



Some of y'all need to brush up on analogies.
Focus more on the "ogies" portion.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

If the first trigger pull on a DA SIG doesn't ignite the primer, how does it differ from a SA gun. Substantially: you just pull the trigger again. If the primer can be ignited by a second strike, it'll go boom.

If the first trigger pull on a DA revolver doesn't ignite the primer, how does it differ from a SA revolver? Substantially: you just pull the trigger again. If the primer can be ignited by a second strike, it may eventually go boom, after you've shot any other rounds in the cylinder. You WILL get a second chance.

If the first trigger pull on a Glock doesn't ignite the primer, how does it differ from a traditional SA gun? It doesn't. You must rack the slide to allow the striker to be reset completely. The trigger alone won't do it.

Given that, I wonder why you and others feel compelled to call the Glock a DA gun? Seems far more like a SA gun with a unique trigger-based safety, to me.

And that's pretty much the way Glock describes it, as we've seen in previous messages, including quotes from both the user and armorer's manuals.

 

[jc2]

If we really say a trigger that does two things is always double action, then Ruger Blackhawks are DA because the trigger not only releases the hammer, but it also activates the transfer bar.

A slight (but all too typical) misstatement. Pulling the trigger on a Glock performs the double action of compressing the striker spring and releasing the striker. (Who's trying to troll, here? )

No, what's meaningless is continuing to allege that what is happening to the striker is adequately described by the word SET. The striker is cocked by the slide--60% or more of the cocking stroke is performed by slide action.

Not hardly!

Why would Glock submit proposals when someone puts DAO in their bid request?

Because Glocks as DAO!

With Glock Action pistols, when the striker is in the down position it mucty first be cocked by the slide. (similar to SA) Which doesn't completely cock it. It only half cocks it.

No, the slide merely sets the striker (pull to the point it catches on the firing pin safety). Setting the striker on the Glock is not part of the firing sequence. It is part of the safety sequence.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

No, the slide merely sets the striker (pull to the point it catches on the firing pin safety). Setting the striker on the Glock is not part of the firing system. It is part of the safety system.

You're serious? The FIRING PIN/Striker assembly ISN'T PART of the firing system?

That is what I think we must call a "defining moment."

 

[jc2]

That's not exactly what I was trying to say. The striker is set (pulled behind the firing pin and resting on the firing pin safety) as part of the safey sequence NOT part of the firing sequence. I've edited my post hopefully to make it clearer.

BTW, the Glock website describes the set striker resting behind the firing pin safety as one of the points of "safe-action." If the slide does not set the striker, the Glock will slam-fire when the next round is chambered. Pulling the striker very slightly back (so it doesn't protrude from the breech face) and catching it with the trigger safety is very much part of the safety sequence.

 

[Fredhead]

Loved the Robert Randolph reference.
Hated the rest of the thread.

 

[JohnKSa]

No, the slide merely sets the striker

Pulling the striker very slightly back...

Both of these statements are 100%, absolutely, no question about it, verifiably false. What's more, you KNOW they're false because I've posted this before on threads where you were posting.

I guess you have time to continue posting misinformation but have never taken the few minutes it would require to verify what I posted is correct. I'm gonna make it easy for you now though. I'm going to give you a detailed step by step procedure.

The striker is 60% or more cocked by the slide action. If you have a Glock, you can easily verify this.

There is absolutely no room for debate in this area. It's not a matter of opinion, it's pure fact. You can say what you want (and you no doubt will) but in this regard, you are flat out wrong. Furthermore, given the ease of which the above statement can be checked out there is absolutely no excuse for you to continue arguing this particular point unless you check it out.

Here is the procedure. If you're going to do this follow the procedure carefully--particularly the parts about manipulating the trigger and removing the slide after checking the distance the slide cocks the striker. If you don't you can get the pistol into a frustrating configuration. Nothing that can't be easily remedied--by reading the instructions I posted.

Put your Glock into battery. Mark the spot where the rear of the slide sits on the frame.

Field strip your Glock.

Remove the recoil spring assembly and barrel.

Reset the trigger on the frame by putting slight pressure on the trigger and pushing forward on the protrusion on the trigger bar that sticks up on the right side of the mag well.

Put the slide on the frame (JUST the slide--don't put the barrel and recoil spring in) and push it back as far as it will go. There will be some resistance but push it all the way back--like you're going to lock it open.

Now bring it back forward slowly. It will come forward with no resistance at first and then you will feel the disconnector hit the inside of the slide when the slide is still about an inch or so out of battery.

Continue pushing the slide forward--the resistance won't increase--and when there is about half a centimeter of travel left you will feel it hit something again. This time you'll feel increasing pressure if you push farther. That is when the striker engages the sear. At this point, if you push farther, you're compressing the striker spring--this happens each time a Glock is fired. The tension of the recoil spring actually cocks the striker most of the way.

Holding the slide at the point where you feel the slide just BEGIN to engage the striker, measure from the mark on the frame that you made in the first step to the rear of the slide and you will have the amount that the slide action compresses the striker spring--should be about 6 or 7 mm.

Push the slide forward until it is in the same position as it would normally be when it is in battery and hold it there while you pull the trigger. It will feel a bit strange, but it's the only good way to get the slide back off the frame. If you don't do this step it will be very hard to remove the slide.

Remove the slide.

Now take the frame and reset the trigger by putting a little pressure on the trigger and then pushing the trigger bar protrusion at the right of the mag well forward again as before.

Push the trigger as far forward as it will go and mark the position of the sear on the frame.

Now put some pressure forward on the protrusion and pull the trigger while maintaining a bit of forward pressure on the protrusion. Pull the trigger all the way to the rear and mark the position of the sear on the frame. The distance between these two marks is the MAXIMUM trigger throw. If you look, you'll see that the sear is going to release before it hits the extreme end of travel, but for a quick and dirty measurement, use the MAXIMUM trigger throw. It should be about 5mm.

At this point you can reassemble your glock--you're done with it.

Now compare the maximum trigger throw to the amount that the slide compresses the striker. Even comparing the max trigger throw (which is really more than the amount the trigger compresses the striker spring) to the slide compression figure, the slide figure will be bigger.

Now that you have the procedure, you no longer have an excuse for remaining ignorant on this particular subject.

I want the rest of you reading this thread to take note. If jc2 is serious about providing information and being accurate he'll perform this test and post here when he discovers that what I have been saying is true. If he won't (which is likely) everyone can draw their own conclusions as to what his motives are.

 

[BluesBear]

This should have been posted two pages ago...

 

[JohnKSa]

What's really irritating is how easy it would have been for jc2 to check this and see that he was dead wrong.

If you don't want to make careful measurements, just take the slide off your Glock. Now push the metal protrusion on the trigger bar at the right front of the mag well forward. The trigger is now reset.

Now turn the slide over and hold it next to the frame more or less lined up to where it would be if it were in battery.

Note the position of the sear and the position of the striker. Even with the striker pulled back "very slightly" so it doesn't protrude through the breechface and is behind the firing pin safety, it's OBVIOUS that the sear is too far back for the striker to rest on it unless the striker spring is significantly compressed.

Be sure to release the trigger before reassembling the gun. Do this by maintaining slight forward pressure on the protrusion while pulling the trigger to the rear.

Basically anyone who can field strip their glock can easily see that what jc2 is saying can't be true.

 

[faustulus]

Ok, what we have here is one of two things. It's either a group of people who don't understand DA and yet are trying to categorize a pistol as DA/DAO, or a group of people who are deliberately trying to misinform or troll.

or a group of people who have differing views and opinions from yours. Saying that we are trolling is a bit much just because you do not agree with us.
I don't believe in 'half actions' you seem to, that is fine, we have a difference of opinion. In the end this isn't something to get all that worked up over. There is no double action/single action/glock action police going to arrest us. It is a bit of fluff to pass the time.

 

[Chris Rhines]

What this thread has managed to prove is that "Single Action," "Double Action," and "Double-Action Only" are totally inadequate terms for describing the function of a firearm.

- Chris

 

[Bobby Lee]

"What this thread has managed to prove is that "Single Action," "Double Action," and "Double-Action Only" are totally inadequate terms for describing the function of a firearm."


The only handgun I have seen that don't exactly fit into one of these is the Kahr.

The action of the Kahr is not as most assume it is.

The trigger pull "feels" like a DA but in reality the striker on the Kahr is at least 80% cocked when a round is chambered and from the action of the striker one could almost call it single action.

 

[hightech]

Glock

A Glock is a double action only [DAO] pistol. Pulling the trigger accomplishes two [double] things with the striker. 1 and first is fully cocks the striker. 2 and second it releases the striker. Since this is the ONLY way you can cock a Glock it is Double Action Only [DOA]. :banghead:

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Jc2 wrote:

If the slide does not set the striker, the Glock will slam-fire when the next round is chambered. Pulling the striker very slightly back (so it doesn't protrude from the breech face) and catching it with the trigger safety is very much part of the safety sequence.

Actually, I think the firing pin spring keeps the firing pin/striker from protruding. It is, after, still an inertial firing pin forced against a spring. The firing pin block will also prevent a slam fire.


Hightech wrote:

1 and first is fully cocks the striker. 2 and second it releases the striker. Since this is the ONLY way you can cock a Glock it is Double Action Only [DOA].

It doesn't fully cock the striker. It finishes what the slide starts. If the slide doesn't move, the trigger doesn't do anything.

As I've said before in this message chain, if you don't believe this to be the case, insert a snap cap and pull the trigger twice. Tell me what happens the second time you pull it.

 

[Bobby Lee]

Once again just because it lacks the second strike ability does not mean it is not DA.

Several other autos are classified DA or DAO and they lack the second strike.

The DAO S&W autos and the little KelTec .32 auto for example.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Bobby Lee wrote, above:

The only handgun I have seen that don't exactly fit into one of these is the Kahr.

The action of the Kahr is not as most assume it is.

The trigger pull "feels" like a DA but in reality the striker on the Kahr is at least 80% cocked when a round is chambered and from the action of the striker one could almost call it single action.

And the difference between the Kahr and the Glock IS what, exactly? We're not talking about safety features, here. We're addressing the activation of the striker or hammer function -- the compression of the spring and its release to slam the firing pin forward.

How do the Kahr and Glock differ? About 20% more of the striker spring is set by the Kahr slide action than the Glock? Does that mean that the Kahr is 80% SA and the Glock is only 60% SA?

Some of you guys seem offended when I mention the second-strike capability. Don't know why, as a "second strike" isn't the function being addressed. What is REALLY being addressed is the ability of the trigger to fully cock and release the hammer and striker, all by itself.

As an intellectual exercize, I could conceive of a DA or DAO gun that, because of design issues or safety concerns, was designed so that the slide movement did NOTHING to set or tension the hammer or striker spring, but slide movement was required to release a safety -- and if the round fired didn't cause the slide to recoil, it would not be allowed to fire. That gun would NOT have second strike capability, but it certainly would be double-action.

I don't know why anyone would want to build a gun like that, but doing so would certainly leave us with a gun that met the time-tested definition of a DA gun: the trigger fully activates and releases the hammer or striker all by itself. Slide movement, as with a Glock, would still be needed to make the next round fire, but it would have nothing to do with cocking or releasing the hammer or striker.

The Glock isn't like that. The Kahr isn't like that. The Kel-Tec P3AT and P-32 aren't like that,

But the Kel-Tec P-11 trigger will fully activate and release the hammer, as will the CZ-100 trigger (a striker-fired gun). Ditto the CZ-75B DAO, and many others. Second strike just happens to be a happy byproduct of how these guns works -- its not a defining characteristic. HOW THE TRIGGER SETS AND RELEASES THE HAMMER OR STRIKER IS THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC!! With a true double-action gun, the trigger does it all, all by itself.

With regard to the ACTION of the gun -- we're not talking about safety features now, but how the hammer or striker is activated -- it would appear that the only difference between the Kahr and Glock is the PERCENTAGE of striker pretensioning prior to release.

If so, why do you continue to view the Glock differently? You've almost moved to the "dark side" by saying the Kahr is 80% SA...

Isn't the Glock at least 60% cocked when the trigger is first pulled (the first time)? Does that make it 60% SA and 40% DA?

Seems like that's what some of us have been saying all along? (That it has features of BOTH acations!)

 

[Rockstar]

That old guy who wrote "Much Ado About Nothing" really knew his stuff!

 

[Walt Sherrill]

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

 

[isp2605]

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

How appropriate is that! Too bad the guy telling the story doesn't recognize who the Bard could have been referring to.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Maybe he does.

And maybe YOU just don't see that some swords have two edges (as opposed to double actions.) <grin>

 

[BluesBear]

It's not my job man.

But...



Since it appears no one else is going to say it, I guess I will...

4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

 

[JohnKSa]

faustulus,

I don't know if you're trying to troll or not, but anyone who could say that a gun that has to be manually cocked for each shot is DA either:
A) Doesn't understand what DA means or
B) Is being intentionally obtuse for the purpose of continuing an argument they have already lost or
C) Is continuing an argument simply for the sake of the contention it causes.

Sure, I understand the way you're playing around with the words "double" and "action" and there's no question that you can make them mean what you have decided they mean. That's pretty much irrelevant. The TECHNICAL TERM "double action" has a meaning that is more than the sum of the words that make it up. That's not uncommon, and is not a difficult concept.

It's not hard to understand that there are many single action triggers where the trigger still performs two (or more) different operations (such as deactivating a firing pin safety and releasing the hammer, or activating a transfer bar and releasing the hammer).

Frankly, I don't understand why this has become such a point of contention.

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

Clearly, based on external examination, it doesn't behave like a DA or a DAO. In fact, externally it behaves EXACTLY the same way as an SA autopistol does. That's also not debatable. Anyone with access to a Glock and an XD (or other hammerless/concealed hammer SA autopistol) can easily verify the statement.

So, it's not SA, but it behaves like SA. Internally it's similar to a DA, but externally it doesn't act like a DA or DAO.

Leaving all the word games and rhetoric aside for the moment--can one of you tell the forum why it's preferable to use one of these terms that quite obviously doesn't fit rather than use the term that the inventor coined?

I suggest that if no one can post a coherent reason for forcing this action into an existing category then this discussion is over--or at the very least pointless.