Single Action vs Double Action - Speed

[mavracer]

Which we aren't really part of, in that most people on THR probably go shooting at least once per year, and fire 50 or more rounds per trip to the range. That puts us on the fringe of gun owners.

Yes, there's a great deal of difference between "most people" and "most people here" but a lot of posters use the first when they mean the second.

 

[David E]

That's a red herring. The topic is "single action revolver for CCW defense".

No, the topic is "Single Action vs Double Action - Speed"

Concealed weapon carrying is not a competitive sport.

While not a sport, defending your life is a very competitive activity.

You don't lose because another concealed carrier could deploy another gun more quickly. Frankly if a situation could come down to tenths or hundredths of a second I think drawing a weapon....

When did draw speed get brought into this? I specially did NOT test that and said so. (That's another thread!)

My most likely scenario: free-ranging (not necessarily feral) dogs. They have attacked members of my family. They have killed people. They are not IPSC shooters. I need to have the right tools in hand.

I have semi-auto pistols for carry...but my .45C blackhawk would not leave me noticeably more vunlerable.

Dogs typically don't shoot at you, do they? I agree a .45 Colt SA would be very potent in practiced hands.

 

[David E]

The other discussions involved starting with a holster gun. Why the change?

Already answered

I would reiterate the question, how much time have you spent building skill with the two platforms?

Years.

 

[David E]

If you're in a gunfight and you still have 40% of the distance before you reach cover when your gun is empty are you still worried about how fast you can empty the gun.

Um..........What???

To review, this wasn't about how fast I could empty the gun, it was about how fast I could HIT.

Sometimes when you focus on one aspect too much, you lose sight of many other important factors.

Take golf. To improve, you need to isolate various aspects to work on. The swing, the chip shots, putting, etc. The goal is to improve all the individual aspects required for the game to improve your overall performance. Just because this is "putting practice day," it doesn't mean you've forgotten the importance of the drive, etc.

 

[BCRider]

Within the limits you used the results are interesting and certainly point to which option YOU should use. And to be fair I suspect it would turn out much the same for any of us.

It's also an interesting test for myself since I shoot both DA and SA revolvers in my sport matches. For my cowboy shooting I've chosen to use the duelist style so I've had a lot of time drawing and shooting my SA revolvers one handed.

And yeah, if speed was important I'd be betting my life on my DA S&W's. Not a moment's doubt here.

On the idea of the holster and draw and how it would match I've found that the sort of holsters and the design of the guns does make a difference. I can draw and confidently hold my DA S&W's FAR quicker than I can my SA 1873 clones. With my big size hands obtaining a grip on the SA guns isn't that hard but getting my finger into the closer position and smaller guard on the SA's is harder. I'm sure I lose a couple of precious tenths in that aspect since I'm not a fan of jamming my finger into the guard while the gun is in the holster, SA's being safe to do so or not.

On the other hand quick draw shooters show that it CAN be done with enough practice.... but we'd all sure look funny walking down the streets poised like that....

 

[BSA1]

David E.,

Which type of gun a person has the most experience does make a difference in the results.

For example if I were to conduct your drill comparing a K-Frame vs N-Frame S&W's I expect my time with the K-Frame to be a little faster. The reason why is I have many years of experience shooting K-Frames, I like the lighter weight and the grip size fits my hand better. I have a friend that prefers N-Frame and shoots it very well. In fact we go back & forth on who shoots the better score on a given day which is not measuring which gun is faster only the shooter skill level at that moment.

Likewise with a single action revolver. What frame size; small (Ruger Single-Six), medium (Ruger New Vaquero, Colt SAA), large (Ruger Blackhawk), what size of grip (Army vs. Navy), custom features such as lower hammer spurs, action tune, etc.?

You chose one handed shooting when most experts, shooting schools and law enforcement agencies teach two handed real world combat shooting skills.

It may be you are a natural shot with any type of handgun so that bias doesn't exist. Speaking for myself the results would be in favor of whatever gun I have been shooting the most recently. I think a more accurate statement is at the time of the test based on my level of training and experience with these firearms I was faster with Gun A than Gun B.

 

[David E]

David E.,

Which type of gun a person has the most experience does make a difference in the results.

Absolutely. I'm going to the range next week with my friend and will have him try the .357 Model 66 one handed. I'm pretty sure my SA time will beat his DA time.

For example if I were to conduct your drill comparing a K-Frame vs N-Frame S&W's I expect my time with the K-Framee to be a little faster. The reason why is I have many years of experience shooting K-Frames, I like the lighter weight and the grip size fits my hand better.

There's a LOT to be said for gun fit. For the rest of it, load choice matters quite a bit as well.

It may be you are a natural shot with any type of handgun so that bias doesn't exist. Speaking for myself the results would be in favor of whatever gun I have been shooting the most recently.

I don't think I'm unusually gifted, but I do like to shoot!

 

[mavracer]

To review, this wasn't about how fast I could empty the gun, it was about how fast I could HIT.

Arguing semantics again. Were the guns in the test empty at the end of the drill?

 

[David E]

Arguing semantics again. Were the guns in the test empty at the end of the drill?

Uh, yeah.

But there's a vast difference between "emptying the gun as fast as possible" and getting fast HITS. It's hardly semantics.

Oh, and running for cover wasn't on the agenda.

At all.

 

[mavracer]

Oh, and running for cover wasn't on the agenda.

At all.

Then I'd suggest armor and belt fed and drop the SA/DA argument.

 

[Ed Ames]

No, the topic is "Single Action vs Double Action - Speed"

Speed is irrelevant unless it accomplishes something. In this case the goal to be accomplished was "for CCW defense."

While not a sport, defending your life is a very competitive activity.

At times. At other times it is collaborative. Life is a funny business.

You don't lose because another concealed carrier could deploy another gun more quickly. Frankly if a situation could come down to tenths or hundredths of a second I think drawing a weapon....

When did draw speed get brought into this? I specially dud NOT test that. (That's another thread to come!)

I brought in time to first hit because split times aren't really relevant to self defense.

Only thing that really matters to SD is time to incapacitation.

Time to first hit gets honorable mention because some people apparently incapacitate themselves for psychological reasons. There are many stories of people getting hit with shots that would take minutes or hours to incapacitate, and immediately falling down in shock.

Split times may or may not have any impact on incapacitation. If the first shot destroys the heart, the person will be incapacitated within 20 seconds or so. Additional hits in that scenario are not cumulative. In other words, 5 shots will not shorten the incapacitation time to 4 seconds.

My take away from your test was that you could deliver a potentially incapacitating hit from low ready in about .9 seconds with either platform. You could add four additional potentially incapacitating hits in the subsequent 2-3 seconds, if that was desired. The time to first hit was close enough that you shouldn't make decisions (shoot/no shoot, or what to carry) based on such a small difference.

I think most people would be far better off concentrating on just going out and shooting more than obsessing over the time differences you are mentioning. If you can hit one darget 5 times in 2.5 seconds with a handgun, you need to start hitting two targets close together (CM, CNS). If you can do that, two targets farther apart (multiple attackers). If you can do that, hitting while moving. If you can do that, hitting while you and the target are moving.

 

[Kuyong_Chuin]

How fast was he on the 3rd, 4th and 5th shot?

I don't remember them telling the third through fifth times. Just the two shot and the six shot times. If my memory serves me his six shot total fanning the hammer was 1.56 seconds and thumb cocking it was 2.03 seconds the the DA coming in at 1.92 seconds for the six shots. I really need to find the article and refresh my memory on all the data from it. Me remembering what I did is something since it has been at least 25 years since I read it.

 

[David E]

I brought in time to first hit because split times aren't really relevant to self defense.

Oh. Do you carry a single shot, then?

Only thing that really matters to SD is time to incapacitation.

Wrong. What matters is how fast you can make him stop doing the thing you're shooting him for.

Split times may or may not have any impact on incapacitation. If the first shot destroys the heart, the person will be incapacitated within 20 seconds or so. Additional hits in that scenario are not cumulative. In other words, 5 shots will not shorten the incapacitation time to 4 seconds.

Wrong again. More holes means more bolo loss, less blood pressure, etc. Or, one additional QUICK shot to the brain makes the "incapacitating heart shot" totally moot.

My take away from your test was that you could deliver a potentially incapacitating hit from low ready in about .9 seconds with either platform.

.83 with the SA, .74 with the DA

I think most people would be far better off concentrating on just going out and shooting more than obsessing over the time differences you are mentioning.

It's not obsessing, it's comparing real time elements between the two action types. Much more productive than pronouncing yourself "fast" because you think it's fast.

If you can hit one darget 5 times in 2.5 seconds with a handgun, you need to start hitting two targets close together (CM, CNS). If you can do that, two targets farther apart (multiple attackers). If you can do that, hitting while moving. If you can do that, hitting while you and the target are moving.

It's funny. I state a simple drill I did for a simple reason that I stated several times, yet still...the armchair commandos tell me I'm supposed to be running to cover while shooting multiple moving targets instead.

But since you brought up multiple targets, I'll say I expect the times would equal out between the two action types due to acquisition time. At least, until you need to reload.

I don't know if anyone thinks I did this drill fast, but instead of speculating about the time difference, now I know the difference. And I have a benchmark to compare myself to down the road.

 

[45_auto]

What kind of loads were you using, David E?

I noticed that your targets said ".38". I'm guessing you were using a typical .38 +P SD load rather than full bore .357's?

What were the .44's? I'm guessing you were running something mid-range? I have some Buffalo Bore 340 grain at 1650 FPS sitting around, but it probably takes me about 5 seconds apiece to pull those back down out of recoil!

 

[ATLDave]

David E, rest assured that there are members who found your experiment results interesting, appreciate your sharing, and understand what you were trying to measure (and why).

 

[David E]

What kind of loads were you using, David E?



I noticed that your targets said ".38". I'm guessing you were using a typical .38 +P SD load rather than full bore .357's?



What were the .44's? I'm guessing you were running something mid-range? I have some Buffalo Bore 340 grain at 1650 FPS sitting around, but it probably takes me about 5 seconds apiece to pull those back down out of recoil!

I did a few runs with some .38's I had to see what effects recoil, or lack of it, had. The first plate picture was of my first attempts with each gun.

After which I switched to a mid-level magnum round that pushed a 125 grain JHP at about 1300 fps. It's a fun load that doesn't beat you up, but still has some authority.

I ended up with some factory 158 grain soft points. The SA handled these with aplomb whilst the M-66 kinda hurt my hand.... An oft overlooked point in favor of the SA

The .44 loads were a 240 grain SWC backed by 10.0 grains of Unique. Velocity is about 1000 fps. A good general purpose load.

 

[murf]

glad to see someone putting bullets to paper, not just fingertips to keypad.

sounds like you had an epiphany.

thanks for the enlightenment.

murf

 

[Ed Ames]

Oh. Do you carry a single shot, then?

That's a non sequitur but no, the only single shot pistol I own is a flintlock and I am not hipster enough for that.

Wrong. What matters is how fast you can make him stop doing the thing you're shooting him for.

Fair enough. If you can make him run away when you draw that's as much of a win as you are likely to find in a SD situation.

With a determined adversary, the only sure stop is incapacitation.

Split times may or may not have any impact on incapacitation. If the first shot destroys the heart, the person will be incapacitated within 20 seconds or so. Additional hits in that scenario are not cumulative. In other words, 5 shots will not shorten the incapacitation time to 4 seconds.

Wrong again. More holes means more bolo loss, less blood pressure, etc. Or, one additional QUICK shot to the brain makes the "incapacitating heart shot" totally moot.

Sadly not wrong. I agree a CNS hit will speed things up unless you get lucky with the spine you won't get that within paper plate distance of the heart. Short of that, people can be active for a minute with a severed carotid artery. Extra holes aren't going to cut the time below 20 seconds or so.

My take away from your test was that you could deliver a potentially incapacitating hit from low ready in about .9 seconds with either platform.

.83 with the SA, .74 with the DA

Your numbers are contradictory but I won't quibble. A small difference.

I think most people would be far better off concentrating on just going out and shooting more than obsessing over the time differences you are mentioning.

It's not obsessing, it's comparing real time elements between the two action types. Much more productive than pronouncing yourself "fast" because you think it's fast.

Can you quantify the difference in productivity?

I don't see much difference in value between opinion and anecdote. Neither is at all useful in deciding what I should do.

If you can hit one darget 5 times in 2.5 seconds with a handgun, you need to start hitting two targets close together (CM, CNS). If you can do that, two targets farther apart (multiple attackers). If you can do that, hitting while moving. If you can do that, hitting while you and the target are moving.

It's funny. I state a simple drill I did for a simple reason that I stated several times, yet still...the armchair commandos tell me I'm supposed to be running to cover while shooting multiple moving targets instead.

You missed the point.

I am not proposing additional drills for you to collect and report back your times on. I am saying that developing your own skills would probably serve you better than trying to anecdotally refute opinions posted online.

But since you brought up multiple targets, I'll say I expect the times would equal out between the two action types due to acquisition time. At least, until you need to reload.

I strongly suspect it has a tremendous amount to do with training, and not much to do with anything else.

In other words: If you practice most with an X, you will be fastest with an X.

I don't know if anyone thinks I did this drill fast, but instead of speculating about the time difference, now I know the difference. And I have a benchmark to compare myself to down the road.

You know a difference without knowing the relevance of that difference. You can't say that each .1 reduction in split times correlates with a 3% reduction in mortality during self defense shootings or the like bcause that information doesn't exist. All you can do is imply that split times must be important to SD, a conclusion not supported by evidence.

 

[David E]

people can be active for a minute with a severed carotid artery. Extra holes aren't going to cut the time below 20 seconds or so.

Which is it, active for a minute or 20 seconds?

Your numbers are contradictory but I won't quibble. A small difference.

You mean the actual numbers don't agree with your speculated ones? As I already said, I did a series of "first shots" and averaged those, tossing out the high from each.

I don't see much difference in value between opinion and anecdote. Neither is at all useful in deciding what I should do.

Do whatever you want. What you call opinion or anecdotal is my deciding to get my butt out to the range and find out what the time difference was for ME. Maybe you should, too.

You missed the point.

I am saying that developing your own skills would probably serve you better than trying to anecdotally refute opinions posted online.

No, sir, you missed the point.

I said that, instead of speculating about my speed difference between the two action types (as others post they are comfortable doing), I'd go out and determine the actual difference and report back. I did that. Thats not attempting to refute anyone's posted online opinion, it's just me reporting my findings. I don't know why some are threatened by that.

You know a difference without knowing the relevance of that difference. You can't say that each .1 reduction in split times correlates with a 3% reduction in mortality during self defense shootings or the like bcause that information doesn't exist.

Where do you pull this stuff out of? I mean, seriously!

All you can do is imply that split times must be important to SD, a conclusion not supported by evidence.

Baloney! Or are you saying that speed doesn't matter in a gunfight?

As I predicted in the other thread, people are misconstruing, misstating and misunderstanding what my simple drill was about. Then they assail me on points I never made, inferred or implied. Then chastise me for not seeking cover, shooting while moving and hitting darting targets. At night. In the rain.

Ain't the internet great?

 

[CraigC]

If he's not, what standards would you propose for him to attain to be considered proficient with his single action?

You must have me confused with someone else. I never suggested standards, nor did I ever discuss anyone's choice of carry but my own.

Seems like a pretty simple question that you keep doing your best to avoid answering.

I've answered this multiple times. It would be kinda hard to suggest standards without owning a shot timer, wouldn't it?

Years.

This is not going to be very productive if you're going to keep avoiding questions. What percentage of your shooting is done with DA's, with SA's, with semi-autos?

 

[Ed Ames]

Which is it, active for a minute or 20 seconds?

Both. Two different injuries were mentioned.

Your numbers are contradictory but I won't quibble. A small difference.

You mean the actual numbers don't agree with your speculated ones? As I already said, I did a series of "first shots" and averaged those, tossing out the high from each.

What speculated numbers? In your first post you say your average string of five shots takes 3.91 with an average .75 between shots, which says your first shot was .91. That is not speculation, that is math. If you claim it is actually .83 then you have a .08 second discrepancy between your numbers. In other words, your numbers are wrong somewhere and the info you are providing doesn't pass a basic sanity check.

I don't see much difference in value between opinion and anecdote. Neither is at all useful in deciding what I should do.

Do whatever you want. What you call opinion or anecdotal is my deciding to get my butt out to the range and find out what the time difference was for ME. Maybe you should, too.

Actually I call the results you posted anecdotal.

I said that, instead of speculating about my speed difference between the two action types (as others post they are comfortable doing), I'd go out and determine the actual difference and report back. I did that. Thats not attempting to refute anyone's posted online opinion, it's just me reporting my findings. I don't know why some are threatened by that.

I don't see anyone acting threatened. I see people questioning the value of the report. It reflects your training, which is nice, but it doesn't generalize to others.

Most people assume that if you say something you have something you want to say. I don't think that is irrational. In this case, there doesn't seem to be much you can say except, "Training trumps gear," which doesn't seem to be the message you want people to take.

You know a difference without knowing the relevance of that difference. You can't say that each .1 reduction in split times correlates with a 3% reduction in mortality during self defense shootings or the like bcause that information doesn't exist.

Where do you pull this stuff out of? I mean, seriously!

So you think you can? Prove it because I'm calling BS. I don't think any such correlation exists.

All you can do is imply that split times must be important to SD, a conclusion not supported by evidence.

Baloney! Or are you saying that speed doesn't matter in a gunfight?

Are you saying that all speed matters equally? Because I don't agree. Speed without correct action is waste.

Speed A is important in a gunfight.
You are measuring speed B.
You are then omitting the type of speed (A or B) to argue that speed is important and you are measuring speed therefore what you are measuring is important. That is flawed logic.

As I predicted in the other thread, people are misconstruing, misstating and misunderstanding what my simple drill was about. Then they assail me on points I never made, inferred or implied. Then chastise me for not seeking cover, shooting while moving and hitting darting targets. At night. In the rain.

I don't see that happening though. Can you point out where you believe it has?

 

[45_auto]

You must have me confused with someone else. I never suggested standards, nor did I ever discuss anyone's choice of carry but my own.

Because the discussion was not about choosing the best platform for self defense, with some arguing the single action was a good choice for all. The argument was that the single action is a good choice, FOR THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY PROFICIENT WITH THEM.

I'm not confused, unless there are two posters on this board who go by "CraigC". Someone in post #19 going by that name was claiming that single actions were a good choice for those who were proficient with them. That post #19 CraigC didn't say "single actions are a good choice for me", the post #19 CraigC said single actions were a good choice for anyone already proficient with one.

I know that you're VERY careful not to have any standards so you can claim that you're "proficient", but how do you know if all those other people you were claiming that a single action was a good choice for in post #19 are proficient without any data? Can you tell me how I'll know when I'm proficient with a single action? Does liking them and thinking that I'm faster than Wyatt Earp make me proficient with them? I also like the F-22 Raptor, and I have a pilot's license. Does that mean that I'm a proficient fighter pilot?

pro·fi·cient
/prəˈfiSHənt/
adjective
1. competent or skilled in doing or using something.

 

[Art Eatman]

The OP gave comparisons for HIS shooting, SA vs DA. There has been way too much extraneous commentary which is irrelevant to his results.

 

[Sam1911]

There's two types of debates. In one, folks dissect each other's ideas and boil down the constituent parts until they find the subsets of points they agree on and fundamental points they disagree about. And they try to isolate the most basic assumptions they and their opponent build their beliefs upon so as to be able to find as much common ground as possible as well as isolating the nuclear core points of "faith" upon which they irreconcilably disagree.

In the other type of argument, we start with a declaration of fact, and then find as many supplementary, tangential, and broadly related questions, assumptions, and criticisms about those facts, and the reason for determining those facts, and what those facts mean (etc.) as we can -- so that we may begin all on point A ("...I fired these shots on these targets with these guns in these times...") and see just how much distance we can create between each other's points of view.

One of the two is useful. The other is just kicking up dust.

...


"The sky was blue today. Look out the window and tell me if the sky is blue at your house today."
1) "I don't know what you're trying to prove with that statement."
2) "It doesn't matter because the overall trend is for the wind to be blowing."
3) "I reject your premise about the sky having a color, when you know that the gasses of the atmosphere have no color at all and it's really just ...."
4) "Were you looking east or west? Because west is a discredited viewpoint that you shouldn't try to prove anything by."
5) "If it was raining you wouldn't have thought it was so blue!!11!1!""
6) "This whole 'blue sky' thing is just a thinly veiled attack on me because you think people who prefer overcast days are stupid!"
7) "Like my pappy always said, it don't much matter if the sky is blue today, if you died yesterday -- and you can take that to the bank!"


Some of y'all need to take a break from talking to each other. There IS such a thing as too much togetherness. Sort of seems like a bunch of siblings at about mile 1,347 of a road trip in the back seat of the family station wagon. Need to spend some time apart.