Why DAO/Long-pull trigger?

[shadow9]

Besides legal use, why equip a Semi with a long DA trigger? This whole business of "it helps reduce A/D in a stressful situation" is beans, IMHO. If you have your finger in the trigger guard, you are READY TO SHOOT. 1911 users know that once the safety's off, trigger-time means show time, and once the finger goes in that guard, you're shooting.

Likewise, I doubt that 1911/Glock/XDS users will have ANY more incrimination in court because "their trigger released the sear earlier/easier/quicker".

IMHO, putting a long-reset DAO trigger on a semi-auto neutralizes the point of it - semi's came around because Revo's couldn't put the rounds out fast enough, and they didn't have the ammo capacity. Why are you going to slow down a high-speed mechanism with a long-stroke trigger?

The ONLY reason I can think of is that a DA trigger allows for a "second-strike" on a hard primer, whereas SA models need to be recocked. Or cheaper manufacturing/easier manual-of-arms...but frankly I think that a long DA trigger is a more challenging setup to learn since there's more time to let the front sight wander...

Also, I can't understand the point of the decocker on a number of Semi's. If the pistol doesn't have a hammer (or it's flush), then a decocker makes sense (P99/HK LEM/etc.) But if there's a spurred hammer, that safety should be a full trigger/hammer/slide lock, ala the CZ75 or CZ82/83, so you can carry it cocked'n'locked. A decocker is utterly useless once you know how to properly let a hammer down.


Just some thoughts.
/end rant

 

[9mmepiphany]

IMHO, putting a long-reset DAO trigger on a semi-auto neutralizes the point of it - semi's came around because Revo's couldn't put the rounds out fast enough, and they didn't have the ammo capacity. Why are you going to slow down a high-speed mechanism with a long-stroke trigger?

You've based you assumptions on incorrect information.

1. Semi-auto were not adopted to increase that speed with which shots could be fired, it was purely for the increased capacity

2. A long stroke/reset trigger doesn't slow down an action, because the trigger is reset and the trigger stroke started before the sights return to target.

but frankly I think that a long DA trigger is a more challenging setup to learn since there's more time to let the front sight wander...

I'm not sure where this even comes from. There is no "wander" between the time the sights return onto target and the next shot is released

A decocker is utterly useless once you know how to properly let a hammer down.

What is interesting is that it is during this operation that many a ND occurs. Another advantage is that a de-cocker usually doesn't allow the hammer to contact the firing pin when it is de-cocked?

There is no difference in the speed of the first accurate shot from and of the action types, because all the prep occurs as the gun is extended. There is no difference between followup shots, because the prep occurs during muzzle flip. If you are seeing or experiencing a difference, the technique being used is less than optimal

 

[Davek1977]

I also believe DAO pistols were meant to simplify things for people that m,ay not necessarily be fa,miliar with semi auto pistols. The trigger pull is consistent with every shot, as opposed to a DA/SA. Also, it basically eliminates a need for a manual safety, just like a revolver. It just makes learning the basic operations easier and safer for some people....its as easy an racking the slide and being ready to go, with no need for decockers, manual safeties, and the like, with the added benefit of the same trigger pull shot to shot

 

[shadow9]

1. Semi-auto were not adopted to increase that speed with which shots could be fired, it was purely for the increased capacity

Unless there was a previous D/A semi, the C-93 and following designs were single-action, which made best use of a semi-auto function (as the sear was reset with every shot by the slide, so the trigger reset time was much shorter). It wasn't until later that there were double-action semi-designs. This was the basis of my assumption.

I'm not sure where this even comes from. There is no "wander" between the time the sights return onto target and the next shot is released

I meant that while someone is pulling a long DA trigger, there's an increased chance for them to push/pull the pistol off-target - whereas with a crisp/short SA pull, or a striker-fired pull, the sear is released the moment they pull the trigger. The former phenomenon is common with newer or inexperienced shooters.

There is no difference in the speed of the first accurate shot from and of the action types, because all the prep occurs as the gun is extended. There is no difference between followup shots, because the prep occurs during muzzle flip. If you are seeing or experiencing a difference, the technique being used is less than optimal

True. I was considering the reset of the trigger occurred AFTER muzzle flip, as one might do during target practice. If one is letting the trigger to the moment the shot is fired, so that the moment the gun returns to a position of ideal sight alignment the trigger is able to be pulled again, this would apply. But even then, you have more distance to cover with your longer DAO trigger pull than you would with a Single Action. At least that's what I experience. But - I would also not claim my technique is optimal either...

I also had failed to account for the time it takes for sights to reset on the target - which is often affected by recoil levels in the firearm, and shooter ability.

What is interesting is that it is during this operation that many a ND occurs. Another advantage is that a de-cocker usually doesn't allow the hammer to contact the firing pin when it is de-cocked?

VERY valid point. I am guilty of often assuming my own ability/security in firearm operation applies to ALL persons. Likewise, a manufacturer must build their firearm with some degree of safety in mind, and said degree of safety MUST take into account possible ineptitude, overconfidence or poor-handling due to stress.

Thank you for the wisdom.

 

[tipoc]

The reason for it is less clear than the history of their development. The latter is clear while the former has been obscured by marketeers and others.

In the late 1970s and early 80s a greater number of lawsuits began to hit law enforcement in cities around the country. Some of these involved instances where officers held a revolver on suspects with the hammer cocked and a finger on the trigger. The gun "went off" and the suspects were wounded or killed in front of witnesses who testified that the suspects were complaint and helpless when shot.

The response from a number of jurisdictions was to render the revolvers dao and thus make it impossible for the cops to do their Barney Fife impressions.

When the transition to semis occurred it was thought that the problem was resolved. But no. So a market for dao semis rose from within law enforcement. (This was even before the arrival of the Glock, which has a short trigger pull and is not quite dao by the way). So some manufacturers looked to fit the need. S&W offered some of their 3rd Gen guns dao, Kahr, etc.

The idea was that the longer dao pull made the issue of an ud due to the light trigger pull of a gun in single action out of the question. It took that issue off the table. It did it by making each shot a longer da trigger pull. But a semi in da mode is not like a revolver in da mode. The ergonomics are different and the triggers tend to be worse.

What began as an idea in law enforcement spread of course. Rather than a sa gun or a da/sa gun or the short trigger of a Glock you could also have the longer roll of a dao trigger as on the Ruger LC9 and some Kahrs in a gun meant for concealed carry. Some folks have liked the idea of a gun with no external safety, a longer and "safer" trigger pull than a Glock, yet more rounds than a revolver. So a market for them has developed. This has been in the last 10-15 years really. Before then the breed was unknown. The rise of concealed carry has helped it on.

Whether a fella likes it or not is irrelevant. There is a market for them and so they exist. They fill a real or perceived need.

tipoc

 

[9mmepiphany]

I meant that while someone is pulling a long DA trigger, there's an increased chance for them to push/pull the pistol off-target - whereas with a crisp/short SA pull, or a striker-fired pull, the sear is released the moment they pull the trigger. The former phenomenon is common with newer or inexperienced shooters.

This can be true, but just as true is that the short/crisp SA trigger release often causes a jerked/flinched trigger in anticipation of the sights being on target. The longer pull of a DA trigger avoids this by mandating that the shooter concentrate on the longer stroke.

But even then, you have more distance to cover with your longer DAO trigger pull than you would with a Single Action. At least that's what I experience. But - I would also not claim my technique is optimal either...

That is only true if one waits for the sights to align on the target to begin the trigger stroke. When shooting at higher speeds, 4-5 shots a second, the DAO shooter is actually trying to get the sights back on target before the shot breaks. The DAO trigger is in constant movement, to do otherwise is to fall behind the curve.

 

[2wheels]

For a variety of reasons, mostly safety related, some people want longer/heavier triggers. And in addition to that, some of those people don't want to deal with a DA/SA setup. Maybe they don't like the transition from DA to SA or they don't want to have to remember to decock or whatever. So... A DAO trigger gives them what they want.

As far as decockers, I can't see why anyone would have a problem with a well designed one. Decockers like those found on Sigs or newer HKs are out of the way, and I'd MUCH rather use them than have to manually decock every single time. I bet we'd have a lot more NDs if decockers didn't exist... It's not just there for the times when you're calm and paying 100% attention to lowering the hammer, it's there for the times when you're possibly in a high stress situation, have to pay attention to what's going on around you, and you want to decock the hammer in order to holster your sidearm.

Besides the occasional guy who refuses to trust decockers, I've never heard anything bad about them or heard of any downsides to them.

 

[jrdolall]

I can't speak to why they were created but I can tell you that I like them for pocket carry. The long, usually stiff, trigger pull operates like a safety. It allows me to carry the semi in my pocket without needing to worry about operating a safety during any encounter. The long DAO trigger basically allows the semi to be operated like a revolver.

I also like the de-cockers on guns. I am certainly capable of de-cocking my guns manually, and often do, but the good de-cockers just make the operation a little bit safer. I use a standard pencil to verify that the de-cocker is functioning properly but I still make sure I follow safety protocol when using it just as I do when doing it manually.

 

[Ankeny]

If you are seeing or experiencing a difference, the technique being used is less than optimal

Really? I know several USPSA National Champions that would disagree with that assessment. I'll buy into the notion that splits don't necessarily win matches (unless it's a hose fest). But a long heavy DAO trigger pull is much more difficult to master than a short, light, single action pull.

 

[Sam1911]

It is more difficult, generally speaking, to master, but that doesn't mean it has to produce inferior results. A good revolver (or DAO auto) shooter can hang with very good auto shooters.

What 9mmepiphany is saying is that if you are seeing poor results that you are blaming on your DAO trigger, it your technique needs work. It isn't necessarily the fault of the gun itself. (Though, of course, that's assuming it isn't a BAD, rough, stagey, overly heavy, trigger, just DAO.)

 

[tipoc]

Usually there is a decided difference between a revolver in da and a dao semiauto. This is in my experience of course. The construction of the revolver produces a smooth stage free roll to the trigger pull and the ergonomics of the wheelgun lend themselves to pulling the longer trigger pull both at speed and accurately. Over a century of matches, shooting and competition with wheelguns shooting da have shown that.

This is not usually the case with the dao semi. The triggers are generally rougher, jerkier and stack, in comparison with the revolver . The construction of the semi is built around the magazine for reliable feeding so the angle of the grip to the slide and that to the trigger does not favor a longer, heavy trigger pull as it tends to pull the muzzle downward. At least in many hands, but not all. It is also, imho, a bit misleading to think they are as safe as revolvers.

While in my opinion the dao trigger on a semi is less conducive to accuracy than the da trigger on a revolver it can still get the job done. It can shoot accurately enough for defensive shooting. Folks usually get them for that purpose anyways. In that roll they can do the job.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

I have a question, as I ain't kept up on this.

It's my impression that most dao semis are small and meant for concealed carry.

How many service size dao guns, with a longer heavier trigger pull are there? I'm not asking about Glocks, XDs or the M&P here. Those striker fired guns have shorter and lighter trigger pulls than the dao guns. What dao full size service semi auto guns are out there?

tipoc

 

[JTQ]

SIG DAK, H&K LEM, Beretta 92D, S&W had a bunch.

When I think of DAO auto pistols, I think of duty size firearms designed for law enforcement. All with the idea of replacing revolvers in law enforcement holsters. I don't think of "small and meant for concealed carry" when thinking of DAO autos, though I'm sure there are bunches of them.

 

[tipoc]

When I think of DAO auto pistols, I think of duty size firearms designed for law enforcement. All with the idea of replacing revolvers in law enforcement holsters.

I believe all those guns you mention were introduced after the transition to da/sa semis had occurred. Meaning that they came in about the late 90s or so, one or two maybe earlier. The transition to semis took place in the 80s and accelerated after that. The first guns for that were da/sa. After the transition and in the late 80s and into the 90s Glocks arrived. But the da/sa guns dominated till partially displaced by Glocks in some areas. Many areas still use them.

The dao guns never really held a strong place in law enforcement. That's why I ask the question. S&W sold many da/sa 2nd and 3rd gen guns to law enforcement. Beretta 92s were in the holsters of many more departments across the country in the late 80s and 90s after being adopted by the U.S. military. Sigs followed also.

My impression is that the dao service guns were far from dominant.

tipoc

 

[HOOfan_1]

1. Semi-auto were not adopted to increase that speed with which shots could be fired, it was purely for the increased capacity

Capacity or faster reloads? The US Army went from 6 shot revolvers to a 7 shot auto...not a huge capacity increase there.

 

[JTQ]

tipoc wrote,
My impression is that the dao service guns were far from dominant.

I never said they were dominant, and in all fairness, you didn't ask in your earlier question if they were dominant.

It's my impression that most dao semis are small and meant for concealed carry.

How many service size dao guns, with a longer heavier trigger pull are there? I'm not asking about Glocks, XDs or the M&P here. Those striker fired guns have shorter and lighter trigger pulls than the dao guns. What dao full size service semi auto guns are out there?

I know very little about pocket guns and how common they are with DAO trigger. However, the full size DAO is not uncommon. The DA/SA auto was more common, probably because that was what the Walther P38 had, and most makers simply copied that original design.

I suspect many law enforcement agencies preferred a consistent trigger pull which brought about the DAO models.

 

[Drail]

Because a great many LEO and civic administrators who are completely ignorant of almost everything regarding firearms fervently believe that the harder it is to operate the firearm, the "safer" it will be. And then the rest of the buyers will be people who fervently believe that whatever the LEOs carry "must" be the best choice. And here we are.

 

[1911Tuner]

Because a great many LEO and civic administrators who are completely ignorant of almost everything regarding firearms fervently believe that the harder it is to operate the firearm, the "safer" it will be. And then the rest of the buyers will be people who fervently believe that whatever the LEOs carry "must" be the best choice. And here we are.

Clear, concise, to the point...and probably the most accurate statement to date.

A lot of the DAO thing is also to avoid liability if there's a question of an accidental discharge on the part of a police officer. It can be readily shown that a conscious effort must be made to pull a long trigger through its range.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Capacity or faster reloads? The US Army went from 6 shot revolvers to a 7 shot auto...not a huge capacity increase there.

I'll admit that when I wrote that, I was thinking about the adoption of the semi-auto in LE circles...which didn't really get into full swing until the 70s

In military usage, I agree that reload speed was likely a higher priority...that and appearing fashionable

 

[9mmepiphany]

The dao guns never really held a strong place in law enforcement. That's why I ask the question. S&W sold many da/sa 2nd and 3rd gen guns to law enforcement. Beretta 92s were in the holsters of many more departments across the country in the late 80s and 90s after being adopted by the U.S. military. Sigs followed also.

My impression is that the dao service guns were far from dominant.

tipoc

Many departments converted their DA/SA issued guns to DAO when officers were having a hard time changing over from the technique they had been using with their revolvers.

Some departments who preferred gins with exposed hammers chose DAO pistols over the striker fired ones

The largest contract I can think of was the federal one for DHS

 

[9mmepiphany]

If you are seeing or experiencing a difference, the technique being used is less than optimal

Really? I know several USPSA National Champions that would disagree with that assessment. I'll buy into the notion that splits don't necessarily win matches (unless it's a hose fest). But a long heavy DAO trigger pull is much more difficult to master than a short, light, single action pull.

I was specifically referring to first making a first accurate shot for the holster...as the prep occurs during the Pressout. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I think the first time I read it in print was from Jeff Cooper.

Also resetting the trigger and prepping it occurs before the sights return onto target. I think I read that by Jerry Miculek.

I didn't say it was easier, I said that if you are seeing a huge difference in speed between the two trigger mechanisms, I'd look at the technique being used

 

[1911Tuner]

Originally Posted by HOOfan_1 View Post
Capacity or faster reloads? The US Army went from 6 shot revolvers to a 7 shot auto...not a huge capacity increase there.

The US Army wanted to stay with .45 caliber that would match or approximate the ballistics of the .45 Schofield cartridge...which the .45 ACP did when the revolver round was fired from a matching chamber. (810 fps) Fired from a .45 Colt chamber, it fell about 50-60 fps short and was advertied at 750.

This predated double column magazines, plus they had to take into account all hand sizes...especially with men whose smaller stature suited them to horse mounted cavalry. A double stack was doable...but for the time and the primary intent, it wasn't practical.

In military usage, I agree that reload speed was likely a higher priority...that and appearing fashionable

With the 1911, it was probably as much about ease of reloading while on horseback as anything else.

 

[tipoc]

Many departments converted their DA/SA issued guns to DAO when officers were having a hard time changing over from the technique they had been using with their revolvers.

I'm not so sure about this one. The technique of the da revolver is very dis-similar from the dao pistol. The trigger pull, especially in the 80s and 90s, felt so different in the hand as for there to be almost no similarity. This is not to mention the way they fit in the hand, reload etc. So it does not compute that this was predominately the reason for the introduction of the dao semi. In other words I ain't so sure that the reason for the development of the dao semi was that they were more similar to wheelguns then a da/sa gun. Or that the trigger pull was more consistant from shot to shot. Neither feels similar to a revolver. I'm not saying that in some cases it wasn't a factor but not the dominant one.

Many departments converted their DA/SA issued guns to DAO when officers were having a hard time changing over from the technique they had been using with their revolvers.

Some departments who preferred gins with exposed hammers chose DAO pistols over the striker fired ones

The largest contract I can think of was the federal one for the DHS

This is another issue. I think the time frame is compressed here. Remember that the DHS was created only after 9-11. The Sig DAK trigger later than that I believe within the last decade.

The initial move to dao semis was a development roughly of the 1990s and possibly more recently. It only effected a minority of police depts. Other than the H&K P7 there were few striker fired guns out there till the rise of Glock which appeared in the late 80s but took off in the 90s.

The old gun mags and news reports I read back then pretty clearly tied the appearance of dao service guns to liability issues associated with the single action trigger of the da/sa gun.

None of this means a fella shouldn't use one if they fancy them.

But it is useful to be clear on why they were developed and what motivated the sellers.

tipoc

 

[9mmepiphany]

The technique of the da revolver is very dis-similar from the dao pistol. The trigger pull, especially in the 80s and 90s, felt so different in the hand as for there to be almost no similarity.

You've posted this a couple of times and I'm not sure I'm following your assertion. For me both trigger run with a full press to the rear to the shot going off, followed by resetting the trigger in recoil and pressing the trigger again as the sights are returning onto the target. As far as my experience has shown me, all DAO trigger use the same technique...the only difference is the smoothness and weight of the trigger stroke

The technique of loading a semi-auto is certainly different as is releasing the slide, but the technique of pressing the trigger and holding the gun in the hand are certainly similar. Granted that the semi-auto would usually index better as the grips were usually less round.

I think the first DA/SA semi-auto I used as a duty gun was the S&W 439 and while the trigger was a bit mushy, I used the same technique of trigger control as I had on my Colt Python. As more semi-auto were authorized as optional duty guns many officers went with the Beretta 92 or SIG 226...influenced by the military trials...and they ran the triggers, for that first DA trigger stroke, the same way.

When our department adopted the SIG line as duty guns several officers had problems transitioning from our issued S&W M15. For them a quick parts change turned the DA/SA into a DAO gun, which they ran just like that had their revolvers. The big improvement was when SIG introduced the DAK, who's trigger felt like a tuned K-frame.

In your opinion, how would running the trigger of a DAO SIG differ from that of a K-frame?

 

[kilibreaux]

You asked a GOOD QUESTION! WHY does ANYONE want a DAO or DA/SA trigger - EVER?

Clearly Glock tossed the idea.

The "Gold Standard" 1911 never even pretended to be a gun built for "noobs."

It boils down to "society"...the perception of being helpful rather than ready to kill. The public don't like seeing a cocked and locked 1911 in a holster...thankfully the Glock has no external change in configuration to cause the public concern.

As for the ERRONEOUS notion that semiautomatic handguns can't shoot faster than revolvers...well, that's erroneous. Maybe an EXPERT can pump out shots faster using slicked up, low-power loads in revolvers, but in REAL life where everyone else resides, the trigger on a 1911 simply CANNOT be bested by ANY other design. Note, I ain't talking accuracy here, I'm talking SPEED..."trigger reset" on a 1911 is no more than a thought. I love to fire semiautos rapidly, but nothing, not NOTHING comes close to a 1911 pattern pistol for pumping out "all eight" in 1.5 seconds with all eight holes covered by a playing card at 15 feet....
I own and carry Glocks for their lightness and capacity. I own can carry 1911's because they fit my hand PERFECTLY, and they have a trigger that was designed by a higher order of lifeform, AND, when properly built, they are every bit as reliable as any Glock.