Your definition of DAO

[MythBuster]

"Could you the first time you saw one on the shelf or in an ad? I don't even own one, but I can read the manual on line."

Within 30 seconds after I picked up my first M&P I knew it was not a DAO. Same with the Styer.

 

[JohnBT]

So you decided it was SA or DA/SA? You're beating a dead horse.

 

[GLOOB]

?!?? Obviously SA. There's nothing DA/SA about the M&P. There's nothing DA, at all.

What's the point? Is it SA? No.

How do you answer no to this question?

Forget the AR and the AK. If this qualifies as a double action trigger, then nearly all SA guns are really DAO. The 1911 is DAO. It's basic gunsmithing 101. When you cut a sear, you fudge the geometry a little so that it has to overcome the hammer in order to release, and not the other way around. This way it's less likely to go off if dropped, and when you squeeze the trigger almost to the breaking point but then let go, it resets instead of hanging precariously on the edge. How, exactly, is the M&P different than a 1911 in the way the sear releases the striker/hammer?

For those that say the trigger performs 2 actions, the 1911 series 80 easily qualifies for this definition, too, no matter how you slice it.

FTR, I'm not angry. I'm just curious.

 

[JohnKSa]

Single action. The trigger releases the energy required to fire the gun, however that energy must be stored by another method since when operating in single action, the trigger is capable of only a single action--releasing energy.

Double action. The trigger performs the double actions of storing and releasing the energy required to fire the gun.

Double Action/Single Action. A gun that is designed to offer the shooter the ability to operate the gun as either a double action or a single action to fire any particular shot.

Double Action Only. A gun that can operate as a double action but that has no capability to operate as a single action.

Single Action Only. A gun that can only be operated as a single action as opposed to a DA/SA type design.

When classifying a gun, there are three keys:

1. Look at all the definitions.
2. Look at all the definitions from both the positive and negative side.
3. Understand that not every gun will fit into one of the categories.

For example, a gun that must be partially cocked before the trigger can have an effect, doesn't fully fit the definition of double action because some of the energy required to fire the gun wasn't stored by the trigger pull. However the fact that it requires something else to store some of the energy doesn't automatically mean that the trigger can't be involved in the energy storage process at all. If the trigger action also stores part of the energy required to fire the gun then the gun isn't single action either.

In other words, the fact that a gun isn't double action doesn't automatically make it a single action, nor does the fact that a gun doesn't properly fit in the single action category force it to fit the double action definition.

Finally, the fact that there is often some minor motion of the hammer or striker in a single action design when the trigger is pulled is really not relevant. It's not at all difficult to distinguish between incidental movement as a consequence of the process of releasing a hammer or striker versus movement that is actually tensioning the hammer or striker spring with the goal of adding energy to the primer strike.

Yes, there are some guns on the market that are improperly classified as DAO, in my opinion.

 

[Guns4Fun]

The Walther PPS can be decocked by removing the backstrap, even when loaded. It's unnerving to let the striker go like this, but for me has never fired. This supports the idea that the partially cocked DAO striker-based pistol can't hit a primer with enough force to fire, i.e. When dropped, etc.

The PPS will cock with a very minimal racking, as well. No need to eject to cock.

 

[GLOOB]

Erm, the firing pin safety is on when you decock the gun like that. Unless you remove the FP safety, you're not testing the ability of the gun to fire from the preset condition. If you do so, please don't use live ammunition!

 

[cfullgraf]

I read an article a couple years ago that the gun scribe describe auto pistol actions as "single action, double action and striker fired". Unfortunately, I forget who it was but it made sense to me.

While I take much of what is posted on Wikipedia with a bit of grain of salt, their description of gun actions does make sense.

Pre-set seems to be a good description for many of the striker fired pistols on the market today.

Wow, there is a lot of confusion on this thread. Surprisingly Wikipedia has a really good page on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_%28firearms%29#Double-action_only

 

[MythBuster]

"Forget the AR and the AK. If this qualifies as a double action trigger, then nearly all SA guns are really DAO. The 1911 is DAO. It's basic gunsmithing 101. When you cut a sear, you fudge the geometry a little so that it has to overcome the hammer in order to release, and not the other way around. This way it's less likely to go off if dropped, and when you squeeze the trigger almost to the breaking point but then let go, it resets instead of hanging precariously on the edge. How, exactly, is the M&P different than a 1911 in the way the sear releases the striker/hammer?"

On the 1911 this action is so slight it can't be seen or felt. On other guns such as the military trigger on the AR-15 it is very obvious if you look.

The only way you can see it on the M&P is to field strip the gun and watch the action of the sear. By judging this by sight alone and using a feeler gauge to help estimate the travel I would say the the trigger pull moved the striker to the rear about .006. Someday I will use a dial indicator and find out exactly. .006 is about the thickness of two or three sheets of paper tightly pressed togather.

My point with the AR is the trigger pull on the AR moves the hammer to the rear MUCH more than the trigger pull moves the striker to the rear on the M&P.

I am guessing at least 4 or 5 times as much.

 

[MythBuster]

No matter how you slice it if a gun is described as DAO a reasonably intelligent person with general gun knowledge would expect that the gun in question is not carried with the hammer or striker precocked enough for it to fire if the hammer or striker fell from it's carry position.



I don't feel this way but recently I have seen posts on the net and personally met a few people who under no circumstances would they carry a precocked SA pistol.

If they feel that way then so be it. If they want a DAO pistol then by all means they should have one. The problem is S&W is flat out LYING about their pistol just so they can sell it to PD's and people like this.

 

[JohnBT]

"a reasonably intelligent person"

Like you, right? And anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, right? That's what you're saying.

John

P.S. - I have a question. Why did you title this thread "Your definition of DAO"? You don't seem to really care what anyone thinks if they don't agree with you.

 

[balance 740]

"a reasonably intelligent person"

Like you, right? And anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, right? That's what you're saying.

John

P.S. - I have a question. Why did you title this thread "Your definition of DAO"? You don't seem to really care what anyone thinks if they don't agree with you.

But JohnBT, do you disagree with Mythbuster?

Does the M&P fall under the DAO description in your opinion?

I think Mythbuster was just trying to make a point. He started out this thread wanting to hear about how "a certain very popular striker fired handgun that is carried at least 98% cocked can be called DAO."

 

[MythBuster]

"Like you, right? And anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, right? That's what you're saying.'

So far no one has made a case showing that a 98 or 99% precocked action can be called DAO.

So far no one has said that if they bought a pistol that was considered DAO they would expect it to be 98 or 99% precocked.

No normal intelligent person who understands gun design would be expected to feel that way mostly because since firearms have been in existence the term DAO means the trigger pull both cocks and fires the gun.



If you are trying to tell us the M&P is a DAO then perhaps you are not an idiot but you believe WE are.

 

[MythBuster]

"I think Mythbuster was just trying to make a point. He started out this thread wanting to hear about how "a certain very popular striker fired handgun that is carried at least 98% cocked can be called DAO."

And so far no one has explained this to us.

 

[MythBuster]

deleted

 

[MythBuster]

Lets say you have a Toyota truck for sale. It has a V6 engine.

Everytime someone calls you about the truck they tell you they wanted a 4 cylinder so they don't want your truck.

So later on you really need to sell this and a guy come alone that wants a 4 cylinder but he knows nothing about such things so he can't tell the difference even when he looks at the engine.

He asks you "is it a 4 cylinder?". You reply YES IT HAS 4 CYLINDERS so he buys it.


Did you lie to him? Yes and no. It does have 4 cylinders but it does have two more that you did not tell him about.

This is sort of like what S&W and the gun writers paid by S&W are doing to you.

They are using this sort of "logic" to claim their gun is DAO.

 

[cfullgraf]

But, none of it works if it does not cam over.

 

[GLOOB]

P.S. - I have a question. Why did you title this thread "Your definition of DAO"? You don't seem to really care what anyone thinks if they don't agree with you.

Take it easy. There are lots of different opinions here, which have all been respected for what they are. Lots of different views, with lots of different reasoning. No one's right. No one's wrong. You're the one that challenged someone else's view, but yet you haven't even supplied any reasoning behind your disagreement. If you actually supplied your own definition of DAO, then at least we'd have a starting point to have a semi-intelligent discussion. You haven't. Like the title says, "What's YOUR definition of DAO." It starts there. YOU'RE the one disagreeing when someone else has posted their view, and yet you haven't explained your own.

Which begs the question, why are you disagreeing? The only thing we can tell from your posts, it that you don't think the M&P is SA. But you haven't explained why you think that. For all we know, the extent of your reasoning is "because S&W says so." I realize you cited the manual. But that excerpt you quoted seems to directly contradict your opinion. "When you pull the trigger, the striker is released" seems to meet nearly every single participant of this thread's definition of SA. In fact, when you made that post, I assumed you agreed with the OP, but that he shoulda read the manual before being duped. Now you've made it clear that your stance on DAO is completely unclear.

 

[PapaG]

I keep things simple when talking with customers.
A. Single action=gun must be manually cocked (hammer) for each shot
B, Striker fired=guns like Glocks, XDs and others where there is no hammer per se and the trigger releases, via the sear, the striker. Same pull for each shot.
C. Double action=can cock it or fire it by pulling the trigger for first shot (in autos) or for successive shots in revolvers
D. DAO=revolver modified so you can't cock it, or a few designated models of Ruger and Sig and maybe a few others which have a hammer but it always requires the "full pull".
There may be exceptions.

 

[fastbolt]

I'm not going to wade through all the pages on this topic. Silly.

Like it or not, the gun companies & BAFTE are pretty much only concerned with their definitions, not mine or that of anyone else.

If you don't like what a particular design is called by the company engineers who designed it, buy something else.

I've listened to some self-proclaimed experts want to argue that the engineers who designed some semiauto pistol or toher were totally wrong in their identification and designation of the design & operation. Hey, tell them they're wrong ...

An increasing number of the latest pistol designs no longer fit in the earlier, commonly accepted, traditional pigeon-holes when it comes to labeling their designs and functions.

Whenever I've gone through armorer classes for some of the various big names in the business, it's just not occurred to me to take it upon myself to argue with how they've labeled the operation of their firearms.

Just about the time you get comfortable with some generalizations, some company comes along with a new twist.

They are what they are, and the people that design and manufacture them can call them whatever they want.

As long as I can understand how to safely operate them ... shoot them ... maintain, troubleshoot & repair them ... I'm good with it.

 

[GLOOB]

^ TDLR, DAO means w/e "they" want it to, so get over the fact that "DAO" is meaningless.

I've listened to some self-proclaimed experts want to argue that the engineers who designed some semiauto pistol or toher were totally wrong in their identification and designation of the design & operation. Hey, tell them they're wrong ...

You say this like the inventor is the only person in the world who can figure out how their gun actually works. As if it's a magic box that no one else will ever open and look at and figure out. I wonder if that's how 99% of folks go through life.

 

[balance 740]

I'm not going to wade through all the pages on this topic. Silly.

Like it or not, the gun companies & BAFTE are pretty much only concerned with their definitions, not mine or that of anyone else.

I agree, but I think that the OP started this thread because he also agrees with you.

He had a question about the trigger action of a pistol and asked a question on a gun forum.

If you don't like what a particular design is called by the company engineers who designed it, buy something else.

I've listened to some self-proclaimed experts want to argue that the engineers who designed some semiauto pistol or toher were totally wrong in their identification and designation of the design & operation. Hey, tell them they're wrong ...

I believe it was deliberate. I believe they already know. I don't believe I'm an expert.

An increasing number of the latest pistol designs no longer fit in the earlier, commonly accepted, traditional pigeon-holes when it comes to labeling their designs and functions.

I agree. I believe they should have made a whole new category for these newer designs instead of using the traditional trigger action designations.

They are what they are, and the people that design and manufacture them can call them whatever they want.

As long as I can understand how to safely operate them ... shoot them ... maintain, troubleshoot & repair them ... I'm good with it.

Me too. I believe they can call them whatever they want, and they do call them whatever they want, which is what is making the terms like DA, DAO, and SA lose their meaning and lose their purpose as a form of a specific description of a trigger action.

If I liked the M&P enough, I would still buy it, but I wouldn't consider it a DAO pistol no matter how much I liked it.

 

[Bobo]

I see it this way...

The terms "DA" and "DAO" are interchangeable. They have the exact same definition.

Definition:
In a DA/DAO trigger system a single pull of the trigger fully cocks the hammer or striker, or finishes cocking the hammer or striker (action 1); then releases the hammer or striker (action 2).

This is the true definition, but as such does not describe well the fact that most DA/DAO guns that cock the hammer or striker fully before releasing it often have a noticeably longer and heavier trigger pull than those that only finish cocking the hammer or striker before releasing it.

Perhaps we need two terms such as: "FDA" (Full Double Action), and "SDA" (Semi Double Action) for more accurate descriptions.

Bobo

 

[MythBuster]

"If I liked the M&P enough, I would still buy it, but I wouldn't consider it a DAO pistol no matter how much I liked it."

So would I. But I have shot them and they hold no advantage over anything else so I have no need for one.

Also they would have to be a very exceptional pistol for me to buy one after the company that makes it thinks they have to lie about to in order to sell it.

 

[MythBuster]

"You say this like the inventor is the only person in the world who can figure out how their gun actually works. As if it's a magic box that no one else will ever open and look at and figure out. I wonder if that's how 99% of folks go through life."

You could be correct. I would say the majority of gun owners don't have a clue how their guns really work just like the majority of drivers don't have a clue how the engine in their cars work.

I do this sort of thing for a living and I started taking things apart when I was 5 years old trying to see how they worked so I look at things differently.

 

[MythBuster]

"Perhaps we need two terms such as: "FDA" (Full Double Action), and "SDA" (Semi Double Action) for more accurate descriptions."

OK then someone has to deciede how "precocked" an action must be before it can be called either DA or SA.

The trigger pull on the M&P moves the striker to the rear about an additional .006 or so and they call it DAO. So what is the "cut off point" before it is SA?

.005, .002 .0000000001?

There are actions everyone calls SA that move the hammer more to the rear than the M&P trigger moves it's striker. So so do we now have to label the AR-15 trigger DAO?