Is DA/SA Obsolete (In Terms of Sales)?

[HammerStriker]

My recollection may be imperfect, but I thought the ND rate soared when they transitioned to the M&P striker, but went back to the previous rate post the transition?

Even if this is the case (which I don't know whether or not it is), then they should have had equal ND incidence when training new recruits on the 92F. Were new recruits learning on the 92Fs having a similar rate of NDs as when folks transitioned to M&Ps? that would also be a valid data point. Somehow I'm guess the incidences after adopting the M&P caught the inspector general's attention because they had never had such a high rate of NDs prior to the M&P. That tells me it is easier for people to screw up on a M&P than on a Beretta - I know the opposite conclusion is popular on the internet (de-cockers/levers, too complicated, etc).

[spinmove_]

My recollection may be imperfect, but I thought the ND rate soared when they transitioned to the M&P striker, but went back to the previous rate post the transition?

Daryl Bolke, I believe, knows exactly how this went down. Mayhaps he can chime in here and refresh our memories.

[AMC]

Daryl Bolke, I believe, knows exactly how this went down. Mayhaps he can chime in here and refresh our memories.

@SoCalDep can probably speak to the issue better than anyone, but it's my understanding that this occurred at LASD, not LAPD. The issue was the very abbreviated Transition course for in service officer coming from a 92fs mandated to be carried on safe. It was the In Service folks who experienced the increase in NDs, not the Academy recruits who were trained on a SFA from the jump.

The LAPD course was initially 3 days, then cut to two I believe. They also initially mandated anyone coming from a DA/SA to a SFA complete additional qualifications during the first year they carried it....all of which was believed to be why they didn't experience the same increase in NDs. Of course, those closer to the issue could explain better. This was my understanding from my discussions with folks down there about these issues.

[HammerStriker]

@SoCalDep can probably speak to the issue better than anyone, but it's my understanding that this occurred at LASD, not LAPD. The issue was the very abbreviated Transition course for in service officer coming from a 92fs mandated to be carried on safe. It was the In Service folks who experienced the increase in NDs, not the Academy recruits who were trained on a SFA from the jump.

The LAPD course was initially 3 days, then cut to two I believe. They also initially mandated anyone coming from a DA/SA to a SFA complete additional qualifications during the first year they carried it....all of which was believed to be why they didn't experience the same increase in NDs. Of course, those closer to the issue could explain better. This was my understanding from my discussions with folks down there about these issues.

You're correct, the LASD was investigated by the Deputy Inspector General after seeing an uptick in NDs following their conversion to M&Ps. The LAPD experienced an increase in NDs after switching to Glocks, I believe.

Something intersting found in the LASD Inspector General's report is the reason cited for moving from Beretta 92s to M&Ps. They made the transition so that more women could pass qualifications. :|

The LASD for one did not switch form DA/SA to Striker, because strikers are superior or to save cost. They did it so that more women could successful join the force by making it easier for them to qualify - the 92s were too heavy, too big, and too difficult to manipulate in DA mode for women.

[SoCalDep]

AMC got it. The differences between the LAPD and LASD approaches and results in striker conversion are a bit more complex but I can’t really get into the details without ruffling some feathers so I’ll try to be general.

The following is specific to a large Sheriff’s department.

First, it is correct that it has largely been an in service issue vs an academy issue. Also, it is my understanding that ND rates are back down to normal/below normal now (I’m knocking on every piece of wood I can find). I have serious problems with the OIG report... I was thankfully in a position to make our case and we still have the M&P, still have the Surefire DG switch / WML pressure switches, and we’re able to appropriately address the issues that (were ignored by the report) gave rise to the ND increase.

As for DA vs Striker, I think DA is “safer”, but I also think that over-dependence on mechanical devices in lieu of proper safety fundamentals is a recipe for disaster. It isn’t enough safer that less safety training is warranted, and it’s enough more complicated that increased action-specific skill development is necessary compared to striker-fired pistols. A good shooter with a DA can be just as effective if not more than striker guns, but for the masses, striker guns generally increase average performance. While there are surely exceptions for certain small agencies and units, striker fired guns are more appropriate for general issue to most law enforcement agencies, but I still really like DA guns - I love my Berettas. I don’t think they are going anywhere but I also don’t think they will ever give strikers a run for the market share.

[SoCalDep]

You're correct, the LASD was investigated by the Deputy Inspector General after seeing an uptick in NDs following their conversion to M&Ps. The LAPD experienced an increase in NDs after switching to Glocks, I believe.

Something intersting found in the LASD Inspector General's report is the reason cited for moving from Beretta 92s to M&Ps. They made the transition so that more women could pass qualifications. :|

The LASD for one did not switch form DA/SA to Striker, because strikers are superior or to save cost. They did it so that more women could successful join the force by making it easier for them to qualify - the 92s were too heavy, too big, and too difficult to manipulate in DA mode for women.

Don’t put too much stock in that report... it is far from the full or clear picture.

[HammerStriker]

AMC got it. The differences between the LAPD and LASD approaches and results in striker conversion are a bit more complex but I can’t really get into the details without ruffling some feathers so I’ll try to be general.

The following is specific to a large Sheriff’s department.

First, it is correct that it has largely been an in service issue vs an academy issue. Also, it is my understanding that ND rates are back down to normal/below normal now (I’m knocking on every piece of wood I can find). I have serious problems with the OIG report... I was thankfully in a position to make our case and we still have the M&P, still have the Surefire DG switch / WML pressure switches, and we’re able to appropriately address the issues that (were ignored by the report) gave rise to the ND increase.

As for DA vs Striker, I think DA is “safer”, but I also think that over-dependence on mechanical devices in lieu of proper safety fundamentals is a recipe for disaster. It isn’t enough safer that less safety training is warranted, and it’s enough more complicated that increased action-specific skill development is necessary compared to striker-fired pistols. A good shooter with a DA can be just as effective if not more than striker guns, but for the masses, striker guns generally increase average performance. While there are surely exceptions for certain small agencies and units, striker fired guns are more appropriate for general issue to most law enforcement agencies, but I still really like DA guns - I love my Berettas. I don’t think they are going anywhere but I also don’t think they will ever give strikers a run for the market share.

Thank you for your feedback, I understand not wanting to ruffle any feathers. If someone was deciding between a Sig P226 and Glock 17 to be used as a bedside gun/for HD, which would you steer them towards? Say they get out to the range about once per month to practice and are not interested in competing with either or the guns, or carrying them...purely for home defense and range time.

[0ddl0t]

So I've never really looked into the LEM before, but it sounds like a great compromise. Am I missing something?

My understanding of the LEM:
Long double action-like first pull (similar to DA/SA)
Short reset/short 2nd pull if you don't fully release the trigger (similar to DA/SA 2nd shot)
If you do fully release the trigger, you get that long double-action like pull again. No need to decock (unlike DA/SA).

[GJM]

So I've never really looked into the LEM before, but it sounds like a great compromise. Am I missing something?

Just years one through five on Pistol-Forum.

[10mmfanboy]

So I've never really looked into the LEM before, but it sounds like a great compromise. Am I missing something?

My understanding of the LEM:
Long double action-like first pull (similar to DA/SA)
Short reset/short 2nd pull if you don't fully release the trigger (similar to DA/SA 2nd shot)
If you do fully release the trigger, you get that long double-action like pull again. No need to decock (unlike DA/SA).

Yes, although if you fully let off the trigger during firing, then the first pull is heavier than the first pull is normally after you load the gun.