P250 DAO vs P2000 LEM

[Tamara]

It'd probably help if we could first all agree on definitions for "double action" and "single action" in the first place.

The way I look at it is this: If the trigger doesn't have a restrike, it's not double action, no matter what the marketing department says. Triggers like the LEM or DAK are where the definition really gets strained, since they do have a restrike, but under normal operation the shooter would never feel the full weight of the trigger pull since the cycling of the slide is used to partially pre-load the mechanism in some way. This differs from Smith's DAO Third Gen guns, the LDA or its ancestor, the SFS, in that they have no restrike capability and are only "Double Action" in the marketing derpartment.

[ReverendMeat]

That's been more or less my definition too, but that would make guns like, say, the Ruger LC9 "single action" which is even sillier than calling a LEM "double action."

There's no winning and my new philosophy is to simply avoid using the terms altogether unless I'm referring to revolvers or.. uh.. "crunchentickers."

[jc000]

Thank you. There is so much utter bullshit circulating these days about what the LEM is, or isn't, I have just about stopped commenting on ANYTHING LEM-related. Trying to 'splain to Cletus that his HK LEM is NOT a double-action-only trigger is almost always a total exercise in futility. Funny how that little six-letter word makes all the difference in definitions…


.

Sorry, I realize I'm probably stepping into it, but if the trigger press both cocks and releases the hammer, doesn't that mean it's DA? I'm genuinely trying to understand how lem isn't DAO.

[Luke]

Sorry, I realize I'm probably stepping into it, but if the trigger press both cocks and releases the hammer, doesn't that mean it's DA? I'm genuinely trying to understand how lem isn't DAO.

Trigger doesn't cock it. Do a restrike on a LEM and prepare yourself for the suck.

[ReverendMeat]

Sorry, I realize I'm probably stepping into it, but if the trigger press both cocks and releases the hammer, doesn't that mean it's DA? I'm genuinely trying to understand how lem isn't DAO.

Define "cock".

[entropy]

I know this is a BAAAD analogy. But think of it as a Glock with a hammer.

[Argus]

Define "cock".

[jc000]

Define "cock".

One way I would define "cock" would be to position the hammer back so it can fall forward engaging the firing mechanism.

The second strike capability on my LEM pistol seems to do the same? Just heavier?

[LSP972]

Sorry, I realize I'm probably stepping into it...

Indeed… but I'll try again anyway.

Keep in mind that much of this- in terms of "definitions"- is more perception than anything. However, a few things just… are… so take this as the ramblings of an old guy who came of age in a simpler time.

First, definitions that "are"… Single means ONE. Double means TWO. Period.

Going by that, a single action pistol works only ONE way. Matters not if it is a revolver or JMB derivative semi-auto or striker-fired combat tupperware… the only way it will fire is if the sear is set- via cocking the hammer (manually, or by slide movement) or being reset by the slide cycling, such as a Glock- and trigger is then pulled.

A double action pistol can be fired TWO ways. Either the hammer/striker is manually set as above… or one can simply pull the trigger through. The example here that is most easily understood is a DA revolver. With the hammer at rest, you can shoot it by either thumb-cocking the hammer and pulling the trigger, or just pulling the trigger through its stroke. The mechanism cocks and releases the hammer. Ditto what is now referred to here as TDA- Traditional Double Action- pistols. Think Sig Classic P-series, Ruger P-series, the first and second (and some third) generation S&W pistols of the 70s-80s-90s, etc.

Here's where the murk begins. Over the years, the term "single action" morphed into describing the thumb-cocking part; "double action" morphed into describing the trigger-cocking part. So when the trigger-cocking-only guns appeared, it was natural for nimrods and clueless administrators to refer to them as DAO… Double Action Only. Which, of course, is wrong. The pistols only work ONE way- via trigger cocking. But I heard more than one admin type refer to the 5946 as "a 15 shot revolver".

S&W actually started this bullshit with their trigger-cocking 3rd generation pistols. You cannot blame them for it; they were giving the LE community what same had asked for… a "safer" pistol to issue to cops. Of course, "safer" meant "less prone to negligent discharge", but that's another whole topic best avoided here. The point is, certain terms like DAO stuck, and today are considered correct. And we're back to perception. Double Action Only, going by the true definition of single vs double action, is a self-contradicting term. Unfortunately, it has become totally entrenched in common lexicon. Those who don't know take it as gospel, which brings us to the current state of affairs.

Hopefully, you can now see why referring to the LEM as a DAO is not correct. It can actually trigger-cock, but only if one has a dud cartridge, or does not cycle the slide between dry-fire trigger pulls. The slide cycling actually pre-cocks the hammer and sets the sear; which produces a reasonably crisp "single action type" pull, with a looonnnggg (and almost effortless) take-up before getting to the sear release point… the so-called "wall". But if you pull the trigger and the slide doesn't cycle, the trigger pull is now a horrendously hard stroke all the way back, because the hammer must be cocked against the full power of the main spring. This, of course, is what nimrods refer to as the "second strike capability"; which is right up there with "bore axis" on the list of Shit You DON'T Need To Worry About. BTW, this horrendous pull is what the original HK V7 (which they described as DAO, of course) was like. It was HK's attempt to get on the then-current LE service pistol bandwagon, because trigger-cocking-only was hot and what America's cops wanted. I think they sold, like, ten of these horrible things, and finally snapped that something was wrong. Back to the drawing board, where the great Helmut Weddle pulled yet another rabbit out of his hat and saved the day, so to speak, with the LEM. I'm told it was the last major design he produced before retiring. OTOH, S&W spent a TON of money getting their system right, prior to release, and the result was not bad at all, in terms of trigger pull. But I digress…

Anyway, that's pretty much it. The term DAO is simply wrong, but most folks take it as holy writ, so I got tired of arguing about it. The fact that I lived (and worked) through the semi-auto revolution in the LE community probably has a lot to do with my impatience. But I'm astute enough to realize that, while the term is technically wrong, does it really matter???

Of course it doesn't; to the unwashed masses. Where it matters is to folks who are interested in learning the true differences between this pistol or that one, and applying that knowledge to improve their performance. But the incredible variety of available actions today just adds to the bewilderment. Such as the Sig DAK and its bizarre double reset. Or the difference between a Kahr and a Glock; both striker-fired, both utterly simple with very few parts, yet totally different trigger pulls.

As I age, I find myself getting more deeply into my curmudgeonly ways, and therefore am coming across as intolerant at times. That is not intentional (most times, anyway ), and in fact the current lexicon of guns, while sometimes at odds with what I learned the hard way- and therefore is somewhat offensive to me- does a pretty good job of getting most points across.

So, if I occasionally seem like a gruff old codger, out of touch with modern times… its because I am.

.

[ReverendMeat]

Okay, so LSP972, by your definition, a S&W 642 is "single action"?

More evidence that the terms have lost all meaning and should be avoided.