DA/SA vs SFA vs ... -- 2019 Edition

[1986s4]

Deleted

[Clusterfrack]

I just watched the video, and I don't like Pannone's reholster technique very much. He really slams that P-07 into the holster, like he's engaging a retention holster. There's no reason to do that, and good reason not to. Contrast that with @Mr_White 's holstering technique, where there is a deliberate deceleration, and plenty of time to feel a problem before something bad happens. And, as I mentioned earlier, I prefer to place my thumb on the hammer to 1) verify that the gun is decocked, and 2) feel if the hammer is coming back due to an obstruction to the trigger.

The only thing I am willing to say with 100 percent certainty is nobody ever wins an internet argument.

When you look at aircraft crashes, a very high percentage, as in 80 percent or more, come from pilot error, and the balance come from mechanical causes. Generally there is an accident chain, with more than one mistake required to result in an accident.

In flying, we literally rely on the machine working to keep us in the air. In shooting, we can stop at any moment, so my guess is shooter error accounts for an even higher percentage of accidents than in flying. We have had discussion on the theoretical safety of various platforms, but my belief is that shooter behavior is where most of the opportunity is to prevent accidents. Accidents generally require more than one error, with a rule 2 violation one of them, to result in a bullet injuring someone.

One of the things I love about hammer guns, is being able to place my thumb on the hammer when holstering. However, observing shooters at USPSA matches, I can’t remember the last time I saw a shooter holster a DA/SA, with a thumb on their hammer after the make ready command. Some would say that just may be gamers. Consider that Mike Pannone is considered one of the top trainers, with a specialty for concealed carry, and a long association with the P07 as his EDC gun. Watch this video, and he neither places his thumb on the hammer when holstering, or mentions it as a desired technique.



Aside from me, and the two dozen posters on PF that carry a DA/SA for EDC, wonder what the percentage of the greater universe of DA/SA owners knows to thumb their hammer, and actually does it? My own belief is that the availability of kydex holsters, molded to a particular model pistol with a covered trigger guard has done more to improve safety than any hammer, gadget, etc. If we could get people to use a proper holster, and not cover themselves with their muzzle when they draw and holster, we could probably go a long way to reduce gun accidents.

[TheNewbie]

The young guys at the local gun store took more interest in the SCD than most cops I know. The keep your finger of the trigger and nothing can or will go wrong mindset is strong. They ignore the idea that we all make mistakes or that outside factors can lead to bad things. In fact they almost have a condescending view of more safety steps.


Of course keeping your finger of the trigger is the ultimate safety step, but it doesn’t hurt to have others.

[FNFAN]

I did not originate in a household with handguns. I started handgunning at age 21, in late 1982 or early 1983, with a Detonics 1911. At the time, I thought revolvers were quaint historical artifacts, and that DA/SA was a “solution in search of a problem.” Yes, indeed, I had been reading Col. Jeff Cooper, plus WW I and WW II history. Yes, the 1911 was THE way. Well, this particular Detonics was finicky, but I knew that when I could afford a grown-up 1911, a real Colt, things would be wonderful.

Well, by late 1983, I had to buy a quaint artifact, in order to attend a police academy, and then to carry on the street from March 1984 to March 1985. Thanks to some wonderful instructors, I learned that DA revolvers were still quite relevant. The 1911 was A way, not THE way, and the DA revolver, too, was A way.

When March 1985 arrived, I could carry an auto-loading pistol on duty, and being a very progressive handgunner, wanting to be equipped with the bleeding-edge tech, I had a new HK P7, riding in my hand-crafted, custom-made-to-PD-spec George Malone flap-type duty holster. Yes, HK P7, perhaps not THE way, but certainly one really good way. 9mm ammo may not have had the best reputation, at the time, but my hand needed to heal, after too much training with the S&W Model 629, that had served as my rookie year duty revolver.

I returned to the DA Sixgun in late 1985, though the kinder, gentler S&W Model 58 .41 Magnum, when my empoyer approved open-top, retention-style duty holsters, for revolvers. One particular scare, trying to get my P7 clear of the well-fitted flap holster, had taught me that the whole system had to work.

About 1990, some time after the Safariland SSIII/070 became the official duty holster for autos, I returned to the 1911, and carried a reliable Colt Stainless Commander, on and off the clock, until, well, it developed some kind of yip, so I switched to a SIG P220, with the heel-clip mag release, in 1991. In short order, I loved DA/SA. Yes, another way. Well, it was a way, until I four incidents of the heel-clip snagging in patrol car seats, partially releasing the magazine. A colleague’s P220 partially released its magazine when a criminal knocked him backward, into a fence. This was not a DA/SA problem, but a big practical problem, that could get me killed in the streets, so, I went to supply division, and traded my P220 duty holster for an SSIII duty holster for my GP100.

I used mostly DA revolvers, on and off the clock, until 1997, when I returned to using 1911 pistols. Grown-up, 5” 1911 pistols. On and off the clock. The 1911 was, still, a way. The SSIII holster was an imperfect carry system, as releasing the two retention devices was not conducive to attaining a proper grip, so, reluctantly, I switched duty pistols yet again. Due to a change in duty pistol policy, I could not return to revolvers, so, the default choice became the G22. Instead of Glocks being my 24/7 pistols, however, I tended to use revolvers during personal time.

My final new pistol system became the DAK, in 2004. DAK mimicked a nicely ‘smithed S&W sixgun trigger pull. I added a couple of DA/SA P229 pistols, too. All else being equal, I liked DA/SA when shooting lefty, and DAK when shooting right-handed.

Jumping forward to retirement, I now use 9mm G17 and G19x Glocks, full-sized 1911s, and a range of revolvers. Nothing wrong with SIG, except that the high bore axis works against the best interest of my gimpy right hand, so I only kept my one DAK SIG, for the memories.

Summary: I could use any of these systems, today. Each has its good points. None is perfect.

That's a great chronicle of duty weaponry. Thanks!

[Vista461]

First centerfire handgun I ever shot was a Beretta 92 back around 1992. First one I bought was a Ruger P89 then got rid of that for a Glock 23 in 1994. Since then I’ve had some 3rd Gen Smiths and various Glocks and M&P’s. I’m swinging back to DA/SA and metal frames myself. Just picked up a 92A1 that I’ll be switching to this year for work and retiring the Gen3 Glock 22 RTF2 again.

I guess as I’m getting older I just appreciate the better SA trigger over the striker fired guns and there is just something about metal frame guns that keep drawing me back. The 92A1 comes with 17rd mags so I’m not losing capacity to most full size 9mm striker guns. I’m lucky to work where I can use mostly whatever I want except single actions.

May next decision is which DA/SA gun I’m getting for off duty since I want to stay consistent for action types on and off.

[Aisin Gioro]

Since this thread has morphed into the 2019 version of the Bestest General Pistol Firing Mechanism Ever thread (I say "general" because I personally think lumping all striker fired actions in the same category regardless of their implementation is "wrong"), I'll go ahead and end the debate by providing the correct answer (which I don't think has been mentioned yet). DAO.

This, so much this. The DAO has a terrible image problem with the general shooting population, but in reality, I think it offers an awful lot of advantages with few disadvantages. I suspect part of the problem is that most of those disadvantages show up more apparently in competition/gaming than they do in real-life duty and defense use and, like it or not, games are driving the market more and more these days. Hence we get people running Skimmers, etc. even in their carry guns, because, hey, it worked so well in the IDPA club matches they shot last year and "OMG, my splits!".

Compared to the shorter learning curve of striker guns, the DAO just seems too arcane for many people. At the institutional level, getting good quals means a bit more time, money, and effort teaching people (often people with limited enthusiasm for shooting) how to gain the advantages of the DAO. Those are three things that most organizations are already short of, and since you don't really appreciate the advantages of the DAO until you either examine the issue from all angles or actually experience them, there isn't much impetus to spend precious resources overcoming the more elongated learning curve. To slightly paraphrase Charles MacKay from Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, "The crowd does not form a new average, it finds the lowest common denominator." Striker fired actions fit the most apparent needs of the lowest common denominator, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but does eclipse some really strong benefits that the extra investment in DAO can bring. Ironically, the DAO also meets the needs of the lowest common denominator in some other important ways, but those seem to get lost in the shuffle more now than they did in, say, the early 1990s.

Not saying it's the only good option, or even that it's always the best option, but DAO is almost always something to take a long look at for people interested in pistols for serious purposes.

[Arbninftry]

Like many religious discussions, the claimed superiority of any particular pistol action system is rooted more in belief and feelings than fact.

Don’t bring religion into this! MOSES designed a 1911

And Bill Wilson perfected it in 9mm.

[fixer]

How often has a defect cause a Glock pistol to fire? How often have people had accidental discharges with them that might have been prevented by the habit of riding the hammer?

I don’t like Glocks or feel that they’re particularly safe out of the box (I do carry them with an SCD) but your reasoning seems specious. It sounds a lot like you don’t want to admit that you could have an AD.

Someone who /can/ admit that wants as many layers of safety as they can get without severely compromising the use of the pistol.

It is likely an unknowable quantity how many stock Glocks have had a defect causing them to fire.

I'm looking at elements of design.

Frame, slide, sear, striker, FPB, FPB spring, any one of those could be off spec or all could be off spec (tolerance stacking) leading to a UD. You could say the same thing about a DA/SA pistol or 92 specifically, but the list would be much, much longer, and at the end of it you still have a hammer that you can control.

I'm not afraid to admit I'm capable of having an AD. Not sure where this comment derives from...but as a human I'm supremely fallible.

Full disclosure: I have a safe stuffed full of Glocks. I shoot them better than my Berettas, with more consistency. However in analyzing the full spectrum of firearm use I find added comfort in a zero-energy trigger system.

[BehindBlueI's]

It is likely an unknowable quantity how many stock Glocks have had a defect causing them to fire.

Is there any proven case of a defect in a stock Glock causing it to fire?

[spinmove_]

Wow, how did I miss this shit-show of a thread until now? ;P

I’ve been down this road so many times in my head over and over it’s not even funny. Weighing the pros and cons of this trigger system vs that trigger system and yadda yadda yadda.

The fact of the matter is that there isn’t any one system that is inherently superior than the others in general and overall. Each and every single one of them is a balancing act of pure shootability vs raw perceived safety. At the end of the day they’re all tools that the end user must wield competently. And that right there is the rub. Can the end user wield the tool competently? If you’re following the 4 rules then it doesn’t ultimately doesn’t matter what you’re running/carrying/shooting.

What’s great about this place is that we can intelligently dive into the minutiae on everything and learn something, but sometimes it’s our own undoing. Paralysis by analysis coupled with devout preference for what we like breeds an interestingly special kind of derp. We need to get past that and appreciate the various tools we have at our disposal and boy howdy do we have a crap load of decent tools from which to select these days.

Here are the things that I think are important. Is your chosen pistol platform durable, reliable, and devoid of obvious defects? Are you the end user able to wield said tool safely and competently? If you can honestly and assuredly answer both questions with a yes...then who gives a crap what you carry?

Buy, carry, and maintain quality hardware. Be safe, don’t suck, and fix your software. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Jerry Miculek can kick your ass with a wheelgun. Architect Allan can carry a 1911 everyday. Rotary Club Rachel might have a PPK in her purse. Whomever you are just get better than you were yesterday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk