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

[MattyD380]

Again, this is not to say that you should carry a 92FS cocked. You most definitely shouldn’t.

That being said... why should you carry a P320 at all? ...if we're conceding that a cocked 92 and a slide-racked 320 are functionally identical.

That is a rhetorical question, of course.

I think the comment that "if you can't see it cocked, it's okay" is the reason that fully cocked guns without safeties are a thing nowadays. Looking at the historical context, I have some hypotheses on how that lapse in--for lack of a better term--common sense came to fruition:

1. When SFAs started to get popular, I'm not sure there was enough knowledge and transparency about what was going on inside the gun for people to really "get it." Maybe in some circles... but probably not for most gun buyers. And I'd venture to say that Glock's marketing (which, admittedly, I wasn't privy to) probably had a lot to do with the perception that it was somehow different or exempt from conventional logic around SAO, DAO and DA/SA.

2. Glocks aren't fully cocked. So, it seems like Gaston had some consideration for avoiding fully cocked carry. But, inevitably, people want lighter and lighter triggers... so we get 320s, PPQs and P10Cs. But without an external change, the approach to usage remained the same--as did the notion that a manual safety was some great travesty of tactical sanctity.

3. By now, the fact that these guns are mainstream exempts them from conventional logic. Again, most gun buyers are going to accept the status quo and go with what's marketed to them. To be honest, it blows my mind that PPQs are sold under the assumption that people are going to stick them in their pants, round chambered. There's clearly some level of disconnect between reality and the industry's projected notion of it. I mean, the freakin military put safeties on their 320s. Yet, the average Joe is too tactical to have one on his?

Caveat: I think the PPQ has a sweet trigger. But so do 1911s... and like a 1911... it needs a safety.

[spinmove_]

That being said... why should you carry a P320 at all? ...if we're conceding that a cocked 92 and a slide-racked 320 are functionally identical.

That is a rhetorical question, of course.

I think the comment that "if you can't see it cocked, it's okay" is the reason that fully cocked guns without safeties are a thing nowadays. Looking at the historical context, I have some hypotheses on how that lapse in--for lack of a better term--common sense came to fruition:

1. When SFAs started to get popular, I'm not sure there was enough knowledge and transparency about what was going on inside the gun for people to really "get it." Maybe in some circles... but probably not for most gun buyers. And I'd venture to say that Glock's marketing (which, admittedly, I wasn't privy to) probably had a lot to do with the perception that it was somehow different or exempt from conventional logic around SAO, DAO and DA/SA.

2. Glocks aren't fully cocked. So, it seems like Gaston had some consideration for avoiding fully cocked carry. But, inevitably, people want lighter and lighter triggers... so we get 320s, PPQs and P10Cs. But without an external change, the approach to usage remained the same--as did the notion that a manual safety was some great travesty of tactical sanctity.

3. By now, the fact that these guns are mainstream exempts them from conventional logic. Again, most gun buyers are going to accept the status quo and go with what's marketed to them. To be honest, it blows my mind that PPQs are sold under the assumption that people are going to stick them in their pants, round chambered. There's clearly some level of disconnect between reality and the industry's projected notion of it. I mean, the freakin military put safeties on their 320s. Yet, the average Joe is too tactical to have one on his?

Caveat: I think the PPQ has a sweet trigger. But so do 1911s... and like a 1911... it needs a safety.

To answer your rhetorical question, it boils down to two answers.

1.) You’re mandated to because your organization said so.

2.) You probably shouldn’t WITHOUT a thumb safety if you’re at all concerned with personal liability and safety.

It very much is an “out of sight, out of mind” thing. People understand hammers because they move and the concept is fairly straightforward. Striker guns are a different animal because you don’t have the visual feedback and they’re not all created equal. If there was more general awareness to how the various striker guns worked, you would probably see a shift. Since most people don’t have the time nor the interest to research such things, they don’t know what they don’t know and therefore workings of Striker Gun A = workings of Striker Gun B.

That said, again, if you were to split hairs, if you observed the 4 safety rules and your P320 had the “Voluntary Upgrade”, couldn’t it be argued that you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill?

I don’t think this is something to get too worked up over as you’re not going to be louder than the millions of ignorant first timers and casuals. Pick YOUR poison, carry on, lead by example, and be able to diplomatically articulate why you do what you do and carry what you carry. Some people might actually catch on. Some people will continue to carry a Taurus Judge with birdshot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MattyD380]

That said, again, if you were to split hairs, if you observed the 4 safety rules and your P320 had the “Voluntary Upgrade”, couldn’t it be argued that you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill?k

No doubt it’s been covered before... but... under the 4 safety rules argument, why not carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked? I would guess those rules exist to minimize the risk of human error causing an issue; they don’t assume (or shouldn’t) assume that human error doesn’t exist—even with training and proper equipment.

Basically, what I’m saying is.... we should all carry P7s. H&K, help us end this bickering once and for all.

[GJM]

I am unsure why the PPQ has become the poster child for unsafe striker carry pistols? Compared to a Glock, it has a similar weight trigger pull, has more pre-travel than a Glock, but shorter reset. Seems like more pre-travel is a positive, and shorter reset is irrelevant. I am not aware of any instances where the firing pin (striker) block safety in a PPQ has failed.

[spinmove_]

No doubt it’s been covered before... but... under the 4 safety rules argument, why not carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked? I would guess those rules exist to minimize the risk of human error causing an issue; they don’t assume (or shouldn’t) assume that human error doesn’t exist—even with training and proper equipment.

Basically, what I’m saying is.... we should all carry P7s. H&K, help us end this bickering once and for all.

Yes, because I want to burn my hands every time I take a pistol class.

So, why not carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked? For the same reason you shouldn’t carry a 92FS cocked. You have layers of mechanical error-retardants at your disposal and you should use them appropriately. You also probably don’t want to point the muzzle of the gun at your hand either.

Just because a P320 sans thumb safety and grip safety is almost the same thing doesn’t mean you should treat a 1911 with a thumb safety and a grip safety the same way. It’s all about mitigating mistakes with multiple layers of software and hardware checks. Fail enough checks and you get a boom when you didn’t want one. SFA guns, in general, have fewer hardware checks that mitigate the unintentional boom than other trigger systems. Again, in general. There most definitely are exceptions, like thumb safeties, grip safeties, and gadgets.

Humans are not infallible, therefore hardware safeties to mitigate mistakes exist. Hardware safeties are not infallible, therefore the 4 safety rules exist to mitigate failures. Have both.

I can feel your followup question to this coming. And I’m going to guess it’s something along the lines of “Well why would you ever want to carry a SFA pistol without an additional layer of safety?” The answer to that would be one of three things.

1.) You don’t know any better and/or you like simple solutions.

2.) You’re mandated to and don’t have any choice.

3.) You wouldn’t, so you don’t.

#1 isn’t meant to be a slam on anyone. Liking simple solutions can be a good thing. Being ignorant of a thing isn’t necessarily a bad thing. SFA pistols are prevalent for a reason and that reason is that they’re simple to operate, hold more bullets than revolvers, are typically easier to shoot than revolvers, and typically cost less than revolvers. All of that is well and good, but it doesn’t come without a cost. That cost is that you have to be more on your game with the 4 safety rules as you have fewer hardware checks between you and the boom. It’s all about the pros and cons.

Like I’ve said before. Pick what YOU want, but ALWAYS work on being the best gun handler you possibly can be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GlockenSpiel]

Actually, if you look at the period when it was released, it's very likely that Glock wanted to at least somewhat tension the mainspring with the trigger pull. Double actions were in vogue, cocked and locked was considered unsafe, and Glock's design allowed him to market the gun as being equivalent to a double action.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

I think that for a SFA, I like the Glock mechanism and its safe mechanical characteristics enough to not bother with anything else. If I understand it correctly, for the firing pin to escape the control of the trigger bar would require the lug on the back of the striker that engages the bar to break off, or the bar to crack and break in ways that seem extraordinarily unlikely to occur. With all the things that have ever gone wrong with stock and modified Glocks, that's not one I've heard of. For reasons unrelated to safety, I expect to soon no longer own any Glocks.

I have DAO and TDA, like them both. I'm with Tom in liking DAO more than most. I'm contemplating whether all remaining non-rimfire SAOs should find new homes.

[MattyD380]

I am unsure why the PPQ has become the poster child for unsafe striker carry pistols? Compared to a Glock, it has a similar weight trigger pull, has more pre-travel than a Glock, but shorter reset. Seems like more pre-travel is a positive, and shorter reset is irrelevant. I am not aware of any instances where the firing pin (striker) block safety in a PPQ has failed.

Subjectively, the break felt more... decisive? Whereas a Glock has some rolling resistance before the break. Net, it didn't really feel different than a SA trigger (a Glock, to me, does). I remember really liking it, actually. Then I kinda did the math and realized it wasn't something I'd want to carry loaded. P320 felt similar--like an SA gun. APX, maybe slightly more takeup? Can't really remember if I've ever dry fired a VP9.

They all have firing blocks. They're all drop safe, save for the P320 shenanigans. I think the question in contention whether or not the capacity for human error should dictate hardware (i.e., safety) design.

[Olim9]

I’m confuzzled... did @Tom_Jones edit one of my posts? I’m looking at this thread and I’m the OP yet my post was one I made in the APX thread.

[10mmfanboy]

If I could find a lightweight TDA pistol that was not pushing 30 oz or more I'd be all over it. But I'd also need a fairly small counterpart to it's big brother. The problem is even if there were a very small TDA pistol that was thin and light weight I wouldn't be able to shoot it very well with a 10 ish # trigger pull. I am super boring and stick to the same line of firearm. Beretta's for TDA and Glocks for SFA. If the Glock SCD didn't exist I would have moved on from a Glock. However I would never feel comfortable with the newer " Glock Killers" of the month. If I had lots of experience with using a thumb safety I'd give an m&p 2.0 a try again. But I'm not willing to retrain myself to defeat a manual safety after drawing. I have to admit though Glocks get boring as hell after awhile.

I think if manufactures would release TDA pistols with awesome triggers right out of the box more people would get on board with them. I have no interest spending $500 on a polymer pistol and then having to spend another $350-500 into a trigger to make it more to my liking. It gets more and more painfully obvious that manufactures think they need to make a SFA polymer pistol to stay in business anymore. Right or wrong, safe or less safe doesn't really make a difference. The demand is for polymer frame SFA pistols.