Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 240

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

  1. #21
    Site Supporter jetfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sioux Falls
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    I strongly prefer whatever I happen to currently be shooting.
    My favorite gun is whatever I'm getting paid to shoot
    I shot the PX4 before it was cool.

  2. #22
    Trying to insist DA/SA is superior is just selling opinion. It's my opinion DA/SA is a safety crutch.

    One of the main pistols I learned on as a youngster was an early Sig P220 (heel clip release for the magazine). It was a fine gun. I also learned on BHP's and 1911's. I had to shoot the M9 during my years in uniform. There is nothing anyone can say or do that will ever get me to prefer a DA/SA gun over a SAO or SFA gun. For those shooters who believe DA/SA is easier to shoot... I'll never understand that. For those who believe it's safer because the first press requires more weight, I think that's a load of marketing manure. Any schmuck who lets his booger eater inside the trigger guard can/will have a negligent discharge regardless of trigger weight. And frankly I'm not willing to handicap my ability to run the gun because someone else relies on the DA trigger for "additional safety" nonsense. I liken it to the M16 after Vietnam losing full auto to a 3 round burst. Rather than fix a training problem (shooters firing wild and un-aimed into the jungle), they changed the weapon. It's my opinion that DA/SA is a hardware solution for a software problem.

    Working as a firearms instructor I've seen plenty of LEO's who barely run a gun well enough to qualify. But giving them a DA/SA isn't going to make me feel any safer, and I don't see it reducing liability on the street. If ND's are a problem, fix the problem - the shooter. Don't punish the rest of us by "fixing" the gun.
    Unless you have a large, tubular optic on your pistol, front slide serrations are dumb and cosmetic. It pains me to see armed professionals get so excited over them.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter jetfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sioux Falls
    Quote Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
    Trying to insist DA/SA is superior is just selling opinion. It's my opinion DA/SA is a safety crutch.

    One of the main pistols I learned on as a youngster was an early Sig P220 (heel clip release for the magazine). It was a fine gun. I also learned on BHP's and 1911's. I had to shoot the M9 during my years in uniform. There is nothing anyone can say or do that will ever get me to prefer a DA/SA gun over a SAO or SFA gun. For those shooters who believe DA/SA is easier to shoot... I'll never understand that. For those who believe it's safer because the first press requires more weight, I think that's a load of marketing manure. Any schmuck who lets his booger eater inside the trigger guard can/will have a negligent discharge regardless of trigger weight. And frankly I'm not willing to handicap my ability to run the gun because someone else relies on the DA trigger for "additional safety" nonsense. I liken it to the M16 after Vietnam losing full auto to a 3 round burst. Rather than fix a training problem (shooters firing wild and un-aimed into the jungle), they changed the weapon. It's my opinion that DA/SA is a hardware solution for a software problem.

    Working as a firearms instructor I've seen plenty of LEO's who barely run a gun well enough to qualify. But giving them a DA/SA isn't going to make me feel any safer, and I don't see it reducing liability on the street. If ND's are a problem, fix the problem - the shooter. Don't punish the rest of us by "fixing" the gun.
    Giving someone a striker fired gun because a DA/SA is "too hard to shoot" is also a hardware solution to a software problem.
    I shot the PX4 before it was cool.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by jetfire View Post
    Giving someone a striker fired gun because a DA/SA is "too hard to shoot" is also a hardware solution to a software problem.
    Not really - the DA/SA only exists as a “fix” to having every trigger press the same (whether a striker or hammer SA gun is irrelevant). That's circular logic. The shooters shouldn’t have to get used to or master a DA/SA gun, because they are a safety crutch and never should have been issued in the first place.


    Back to the original topic, I wonder if the single stack will debut before the Beretta APX rebate is over. It was $50 last year and I was able to resist. But now it's $75 for any APX purchase between Feb 1 and Apr 30th. Combined with Arms Unlimited's $440 price tag, I couldn't say no.

    http://promo.beretta.com/2019-apx-pr...645.1525213299

  5. #25
    Site Supporter Les Pepperoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SRQ - Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
    For those shooters who believe DA/SA is easier to shoot...
    I don't believe it is easier to shoot for the neophyte. That said, I don't think that any gun is easier for the newbie.
    Reality is, they'll get used to whatever is given.

    Does the longer DA pull take some time to master? Maybe.

    If I had two new shooters equal in skill and gave one a glock and the other a 92 and said they had to accomplish some task and get training, I think both would rise to whatever challenge was laid before 'em.

    Quote Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
    For those who believe it's safer because the first press requires more weight, I think that's a load of marketing manure.
    I don't think it is the weight, necessarily, as much as the mechanical action: e.g. it does two things: cock and release the hammer.
    I think it is the cocking of the hammer coupled, which generally takes a bit more force that most people appreciate...
    Personally, I think the hammer on a DA/SA gun gives a nice margin of feedback/status and layers well on the "thumb-check" doctrine that most trainers espouse.

    Quote Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
    Any schmuck who lets his booger eater inside the trigger guard can/will have a negligent discharge regardless of trigger weight.
    I don't think anyone disagrees.

    Quote Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
    And frankly I'm not willing to handicap my ability to run the gun because someone else relies on the DA trigger for "additional safety" nonsense.
    I think this is more of a departmental policy... That decision seems to fall to whoever gets bought to the titty-bar, promised some swag/training/trade-in gear, etc...

    Let's face it tho: most of these designs actually work alright. If it was such a handicap, would top-10 Production division USPSA dudes be wrecking folks with DA/SA guns?

    It is only a problem if you think it is a problem. If you want to go SF, it's a free country...

    Quote Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
    It's my opinion that DA/SA is a hardware solution for a software problem.
    Actually... (LOL) I think it is just a mechanical solution that was durable, reliable and well-understood at the time. I don't claim to understand enough of firearms design/history, but other than a few vest pocket guns/etc, there weren't really many striker-fired designs pre 1970's?

    Quote Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
    If ND's are a problem, fix the problem - the shooter.
    I don't think anyone disagrees.

  6. #26
    Les, for competition use it is hard to separate the benefit of DA/SA as a trigger system from the light SA pull weights of these DA/SA guns and their 40+ ounce empty weights. I suspect a 45 ounce striker with a 2.5 pound trigger would be pretty darn competitive in USPSA Production.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  7. #27
    So like a Walther Q5 SF with that springco kit to get the trigger pull weight down? That'd be an interesting comparison with a Shadow 2.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by jbrimlow View Post
    So like a Walther Q5 SF with that springco kit to get the trigger pull weight down? That'd be an interesting comparison with a Shadow 2.
    I would like a Shadow 2 lower (longer, more ergonomic, easier to reload) and Q5 Upper.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Polecat View Post
    Because it’s title “APX single stack!”
    So far
    All I have seen talked about, besides the op, is HK Nano Pico 509 FN
    Aimpoint Springfield PPS P320 Glock 19 Walther PPQ M&P 2.0 Beretta type M
    P6 239 M9 Walter Q5 Shawdow 2 wQ5 upper. Wait a few pages they will be talking about another subject completely 😁
    uneducated and low information
    I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
    He needed a healthy dose of bonded bullets. LSP552

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Pepperoni View Post
    I don't believe it is easier to shoot for the neophyte. That said, I don't think that any gun is easier for the newbie.
    Reality is, they'll get used to whatever is given.

    Does the longer DA pull take some time to master? Maybe.

    If I had two new shooters equal in skill and gave one a glock and the other a 92 and said they had to accomplish some task and get training, I think both would rise to whatever challenge was laid before 'em.



    I don't think it is the weight, necessarily, as much as the mechanical action: e.g. it does two things: cock and release the hammer.
    I think it is the cocking of the hammer coupled, which generally takes a bit more force that most people appreciate...
    Personally, I think the hammer on a DA/SA gun gives a nice margin of feedback/status and layers well on the "thumb-check" doctrine that most trainers espouse.


    I don't think anyone disagrees.


    I think this is more of a departmental policy... That decision seems to fall to whoever gets bought to the titty-bar, promised some swag/training/trade-in gear, etc...

    Let's face it tho: most of these designs actually work alright. If it was such a handicap, would top-10 Production division USPSA dudes be wrecking folks with DA/SA guns?

    It is only a problem if you think it is a problem. If you want to go SF, it's a free country...



    Actually... (LOL) I think it is just a mechanical solution that was durable, reliable and well-understood at the time. I don't claim to understand enough of firearms design/history, but other than a few vest pocket guns/etc, there weren't really many striker-fired designs pre 1970's?


    I don't think anyone disagrees.
    Agreed. So why have it? I had heard it was good for folks moving from revolvers to pistols back when there were lots of shooters making that change, but if we can train a shooter to an acceptable level why have Da/SA? Especially in a Gadget world for those who want it. It’s not my fault @Tom_Jones hasn’t made them for the other SFA guns. Lol!

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •