Is Decocking a TDA Pistol Strictly Necessary?

[john c]

After reading all the posts, I guess what I'm boiling this down to is why is the P320 "okay" for duty/SD/HD use, and we have an emotional freak out about the concept of carrying DA/SA pistol in condition 0? Mechanically, they seem the same to me.

As a disclaimer, I've never carried or seriously trained with anything other than a Glock.

[willie]

The SA part of SA/DA usually become lighter with use. Once trigger slack is taken up, in SA shooting hammer-sear engagement requires small distance of movement to trip the hammer. Best practice has dictated that it is unacceptable. My opinion is that condition zero offers no advantage over shooting the first shot double action. The method would fail to make use of built in safety features and might put the officer at disadvantage in a gun grab. Glocks lack the built in safety features, and this fact makes me a tad uncomfortable.

I see why you ask the question but say that people trained on this system would not carry distance zero. Me I would not shoot, plink, or be around someone who elected this method.

[GJM]

I... already did? Post #66.

Contrasted with the Glock, and virtually every other striker gun that has a trigger dongle (APX, VP9, XD (blech), PPQ, Canik, Steyr M9, P10) or a "decockable" action (P99). Hell, even the Hudson had a dongle.

I'm not a huge fan of the hinged M&P trigger, either for feel or as a means of addressing partial snags.

Sigs just have a plain trigger shoe and a fully-cocked striker with little-to-no pretravel. I cannot think of another prolific model on the market that combines those features, or fathom why a manufacturer would think those features are a "good idea" for a duty pistol.

So to summarize, you feel the P320 design is a deficient design because it does not have a tabbed trigger, it has “little to no pretravel,” and it is a “fully cocked striker?”

[JSGlock34]

I think the best commentary on this was made by Ernest Langdon on Mike Seeklander's Podcast. Skip to the 51:30 minute mark.

American Warrior Show (#142)

[JRV]

So to summarize, you feel the P320 design is a deficient design because it does not have a tabbed trigger, it has “little to no pretravel,” and it is a “fully cocked striker?”

That's a fair representation of my concerns with respect to duty use and defensive carry of the P320. I will certainly concede that my criticism or wariness of the design has no import to the manual safety models.

Also, I do want to note that I was unaware of Mr. Langdon's sentiments as expressed in the podcast cited above. I won't appeal to authority or opinion of another person to reinforce my own, necessarily, but I do appreciate that I'm not exactly spouting irrational crazy-talk.

[DpdG]

So to summarize, you feel the P320 design is a deficient design because it does not have a tabbed trigger, it has “little to no pretravel,” and it is a “fully cocked striker?”

I guess this is the crux of the debate and perhaps where some polite disagreement will linger- in my own opinion, (ignoring the drop safety issue) there is no substantive difference between the P320 and other common SFA pistols in regards to human error mitigation. I perceive the P320 has similar trigger pre-travel as my G19x, and I don’t think the pretensioning of the striker has any bearing on human error. As I already stated, I view the trigger safety is functionally part of the drop safety system, not UD/ND prevention.

Again, I’m also in agreement with DB, Ernest, and others- basically all SFA pistols are good for shooting, not necessarily at threat management when compared to TDA or DAO/LEM style systems.

[YVK]

I think the original question here is, given the proliferation of the P320 and P365, where the triggers have short, crisp breaks....

I've glanced through the thread and didn't notice this addressed. I don't own a 320, but I do have a 365xl and a ton of Glocks, and I've owned or still own practically every major DA/SA gun. Comparing stock to stock, the strikers have had between 20% and 100+% heavier trigger pulls than SA pulls (depending on what SA gun was), and considerably longer pre-travel. While qualitatively those are similar pull-bang things, they are very different quantitatively.

[JRV]

I've glanced through the thread and didn't notice this addressed. I don't own a 320, but I do have a 365xl and a ton of Glocks, and I've owned or still own practically every major DA/SA gun. Comparing stock to stock, the strikers have had between 20% and 100+% heavier trigger pulls than SA pulls (depending on what SA gun was), and considerably longer pre-travel. While qualitatively those are similar pull-bang things, they are very different quantitatively.

I think spinmove had a post in the 70s on this about trigger distance being more of the relevant matter than weight. Based on experience, if you're considering 1911s, 2011s, Limited 2/3s, or TSOs as the archetypes of SA triggers, you're absolutely right. Those triggers are absolutely shorter than a SFA P320 trigger. I shot an Arex competition model (Zero1 Alpha, I think?) last month with a SA trigger that was almost suitable for damn smallbore matches.

It's been my consistent experience that 92s, PX4s, USPs, CZ75/P01/P07/P09s, and 3rd gen Smiths have waaaaay more trigger travel/slop in SA than P320s. The break point of a P320 is not that much further back than the trigger shoe's forwardmost position.

Maybe your experience has been different, but I would not want to jazz with a P320 in any sort of combative environment, especially if that environment called for me to reholster while going hands on or reholster while on the move.

[GJM]

I think spinmove had a post in the 70s on this about trigger distance being more of the relevant matter than weight. Based on experience, if you're considering 1911s, 2011s, Limited 2/3s, or TSOs as the archetypes of SA triggers, you're absolutely right. Those triggers are absolutely shorter than a SFA P320 trigger. I shot an Arex competition model (Zero1 Alpha, I think?) last month with a SA trigger that was almost suitable for damn smallbore matches.

It's been my consistent experience that 92s, PX4s, USPs, CZ75/P01/P07/P09s, and 3rd gen Smiths have waaaaay more trigger travel/slop in SA than P320s. The break point of a P320 is not that much further back than the trigger shoe's forwardmost position.

Maybe your experience has been different, but I would not want to jazz with a P320 in any sort of combative environment, especially if that environment called for me to reholster while going hands on or reholster while on the move.

I just pulled a 43X and 365 out of the safe. Both triggers break between 5 and 6 pounds, depending where on the trigger you measure. Both have similar amounts of pre travel. The 365 actually has more trigger travel from the wall to where it breaks than the 43X.

[YVK]

It is possible that trigger pull is more relevant than weight, although I am yet to see that FBI study that everyone is talking about with my own eyes.

That said, I don't think that it means that trigger weight is not relevant. My CZC P01 and SDP had 3.25 SA pulls, my Langdon 92 and PX4 are / were under 4, and WC BrigTac with action job at 4, all that way out of box and all carry/duty intended pistols. As I said, no experience with 320, but the 365XL is 7 lbs and long pretravel and all stock Glocks were closer to or above 6 than advertised 5.5. In my eyes, there is really no comparison.