My first 2 pistols were Sig's, so i started on DA/SA. I had no interest in Glocks until i tried one and realized how much more efficient that trigger was, compared to my Sig's. I still love Sig's and HK's, but striker fired makes more sense to me. Especially for running a pistol at speed.
Understand this completely.Originally Posted by ToddG
i.e. One should not expect to learn specifics from someone who doesn't understand (let alone appreciate) said specifics themselves.
It makes perfect sense that learning to do something that has, for lack of a better term, a "higher degree of difficulty" makes it easier to do similar things that have a lower degree of difficulty. Not that I think the DA/SA is harder than SFA, it just sounds like it has a moderately more involved learning curve. No big deal in my view, it just means that I might have to work at it harder than I do for SFA in order to achieve the same level of proficiency. Then again, I might also pick it up fairly easily. Guess I'll find out soon enough.
On the training front, my plan was to reach out to F2S for some private session work (and to see how they handle DA/SA) in the near future as I'm only a couple hours away from the NC location. Hopefully all will be good to go in that respect. Either way though, I'll still get some much needed quality instruction.
This forum, as well as PT.com, have helped to expose me to things I might not have had an opportunity to see so clearly on my own. Glad I came across both of them. Thanks again for this post, and both websites. They really cut through the BS and help me focus.
If you can't taste the sarcasm, try licking the screen.
Gettin’ old and blind ain’t for sissies. ~ 41Magfan
I can personally attest to Jack's (F2S) knowledge and ability when it comes to running and teaching a DA/SA gun.
All the greats have spoken...my two cents...
Surprise break!
I started with the M1911A1 in the Army BUT my initial Double Action training was as a cop in the academy. The double action revolver ruled and that was the tool we had to learn. No instructors were telling us about something better or different. The DA revolver was simply the only option in school.
Be that as it may they did a hell of a job teaching the DA stroke to make our revolvers sing. Smooth, steady, equal pressure on the trigger and let the shot go off as a surprise. DO NOT try to MAKE the gun go off, instead apply smooth and steady pressure UNTIL it goes off. That was what made the DA pull work for me. Since I shot a lot of revolver police competition back then the DA pull has been my best kept secret for when I was winning.
In my case the DA/SA system was not such a hardship. I started in city cop work with the revolver and then moved on to a S&W model 39, Model 59, Beretta SB and Browning Double Action. All of these had the long heavy first shot and the transition to the SA mode. It worked well for me BUT the SA mode was nothing like a good SA trigger on a M1911 or Revolver. It was a long take up, mushy type of thing to be worked through. That was when I became enamored of the DAO style when I returned to LE. My agency was issuing the Beretta 92D Centurion model and the DAO pull was a very sweet and smooth pull through like my old S&W revolvers. I fell in love. To this day I prefer it and have no real interest in switching back to a TDA pistol. The Glock platform or striker fired system gives me a DAO type of clockwork with a lighter and shorter pull through. I prefer it for competition and it is a great carry option off duty BUT I believe the DAO from a Beretta or SIG is a better option for my police job.
Having said all of that I would like to mention that the DA/SA system is one I am comfortable with and shoot well. If it was the issued gun I would be quite comfortable with it and strive to master it. It is also a better choice for some training venues. Pulling a DAO Beretta trigger four or five hundred times a day in a gun class can be a real workout on the hand. Those days I longed for the Beretta FS model to ease my suffering.
Back to the moment...Surprise Break!!!
Smooth, steady pull through and Surprise Break!!!
That is the secret to the Double Action and all other types of trigger work. Surprise Break!
My opinion and worth what you paid for it.
I kind of agree that Surprise Break is not the most useful term. Smooth and steady pull is what matters. I know when it's going to break the shot - I just need to not care when its going to break the shot, or plan for it, or time it, or anything like that. Ignore the break and keep the sights on target for the trigger pull, and *don't* run the trigger itself slower just because you're really aiming and taking your time on a target.
So Todd, if you were to pick one of two CZ SP-01s as a training/home defense gun do you think you would pick the SP-01 Tactical (SA/DA, decock only) over the standard SP-01 (SA/DA, safety only)?
I ask because I'd never considered the Tactical as a serious option until I read this thread. I just defaulted to the idea of getting the standard model and running it like a 1911 and ignoring the DA option. I might prefer the safety route, but at least I'm giving the alternative some consideration. For reference, I don't own either. I have a Glock 19.
I couldn't answer that question. Both are viable options with different manuals of arms. Personally, I would opt for the decocker version assuming the DA trigger stroke was smooth.
It's a funny thing, but I've personally found that the more conscious thought I put into my trigger press, the worse it tends to be. When I get hyper focused on it, my sight alignment tends to go to pot while I'm spending my time actively thinking about how I'm interfacing with the trigger surface.
If I just forget about it and squeeze straight through, I end up with hits closest to where I had intended.
It's a lot of why I got into the habit of releasing a bit further past the reset point when I was shooting LEM. I found it kept me from thinking too much about the press and made me less likely to jerk the trigger on the next press. I've carried the habit over to other action types and have found it beneficial there too (though it seemed to make the biggest difference with LEM; I suspect due to the fact that the pretravel let me start applying pressure without having the prebreak wall bring my conscious caveman brain into things).
At my job we carried the 3rd gen S&W 9mms for almost 20 years. I started with revolvers, and by then it was standard in police work to basically never use the SA, all training and quals were shot DA, so when we went to the 5906 as an issued weapon I had no issues with the first shot, weirdly enough if was the SA shots that would jack me up.
I spent time at several shooting and SWAT classes with my S&Ws, often with other guys from my job. I noted that although we took crap from guys carrying Glocks or Sigs about using what was thought to be a crappy brand of gun firing tiny little girly bullets that we normally outshot everybody else in the classes.
I competed a bit when I was still in the Guard, I found the Beretta just as easy to shoot well as the 1911s we had before, but we are talking straight off the rack guns in that regard so the 1911s in question were far from someone's custom target gun.
I did take to carrying my S&Ws on safe at all times. I saw way too many people forget to take the safety off when they wanted to shoot and found it was down for whatever reason when they didn't plan for it to be. I went so far in training as to copy one of my mentors, Vince O'Neill, in forcing the troops to run the safety on the draw stroke so that they were practiced in getting the safety off as a habit.
I also strongly believe in the weapon retention advantage given by an on-safe handgun. As Ayoob noted so many times cops are in the work of conflict management, not pure gunfighting.
That the 3rd gen &Ws double stack guns were too big for many shooters was what finally drove use to look for a DAO or SFA pistol, in the end we started to issue Glock 17s.
I'd argue -- as someone who has very rarely carried a gun even capable of being carried on-safe -- that the benefit not only outweighs the perceived cost but that there really is very little real-world cost to begin with. Like so many things, the idea of "no safety = better gunfighting" resulted from a particular company's monstrously aggressive marketing campaign more than any real evidence of safeties getting people killed in gunfights.
The most experienced and professional operators I know -- in the traditional sense -- are all religious about running the safeties on their ARs, for example.
Reply With Quote