Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 90

Thread: RFI: the reasoning behind the DAO service pistol "wave" of the late 80s/ear90s

  1. #11
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Texas
    I suspect that the DAO pistols from years past like S&W and Beretta versions may have had mechanisms that would not have withstood high training regimens. Dan Lehr was factory trained on everything from a sling shot to a bazooka. Tamara and MAS are good sources. The curious could start beating the jungle drum, and they might answer.

  2. #12
    Member Baldanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Rural North Central NC
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    ATF still considers the Glock a DAO action. It is a preloaded DAO like the DAK and the LEM it just has a striker instead of a hammer
    I know it qualifies mechanically, but practically it isn't for me, and I think not referring to it is such is probably more helpful in contrasting it to long/medium pull "conventional" DAO.
    REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
    REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
    NO EXCEPTIONS

  3. #13
    Site Supporter farscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Dunedin, FL, USA
    My limited understanding behind the interest of and adoption of the DAO pistol was the logic went like this.

    1) LE was used to DA and DAO revolvers. That trigger pull was well understood and accepted. The LE revolvers had no safeties or controls other than the trigger and the cylinder release latch.

    2) There was a desire to go to semi-auto so as to get more capacity as LE was "outgunned".

    3) SAO pistols were not desirable due to the optics of cocked/locked carry and the trigger pull was much shorter and took less effort compared to the DA and DAO revolver. AD/ND were concerns with the SAO pistol as the safety would not be used. Or the safety was an issue because it was not flipped off before firing.

    4) DA/SA was not desirable because of the difference in the first and subsequent shots. Plus people like Colonel Cooper who recommended, jokingly or not, firing the first round into the dirt to get to the SA trigger. DA/SA was also an issue because officers would fail to decock/safe the pistol before holstering. Or fail to flip off the safety when needed before firing.

    5) Glock action was close (no safety to manipulate and one trigger pull), but too easy to pull the trigger compared to the DA revolver. Glock came up with the NYPD triggers to solve this issue. Of course, we later learned it was not the pull weight but the additional pull travel distance that added the safety factor.

    6) DAO from an action standpoint is just like a DA revolver, only with more rounds. So none of the issues above and transition training is a snap because every trigger pull is the same like a DA revolver. Plus the added benefit of not being able to cock the hammer for a SA shot. Plus the brass like it because it worked like a DA revolver.

    I believe that was the logic of the times. Having experience with both the S&W and Beretta DAO pistols, DAO is a fine trigger if one practices. It is not easy to shoot with small hands, especially compared to the SAO 1911. But neither is a S&W N-frame.

    Both the S&W and Beretta DAO pistols were tough. The original S&W DAO pre-cocked the hammer with the slide travel and had no second-strike capability. It did make for a smooth pull, much like the later LEM. The later S&W DAO was pure DAO with second-strike capability albeit with a heavier pull weight.
    Last edited by farscott; 10-03-2020 at 05:34 PM.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    I don't remember if it was Beretta or S&W, but there was an showing a uniformed LEO drawing his pistol in a "stop-motion" sort of photography. The holstered gun was a revolver, but became a DAO during the press-out. The ad was careful to note the ease in transitioning to a DAO auto from a DA revolver.
    Per the PF Code of Conduct, I have a commercial interest in the StreakTM product as sold by Ammo, Inc.

  5. #15
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    South Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    ATF still considers the Glock a DAO action. It is a preloaded DAO like the DAK and the LEM it just has a striker instead of a hammer
    Though DAO is technically correct, I consider most striker-fired pistols to be FDAs - "faux double action". Just my two cents.

  6. #16
    Member Gadfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    First MY personal decision that DAO was goooood:

    When I went thought he Sheriff’s Academy (1996) in TX, I carried a 1911, because I was raised on the myth of .45 and target triggers. After doing the job a few decades? No F-ing way would I want an SAO/ 1911 as a general issued pistol.

    I did NOT want a DAO pistol, because in my youth, I was spoiled on trigger jobs, Colt Gold Cups, etc. But my first job offer post Academy was INS/BP, and that meant a DAO 96D. I hated it for the first week of FLETC. But as time went on, I began to drink the Kool Aid. I was not as fast with a DAO, not at all. But in my slow deliberate press, I could still be pretty accurate. I assumed a DAO pistol would be like the 12-13lb DA pull of my 92FS. I had no clue a DAO Beretta was down at 7-8 lbs. That was the first game changer for me...

    The second was all the gun work we did off the range. When it was not about score on the clock anymore. Once I was exposed to Redman fights, climbing fences, wrestling in a residential stairway, stacking up with 6 guys behind me all pushing down a hallway when sim rounds start flying.... those events were a huge lightbulb moment for me to stop thinking about split times and tight “one ragged hole” groups. I finally embraced “fighting” with a gun. Not really gunfighting and slinging rounds, as much as all the other things going on in a chaotic situation where I happen to have a gun in hand. Moving, looking for cover, not getting trampled by coworkers or random civilians in the mix. I had not heard DBs term of “people management trigger” yet, but I realized that there were a LOT more aspects of the job than actually slinging lead at bad guys. And a DAO trigger became a positive thing to me, not a liability. Now, I still can’t run one at a match and be competitive, but I won’t embarrass myself either. The right tool for the job. All that tricked out shit you see at a match would be a liability as a duty weapon.
    ——————————————

    So much for MY experience, let’s look at a big agency:

    When I went to Armorer’s school for the first time in Altoona, we got a great history lesson on the “how and why” we ended up with our 96Ds. (I am sure I have hashed out in PF at some point, so sorry if this is redundant. Some of this info was in the actual class materials, other parts of the story came from enjoying “adult beverages” with the instructors post class. The official party line, and what actually happened behind closed doors do not always mesh).

    For close to 40 years, the BP/INS had been issuing .357 magnums. They had decades of data on how well the rounds performed in actual shooting, and they were happy with the results. They had a mix of N,K,L frame guns, and Ruger Security Six’s. In the very late 80s, INS began allowing semi autos, and was pretty much open to anything 9mm-45. After a few years of seeing the chaos/results of such an open policy, the powers that be said, screw it, we are adopting an issued semi auto.

    I give the guys in Altoona credit. They did not have a pre conceived “winner” before they started. First off, they recognized that “guns don’t kill people, projectile wounds do”. So they were going to define this mission (stopping bad guys), look at decades of data on number of rounds fired, distances of gunfights, number of bad guys, how often a reload was needed, most common intermediate barriers, etc. The initial decision was, they were very happy with the performance of the 158 grn .357 traveling at @1300 FPS. It did what they needed it to do for a long time. Second, the BP operated in a lot of open desert scrub brush and open highway, so much that they shot pistol qual out to 50 yards, and often would fire pistol out to 100 yards in practice. So the round needed to be able to reach 100yards and still perform. And lastly, they decided that if they were going to a semi auto, it must at least double the capacity of the current 6 shot revolver. So 12 rounds would be the minimum in the gun. With these two criteria, they began to test in the early 90s.

    They quickly found that most 9mm and 45 rounds were no where near the performance of the .357 mag. Even in +P+, there were problems with lack of long range performance, and issues in passing the FBI intermediate barrier protocols. The 10mm was considered, but the 12 round capacity was an issue as most guns chambered for it were single stack, and the FBIs problems with broken pistols and reduced qual scores were well known to the Agency. This was right when the new .40 hit the market. It could be had in a double stack frame, and with the right load, it would hit at 100 yards with very little drop. They found if you aimed at the top of the head of a B27, the round would land right in the chest with the right load, just like the old issued revolvers. So after all the ammo testing, the .40 155 grn at 1250 FPS was the closest thing to .357 158 grn at 1300 FPS that could be had in an auto loader of appropriate capacity. With a round selected, they needed a pistol.

    The solicitation stated a pistol with 12 round capacity, DAO (like the old revolvers), night sights, and a service life of 10,000 rounds of duty ammo was wanted. Many guns applied, but only two passed... The Sig 229 and the 96D Birgadier. (Rumor is we broke every Glock 22 they sent to test, cracking off frame rails) The original 96D had locking block and slide issues early on in testing, and Beretta had to invent the Brig slide to handle the high pressure .40... The 229 did not have those issues, but the Sig had a standard 12-13 lb DAO trigger. Beretta had really smoothed out their DAO trigger and dropped the weight by 6lbs less than the Sig. the Sig had one more round in the Mag, but Beretta squeaked by with 11+1 capacity. By the accounts of folks I spoke too, they all thought the beretta shot better due to trigger, but the Sig ran better and 1 more round.... it all came down to cost. Beretta won by a small margin (rumor is like a dollar per gun cheaper). Sig was allowed as a personal purchase option.

    So in the context of your question, our agency loved the performance of their revolvers. They wanted the same trigger pull, same ballistics, but double the capacity in an auto loader. And that is how we made the jump to Autos in 1996. Jumping on to invent the LEM came about later, and is for another thread.

    This was long and rambling, but hopefully helpful.
    “A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane

  7. #17
    Member Gadfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Everything Farscott said I’d spot on....
    (And far less rambling than my reply)

    Quote Originally Posted by farscott View Post
    My limited understanding behind the interest of and adoption of the DAO pistol was the logic went like this.

    1) LE was used to DA and DAO revolvers. That trigger pull was well understood and accepted. The LE revolvers had no safeties or controls other than the trigger and the cylinder release latch.

    2) There was a desire to go to semi-auto so as to get more capacity as LE was "outgunned".

    3) SAO pistols were not desirable due to the optics of cocked/locked carry and the trigger pull was much shorter and took less effort compared to the DA and DAO revolver. AD/ND were concerns with the SAO pistol as the safety would not be used. Or the safety was an issue because it was not flipped off before firing.

    4) DA/SA was not desirable because of the difference in the first and subsequent shots. Plus people like Colonel Cooper who recommended, jokingly or not, firing the first round into the dirt to get to the SA trigger. DA/SA was also an issue because officers would fail to decock/safe the pistol before holstering. Or fail to flip off the safety when needed before firing.

    5) Glock action was close (no safety to manipulate and one trigger pull), but too easy to pull the trigger compared to the DA revolver. Glock came up with the NYPD triggers to solve this issue. Of course, we later learned it was not the pull weight but the additional pull travel distance that added the safety factor.

    6) DAO from an action standpoint is just like a DA revolver, only with more rounds. So none of the issues above and transition training is a snap because every trigger pull is the same like a DA revolver. Plus the added benefit of not being able to cock the hammer for a SA shot. Plus the brass like it because it worked like a DA revolver.

    I believe that was the logic of the times. Having experience with both the S&W and Beretta DAO pistols, DAO is a fine trigger if one practices. It is not easy to shoot with small hands, especially compared to the SAO 1911. But neither is a S&W N-frame.

    Both the S&W and Beretta DAO pistols were tough. The original S&W DAO pre-cocked the hammer with the slide travel and had no second-strike capability. It did make for a smooth pull, much like the later LEM. The later S&W DAO was pure DAO with second-strike capability albeit with a heavier pull weight.
    “A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane

  8. #18
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by revchuck38 View Post
    Though DAO is technically correct, I consider most striker-fired pistols to be FDAs - "faux double action". Just my two cents.
    Words mean things and these guns work how they work.

    DAO is only technically correct for the Glock. Most striker fired guns are actually single action pistols.

    Most of today’s striker fired guns have fully cocked strikers so the trigger performs the “single action” of releasing the striker.

    The Glock has a partially cocked (or pre-loaded) striker so the trigger performs the “double action” of both cocking and releasing the striker.

    This is why you won’t see a gadget for, say, a P320.
    Last edited by HCM; 10-03-2020 at 06:01 PM.

  9. #19
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by willie View Post
    I suspect that the DAO pistols from years past like S&W and Beretta versions may have had mechanisms that would not have withstood high training regimens. Dan Lehr was factory trained on everything from a sling shot to a bazooka. Tamara and MAS are good sources. The curious could start beating the jungle drum, and they might answer.
    As the guy who broke 3 beretta 96Ds in 4 years - there was nothing wrong with the Beretta or S&W DAO mechanisms. The beretta 92 design is simply not strong enough (or well adapted enough) for .40. 92D’s run just as well as F and G models given the appropriate maintenance for high round counts.

  10. #20
    Member Gadfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    Words mean things and these guns work how they work.

    DAO is only technically correct for the Glock. Most striker fired guns are actually single action pistols.

    Most of today’s striker fired guns have fully cocked strikers so the trigger performs the “single action” of releasing the striker.

    The Glock has a partially cocked (or pre-loaded) striker so the trigger performs the “double action” of both cocking and releasing the striker.

    This is why you won’t see a gadget for, say, a P320.

    The HK LEM is also a full cocked SAO pistol. It just looks DAO. But the hammer spring is fully compressed. You take up a separate light spring to move the hammer back to meet the fully compressed hammer strut. It is a “safe” system, but like the 320 and M&P, it’s prety much cocked and unlocked if it is a model with no manual safety.
    “A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane

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
  •