Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 90

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

  1. #21
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    I just finished reading the seventh edition of Ayoob's "Combat Handgunnery". He noted that many agencies taught officers to put their finger on the trigger when searching or holding a suspect at gunpoint back in the day. Undoubtedly, that provides some impetus for DAO handguns.

    More recently, I read a review of negligent discharges in the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. A significant number were by officers who recently transitioned from the Beretta to the M&P. That said, I don't know what training doctrine LASD used in the past regarding trigger finger placement.

  2. #22
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Quote Originally Posted by farscott View Post
    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.
    As noted, this isn't our first rodeo with this topic here at PF. In previous rounds, I've attempted to chase the bolded part to ground. All I could get was a page or two of some old docs where it was cited that unidentified people considered to be SMEs at that time held that opinion. To the best of my knowledge, and all that I can find, there has not yet been a scientific study where trigger travel was actually instrumented (as opposed to force), such that it could be confirmed with data. It is something that SMEs have generally agreed on for several decades now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadfly View Post
    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.
    This makes me happy I have a can of that contract-overrun HST 155gr from a few years ago. And a USP .40 to launch it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadfly View Post
    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.
    I actually like the Todd Green-like version: Match hybrid with a heavy TRS. It makes it much more like a DAO without being too heavy and minimizes the stacking.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Gadfly View Post
    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.
    LEM and DAK Are both weird as shit.

  4. #24
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by jnc36rcpd View Post
    I just finished reading the seventh edition of Ayoob's "Combat Handgunnery". He noted that many agencies taught officers to put their finger on the trigger when searching or holding a suspect at gunpoint back in the day. Undoubtedly, that provides some impetus for DAO handguns.

    More recently, I read a review of negligent discharges in the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. A significant number were by officers who recently transitioned from the Beretta to the M&P. That said, I don't know what training doctrine LASD used in the past regarding trigger finger placement.
    In the report you referenced it says LASD taught finger on trigger when on threat up until 2002. That was a common thing in the DA revolver days.

    Even though they stop teaching it doesn’t mean people stop doing it or that rookies who learned proper trigger finger management in the Academy didn’t copy what they saw senior officers doing. DA and DAO only triggers cover a fair amount of sins and when the stress level goes up many people have the unconscious urge to “check the trigger and make sure it is still there” Regardless of what they were taught.

    I would not be surprised to see an increase in NDs in the military or my own agency going from the DAK to the 320.

  5. #25
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by OlongJohnson View Post
    As noted, this isn't our first rodeo with this topic here at PF. In previous rounds, I've attempted to chase the bolded part to ground. All I could get was a page or two of some old docs where it was cited that unidentified people considered to be SMEs at that time held that opinion. To the best of my knowledge, and all that I can find, there has not yet been a scientific study where trigger travel was actually instrumented (as opposed to force), such that it could be confirmed with data. It is something that SMEs have generally agreed on for several decades now.



    This makes me happy I have a can of that contract-overrun HST 155gr from a few years ago. And a USP .40 to launch it.



    I actually like the Todd Green-like version: Match hybrid with a heavy TRS. It makes it much more like a DAO without being too heavy and minimizes the stacking.
    The 180 grain HST killed people just fine. I hated that 155 grain shit.

  6. #26
    Member Baldanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Rural North Central NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Gadfly View Post
    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.
    That was like a mini-history lesson/memoir, not a ramble. Particularly interesting for someone like me who got interested in handguns just at the time of the big transition of US LE from revolvers to semiautos, and who followed the big FBI caliber search that led to the .40.

    Also why a reminder of why my collector/historic focus is on 20th Century LE pistols. The stories around them are generally more interesting than the history of military sidearms and their use, IMO, Probably because pistols are primary tools for LE in a way they rarely are in military use.

    Thanks!

    ETA: also makes me feel good about being a DAO sort of guy.😎
    REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
    REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
    NO EXCEPTIONS

  7. #27
    Member Baldanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Rural North Central NC
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    LEM and DAK Are both weird as shit.
    I would like to try both of these since they are unique solutions to the SA/TDA "problem" and I imagine their feel is similarly unique.

    But every time I read about them, I think "what's wrong with revolver-style DA?"
    REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
    REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
    NO EXCEPTIONS

  8. #28
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Have you bought your B92 DXR yet?

    I predict a shortage of WC B92 trigger bar kits in the near future.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  9. #29
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Baldanders View Post
    I would like to try both of these since they are unique solutions to the SA/TDA "problem" and I imagine their feel is similarly unique.

    But every time I read about them, I think "what's wrong with revolver-style DA?"
    Time.

    Time is a factor in real world, reactive shooting.

    Unless you are Jerry Miculek, longer heavier trigger pulls take more time to deliver accurate fire.

    It's like what's wrong with a bolt gun as a fighting rifle ? The answer is I'm not Simo Häyhä.

    The LEM is just weird and if you want to shoot it well you must shoot it exclusively.

    DAK is usable if you can run a DA revolver trigger properly. If you try to shoot to reset you will find the DAK has two resets and the trigger pull from the first reset is about 2lbs heavier than the second reset.

  10. #30
    Member Baldanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Rural North Central NC
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    Time.

    Time is a factor in real world, reactive shooting.

    Unless you are Jerry Miculek, longer heavier trigger pulls take more time to deliver accurate fire.

    It's like what's wrong with a bolt gun as a fighting rifle ? The answer is I'm not Simo Häyhä.

    The LEM is just weird and if you want to shoot it well you must shoot it exclusively.

    DAK is usable if you can run a DA revolver trigger properly. If you try to shoot to reset you will find the DAK has two resets and the trigger pull from the first reset is about 2lbs heavier than the second reset.
    I know the LEM and DAK are faster solutions, but I'm limited enough that getting that superior speed isn't high enough on my current options to yearn for them....which could completely change if I get a chance to shoot a DAK. I had no idea I would think of a Glock as my perfect pure accuracy centerfire (aside from much more expensive custom 1911s) until I tried a Glock 20. A very different experience than the 17/19 for me. (Although those are fine, I shoot most TDAs more accurately)

    Anyone in the North Central NC/Danville VA area want to give me an opportunity for a "conversation" experience? 😺

    The LEM sounds like a way bad idea FOR ME, given my issues. I have proved to myself that the KISS principle is utterly necessary for me to be confident with various handguns. I used to lust for P7s until I chatted with a friend of a friend who is great shot and perpetual experimenter and h3 gave it a "great gun, but a very different skill set then anything else I shoot, so I sold it" review.
    REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
    REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
    NO EXCEPTIONS

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
  •