Originally Posted by
Gadfly
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.