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

[HCM]

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.

The LEM and the DAK are half-assed solutions.

Most TDAs are metal guns and IME metal guns are easier o shoot well.

I shoot large frame Glocks (20, 21, 41) better than med frames and shoot the 320 better with the L grip shells both with the standard grip and the X grip.

[paherne]

Anyone who wasn't initially issued a revolver should probably not comment in this thread.

[Bucky]

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.

If my memory serves, Glock wasn’t the only one to use the partially cocked concept back in the day. I seem to recall certain S&W DAOs that worked in a partially cocked manner, and like the Glock had no second strike capability. Would that qualify?

[farscott]

If my memory serves, Glock wasn’t the only one to use the partially cocked concept back in the day. I seem to recall certain S&W DAOs that worked in a partially cocked manner, and like the Glock had no second strike capability. Would that qualify?

Is the S&W Sigma (Glock copy) the pistol? Or the original 3rd Generation DAO guns which were indeed partially cocked with no second-strike capability?

[HCM]

If my memory serves, Glock wasn’t the only one to use the partially cocked concept back in the day. I seem to recall certain S&W DAOs that worked in a partially cocked manner, and like the Glock had no second strike capability. Would that qualify?

Is the S&W Sigma (Glock copy) the pistol? Or the original 3rd Generation DAO guns which were indeed partially cocked with no second-strike capability?

I think the issue is Baldanders conflates “DAO” with having a hammer.

The 3rd Gen DAOs did have a partially pre-cocked hammer. I had a 3954 as an off duty gun for several years and it was pretty shootable.

[Wondering Beard]

I think the issue is Baldanders conflates “DAO” with having a hammer.

The 3rd Gen DAOs did have a partially pre-cocked hammer. I had a 3954 as an off duty gun for several years and it was pretty shootable.

Many years ago, I shot an IDPA match with a 3954 that was graciously lent to me (I hadn't brought any magazines for my G21) and while I did badly with it (I kept on short stroking it), I really liked the gun and the trigger pull was very smooth. I should have bought one at the time (late 90s).

[farscott]

The 3rd Gen DAOs did have a partially pre-cocked hammer. I had a 3954 as an off duty gun for several years and it was pretty shootable.

The original (circa 1990-1991) S&W 3rd Generation DAOs had a partially pre-cocked hammer. The 3954 was from the first design. The external tells were the round insert where the safety would be and a slightly longer slide toward the rear. A later design (marked TSW) was true DAO as it did not use the special DAO frames and slides. Instead it used standard frames and slides and deleted the single-action sear. These can be identified by the non-round insert where the safety would be.

[HCM]

Many years ago, I shot an IDPA match with a 3954 that was graciously lent to me (I hadn't brought any magazines for my G21) and while I did badly with it (I kept on short stroking it), I really liked the gun and the trigger pull was very smooth. I should have bought one at the time (late 90s).

The downside was the stock straight grip was thin and concealable but hard to shoot with. The Hogue grips added a much needed hump in the rear but also increased the width to that of a double stack.

[Wondering Beard]

The downside was the stock straight grip was thin and concealable but hard to shoot with. The Hogue grips added a much needed hump in the rear but also increased the width to that of a double stack.

And the plastic stocks weren't particularly "grabby".

[Bucky]

Is the S&W Sigma (Glock copy) the pistol? Or the original 3rd Generation DAO guns which were indeed partially cocked with no second-strike capability?

As HCM pointed out, I am speaking of the hammer fired Smiths.