Why aren't there better sub-compact DA/SA options?

[Clusterfrack]

Ah, so it's mostly a way to avoid the natural internal tendency to want to go at a speed that outruns our abilities, then? That makes a fair amount of sense.

Partially. I guess I would say it’s more about investing the time in a solid grip and index, so you can go faster. Sort of like BJJ “position before submission”?

[Clusterfrack]

You could look at the Bond Arms Bullpup. ... small (pocketable), handles +P 9mm, and thin with 7 + 1 capacity. It's DAO, so you can't cock the hammer...

That is a cool mouse gun. I think I’ll stick with my LCR for that role, but I’m glad you posted about it.

[TicTacticalTimmy]

Why aren't there good micro compact TDA options? Market demand and engineering difficulties would be my guess. A TDA has more moving parts that have to fit together more precisely compared to a typical striker, so they tend to cost more both to engineer and produce. The engineering is made more difficult if trying to hit the size/weight of, say, a P365. In addition buyers in this segment tend to be very price conscious, so a mini-TDA would either be more expensive and appeal to an even smaller market, or it would have tighter margins, making it harder for a company to recover that initial R&D investment.
I would love to see a P365XL size/capacity TDA and would probably buy one immediately even if it were made by a company I don't really like such as Springfield or Sig.
The conclusion most TDA folks come to is the next best thing is a DAO instead, and there are at least a few options there. Personally I carry either a Kahr P9 or an LCR .38 when I can't carry a CZ P01 or P07. Here's a rundown of the DAO and DAO-ish options I am aware of:

1. Kahr: For the price of my P9 I am dissatisfied with the fit/finish, the apparent build quality (plastic frame rails!), and the long break in period (yes, its very real). On the other hand, since break in ended the gun has been fully reliable with JHP and FMJ rounds. It doesn't have a hammer you can thumb and I dislike how I can't see the condition of the striker like I can a hammer fired gun. The recoil is about like every other gun in this size class. The accuracy is solid. I like the trigger, although it does feel somehow hollow and less satisfying than a true hammer fired DAO trigger (totally subjective). I strongly dislike how I have to rack the slide every time I want to dry fire. The cheap Kahrs have a front sight that cannot be changed out, and the expensive ones are a bit pricey for what you get, given the above downsides. However, on the whole I feel the Kahr is the best micro option for the TDA shooter. Decent night sights are available, and they are very size and weight efficient, with the 7 round 3.5" P9 concealing in the pocket of most dress pants.
2. Revolvers: S&W J frame and Ruger LCR. Very lightweight, concealable, and versatile. However, harder to shoot well and maintain proficiency if you mainly train with automatics.
3. Bond Bullpup: If anyone is interested I'd be happy to do a mini-review. I owned one for a while. It was very defective, Bond replaced the whole slide assembly, and the gun they returned worked great. After it was repaired I had a range day shooting the Bond, Kahr P9, and G43 back to back. I found the Bond the most shootable, though it was only a marginal advantage. It is a true DAO auto, a really cool piece of engineering, and can carry in pockets only a G42 would fit in. However, it is at least twice the price of everything else in the segment, holster selection sucks, it can experience catastrophic failures due to the unique design, and there are NO night sight options I am aware of.

I really wish someone would make a gun the size/weight of the Kahr but with a real hammer, and the ability to take Glock sights. There was a company called Naroh that appeared to be making just that gun but they had some problems with quality control and I think they are out of business. Even better would be a true DAO G48/P365-ish gun. I think Sig could produce this fairly easily using the P250 engineering, but I won't place any hope on them doing so.

[EVP]

"Prepping" the trigger on presentation? The top shooters in the world don't do this, and neither do I. DB has addressed the "shooting" unintentionally issue, as have many others. A longer trigger pull reduces this concern. Some striker fired guns, including a shit ton of modded Glocks have shorter, lighter pulls than the SA pull of many TDA guns.
.

I am not saying that this is a accurate or inaccurate statement but could you reference who you might be alluding too? What type of pistol were they shooting?

I remember hearing that most people will get in the trigger early when speed is a factor and that if you put them in slow motion on tape that they are in fact prepping earlier in the process.

So for educations purposes and to see if that was indeed the case, I watched accomplished shooters and competitors on youtube and found that to mostly be the case.


It does not matter to me on way or other just curious.

[Clusterfrack]

For those coming to this late in the thread, this question was specifically about when in the draw process you start pressing the trigger in traditional double action guns. Ben Stoeger is a good example, but there a lots of others examples in the top 16 USPSA production shooters.

What do you mean by "prepping"? Do you mean staging the trigger so the hammer is partially back, slowing or stopping the press, and then completing the press when the sights are on target?

Here's a podcast that I think discusses this:

I am not saying that this is a accurate or inaccurate statement but could you reference who you might be alluding too? What type of pistol were they shooting?

I remember hearing that most people will get in the trigger early when speed is a factor and that if you put them in slow motion on tape that they are in fact prepping earlier in the process.

So for educations purposes and to see if that was indeed the case, I watched accomplished shooters and competitors on youtube and found that to mostly be the case.


It does not matter to me on way or other just curious.

[jd950]

1. Kahr: For the price of my P9 I am dissatisfied with the fit/finish, the apparent build quality (plastic frame rails!), and the long break in period (yes, its very real). On the other hand, since break in ended the gun has been fully reliable with JHP and FMJ rounds. It doesn't have a hammer you can thumb and I dislike how I can't see the condition of the striker like I can a hammer fired gun. The recoil is about like every other gun in this size class. The accuracy is solid. I like the trigger, although it does feel somehow hollow and less satisfying than a true hammer fired DAO trigger (totally subjective). I strongly dislike how I have to rack the slide every time I want to dry fire. The cheap Kahrs have a front sight that cannot be changed out, and the expensive ones are a bit pricey for what you get, given the above downsides. However, on the whole I feel the Kahr is the best micro option for the TDA shooter. Decent night sights are available, and they are very size and weight efficient, with the 7 round 3.5" P9 concealing in the pocket of most dress pants.

Just a few of comments. The PM9 has steel insets in the plastic rails, so in operation is is steel on steel. The plastic rails are not "load bearing" if you that term fits.

The break in is intended to let the parts wear in together and for the spring to take a set. I have never really understood the gripes about the 200 round break in. Many Kahr pistols I have had will have a feed problem several times in the first 50-100 rounds but settle in after that. The thing is, though...I would never carry a pistol for serious purposes until I had run at least a couple hundred rounds through it anyway, including both range and defensive ammo, preferably with different bullet shapes, manufacturers, etc. So the break in period is kind of a non-issue for me.

As far as the condition of the striker, if the gun is loaded, the gun is cocked. Needing to rack the slide for a second strike is common with many guns, including guns with true hammers. There is a trigger pull benefit to guns that utilize the slide movement to fully or partially cock the hammer.

If you want a "true" DAO subcompact with double strike capability, you could look for a Sig P290 RS, but I doubt you will like the trigger. There are probably others I do not know of, but I have yet to find anything that fulfills the micro 9 pistol concept better FOR ME than the PM9 or MK9 (if you are okay with the weight of an all steel gun).

[EVP]

For those coming to this late in the thread, this question was specifically about when in the draw process you start pressing the trigger in traditional double action guns. Ben Stoeger is a good example, but there a lots of others examples in the top 16 USPSA production shooters.

What do you mean by "prepping"? Do you mean staging the trigger so the hammer is partially back, slowing or stopping the press, and then completing the press when the sights are on target?

Here's a podcast that I think discusses this:

Thanks for the link, I listened to it and it had some good bits of info.

I think the terms used to describe some techniques are what sometimes leads a little confusion.

I was referencing the act of pulling the trigger in one smooth continuous motion while final alignment of the sights are being cleaned up in the presentation. That seems to be what Ben is an advocate for and that staging is not desirable. I totally agree and have heeded the advice of accomplished Da/sa shooters and others. Even when knowing that it is not good to stage, I played around with it to just see for myself. I found that it is not consistent as well and I would have bad misses that I could not account for. So I quickly figured out “yup that’s what those guys were talking about”

I guess I was confused and did not think “prepping” meant “staging”. I do not stage as I have heard that is a no-go since before I even started experimented with the LEMs back some years ago.

[Clusterfrack]

I hesitate to continue to discuss this because it's not the focus of the OP. I hope it's not out of line to say one more thing on the topic.

Let's set "staging" the DA trigger aside (bad idea IMO) and talk about "prepping". One type of prepping is taking up slack in the trigger--something that people do with a variety of trigger systems. With a longer and more continuous DA trigger pull, some people begin pulling before the sights are aligned. The question is WHEN in the targeting process the slack-taking / pulling happens.

With a "competition" draw, where the horizontal press-out phase is reduced or virtually eliminated, a lot of people (including Ben and a bunch of top TDA shooters) wait until the draw is virtually complete to begin pressing the trigger. Pressing while cleaning up the sight picture is happening while the gun is pretty much completely extended.

With a traditional 5 step press-out draw, it's possible to start pressing a DA (or striker) trigger much earlier.

Thanks for the link, I listened to it and it had some good bits of info.

I think the terms used to describe some techniques are what sometimes leads a little confusion.

I was referencing the act of pulling the trigger in one smooth continuous motion while final alignment of the sights are being cleaned up in the presentation. That seems to be what Ben is an advocate for and that staging is not desirable. I totally agree and have heeded the advice of accomplished Da/sa shooters and others. Even when knowing that it is not good to stage, I played around with it to just see for myself. I found that it is not consistent as well and I would have bad misses that I could not account for. So I quickly figured out “yup that’s what those guys were talking about”

I guess I was confused and did not think “prepping” meant “staging”. I do not stage as I have heard that is a no-go since before I even started experimented with the LEMs back some years ago.

[BehindBlueI's]

Let's set "staging" the DA trigger aside (bad idea IMO) and talk about "prepping". One type of prepping is taking up slack in the trigger--something that people do with a variety of trigger systems. With a longer and more continuous DA trigger pull, some people begin pulling before the sights are aligned. The question is WHEN in the targeting process the slack-taking / pulling happens.

With a "competition" draw, where the horizontal press-out phase is reduced or virtually eliminated, a lot of people (including Ben and a bunch of top TDA shooters) wait until the draw is virtually complete to begin pressing the trigger. Pressing while cleaning up the sight picture is happening while the gun is pretty much completely extended.

With a traditional 5 step press-out draw, it's possible to start pressing a DA (or striker) trigger much earlier.

That's more in line with what I meant. If I try to stage, my which I assume we mean get the trigger to just before the break and hold it there until sights are aligned then break the shot, that's a recipe for shanking a shot with anticipation/trigger snatch for me. I catch myself trying to do it on occasion with a DA revolver in accuracy work with no time pressure and *always* shoot worse then I would have with a bit of time pressure and a rolling break, if that's the correct term. I never do it in dry fire practice, but something about live fire with no pressure and if I'm not careful I can revert to looking for that perfect sight picture and NOW on the trigger trying to grab it.

[JAD]

With a traditional 5 step press-out draw, it's possible to start pressing a DA (or striker) trigger much earlier.

The five count is not a press-out, and the press-out is not a five count.

Press out *has the primary function* of beginning the trigger press earlier, because the sights are aligned with the target very early.

Five count (here's an excellent description, if you don't own a copy of Morrisson: https://www.recoilweb.com/monday-mor...oke-60175.html) specifically does not go to the trigger early because step four is a low ready.

Four count, which has you going straight to the target from retention, permits a press at any point in the 3-4 transition but doesn't specifically get on the trigger because there is no visual verification.

Prepping the trigger during the extension is a specific feature of the press-out. With the right trigger I really like it.

ETA: There are lots of great threads on the press-out in this forum, but this is the best: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....lass-question/

In it, clever readers will note that I said (in 2011, as a pure 1911 shooter) that I prep the trigger from 'smack' for the five and four counts, and was taught so at Gunsite. 'Prep' has a different meaning in a 1911 context vs. a longer trigger manipulation, but there you go: I contradict myself. I'll go back to Gunsite in April and see what they're teaching then.