Darkenfast
Member
You're quite right, I left out a bit! It's when you cock a revolver and then lower the hammer, because you didn't need to shoot. THAT'S when you skip the round. Sorry 'bout that.
Another "I" don't get it...
- Thread starter jem102
- Start date
You're quite right, I left out a bit! It's when you cock a revolver and then lower the hammer, because you didn't need to shoot. THAT'S when you skip the round. Sorry 'bout that.
pantannojack
US Veteran
Did someone suggest yet: "Never talk to the police"?
pittpa
Member
Another "I" don't get it...
I think you rack the slide and eject a round to show them you really mean business
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think you rack the slide and eject a round to show them you really mean business
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
pantannojack
US Veteran
You are supposed to catch the ejected round, as in Mystery Road, if you don't mean business, or in a demonstration.
I've tried that catch a round business------never quite made it!
Ralph Tremaine
Ralph Tremaine
RobertJ.
Member
And if you're in the show "Blacklist", even your Glock makes that sound whenever you point it at someone!
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,345
- Reaction score
- 5,560
Wrong again. Everyone knows you don't carry an expensive gun. It will be taken as evidence and peed upon by the custodians.
xfarfuldog
Member
Firearms instructor for over 25 years. Academy and later private security commander and instructor. The PD never required DAO guns. The security company was converting all revolvers to DAO before changing to semi auto pistols. At my branch we kept all our revolvers DA/SA. I disagree with DAO. The security company's first auto was the DAO S&W 4046. Later changing to the M&P and then the FN 509. I would never teach or use single action in most self defense situations. However the possible need to fire an accurate shot over longer distances is why you need single action.
The actual issue with reloads is that any forensic testing will be done with factory loaded exemplar rounds from whatever head stamp brand/bullet weight is still in the gun. The choice is still yours, but consider the following.
Example: here in Virginia back in the latter part of the last century a shooting allegedly took place at contact/near contact distance. The state crime lab did their testing and labeled the claim a lie. However, the ammunition manufacturer reviewed the forensic report and their records showed that the exemplar lot of ammunition used in testing had a different type of powder than the lot used in the shooting. The test results were invalid. Conviction overturned, acquittal followed.
The production records of the ammo companies are highly detailed (to protect themselves from liability claims), far beyond the record keeping a hand loader is likely to do and also of far greater provenance. They're a neutral third party to the situation.
You also might bear in mind that in Fish v Arizona, the prosecutor successfully convinced the jury (per post trial interviews) that the use of "too powerful for police use" 10 mm JHP ammo was evidence of evil intent. Imagine what a like minded prosecutor can do with the fact that you home brewed your ammo: "Factory ammunition wasn't deadly enough for him/her, he/she had to create something more destructive." Yeah, it's BS but if you find yourself at trial, you don't need any additional issues for your attorney to deal with.
The shooting in question was on December 28, 1982. Black's Law covers the case (State v Alverez) and is really good reading about how the justice system sometimes works in other cases too.
There are two issues related to the small percentage of law enforcement agencies that moved to adopting DAO revolvers and later DAO pistols.
First was the bad habit of officers pointing a revolver at a suspect to cock the hammer leaving the revolver in SA mode. Under extreme stress and in a situation where the officer might be startled it’s far easier to unintentionally shoot the suspect with an SA trigger than a DA trigger.
While firearms forensics cannot determine whether a revolver was fired SA or DA, eye witnesses at the scene (often other officers) and surveillance video certainly could.
The idea behind the DA trigger on a revolver (the vast majority of which lack any other safety device other than a transfer bar) is that the long and heavy DA trigger helps prevent a negligent discharge.
In addition, when it comes to reholstering a revolver (or for that matter a DA or SA/DA pistol) putting your thumb behind the hammer gives you an obvious tactile warning that the hammer is being cocked if something is intruding into the trigger guard (including a nervous officer’s trigger finger after a high stress situation).
One method of preventing officers from cocking the revolver (or a SA/DA pistol) was to special order the revolver or pistol as DA only.
Second, a small percentage of misguided officers, clearly instructed not to cock the hammer and to always fire DA (whether they carried an SA/DA and DAO revolver or pistol) had a bad habit of staging the DA trigger, by pulling the DA trigger just short of sear release and then holding it there. That was far, far worse than cocking the hammer, as it can be hard to actually stop just short of firing, it varies by make and model of revolver. For example the more mechanical feel of the trigger on the Ruger Security/Service/Speed Six series made it easier to do than with the average S&W revolver but in all cases it could vary from chamber to chamber. Staging a DA trigger with 100% reliability is hard to do even in ideal conditions where you are not under stress or time pressure. It’s virtually impossible to do it reliably under stress.
—
Striker fired pistols like the Glock quickly supplanted and then replaced the SA/DA and DAO revolvers used by many law enforcement agencies. In many cases they were seen as ideal as the belief often was they required less training. There was no safety to mess with, and there was also just a single trigger pull to master. At a basic level it was just draw and pull the trigger, much like a DA revolver.
The problem was that the striker fired pistols had lighter and shorter trigger pulls. They were not as short and light as an SA pistol like the 1911 or Hi Power, but were much shorter and lighter than a DA revolver. More accidental discharges occurred and the Glock was over represented due to both its numbers relative to other striker fired pistols and the requirement to pull the trigger to disassemble it. Improperly clear it and it will go bang.
Some departments ordered “New York” triggers in their Glocks with a heavy (around 12 pound) trigger pull to provide some of the ND resistance of a DA revolver, although the trigger pull is still shorter.
If you look at police duty holsters back in the 1970s and 1980s and compare the, to modern duty holsters you’ll notice many duty holsters today ride out away from the duty belt while back in the day they were in close to the hip.
That’s largely an artifact of striker fired pistols and the greater potential for a negligent discharge if anything intrudes into the trigger guard while being reholstered.
It takes a lot less force and a shorter push on the striker fired holster to get an ND than with a longer heavier DA trigger, and none of the safeties on the striker fired pistol do anything to prevent it when they are all disabled by pressure on the front of the trigger. Putting the holster farther out reduces the potential for clothing related obstructions and it helps ensure the bullet will miss the officer’s leg, or at least a major artery, if they have an ND.
Several years ago a device was developed for most Glock pistols (not the 42) where the shooter can press on the back of tue slide to prevent the striker from fully cocking if the trigger is pulled while it is being reholstered. It’s much the same as putting your thumb behind the hammer on a DA revolver or pistol, except it doesn’t so much provide a tactile warning as it does prevent the pistol from fully cocking and firing.
——-
We might as well cover SA pistols like the 1911 and Hi Power as they are also in wide use. With the 1911, you can still hold the pistol pointed at the suspect safely. You just leave the manual safety on, with the thumb on top of the safety. You train to place the thumb on the safety as you draw and then depress it when you are ready to fire. Whether it’s a 1911, a Hi Power or a CZ75B carried cocked and locked, order isn’t important as if the trigger is pulled before the safety is depressed, the gun will fire when the safety is depressed.
When reholstering you train to place it on safe, but then back stop that by putting your thumb over the back of the hammer, but not to depress it. That not only controls the hammer but with an 1911 also lifts the web of your hand of the grip safety which also prevents an ND.
——
For an armed citizen with a DA revolver or DA pistol with the hammer cocked the biggest issue is the potential to shoot when you don’t actually need to shoot, such as if you draw and cock the gun and the assailant suddenly surrenders or retreats. You are only 3-4 pounds away from an unjustified use of lethal force.
There’s also a lesser issue of having time to cock the hammer back in the first place. If you do that while the assailant is trying to kick down your door and you are telling him “stop or I’ll, while you are calling 911 it’s not an issue, unless of course you then accidentally shoot while the assailant is still outside. And remember, the unintended discharge was the big issue with officer involved shoots with cocked hammers. Unlike an officer, you do not enjoy any kind of limited immunity, sovereign immunity, department attorneys, or the latitude the court has historically extended to mistake of fact shootings and by stander shootings.
If however, you have time because the assailant is still 50 yards away from you and you shoot, it’s going to be hard to demonstrate the assailant was an imminent threat regardless of whether you fired DA or SA, but having the hammer cocked just makes it look worse.
If you cock the hammer for greater accuracy as the assailant is 50 yards away from you and retreating, it’s a bad shoot and cocking the hammer just makes it more egregious.
First was the bad habit of officers pointing a revolver at a suspect to cock the hammer leaving the revolver in SA mode. Under extreme stress and in a situation where the officer might be startled it’s far easier to unintentionally shoot the suspect with an SA trigger than a DA trigger.
While firearms forensics cannot determine whether a revolver was fired SA or DA, eye witnesses at the scene (often other officers) and surveillance video certainly could.
The idea behind the DA trigger on a revolver (the vast majority of which lack any other safety device other than a transfer bar) is that the long and heavy DA trigger helps prevent a negligent discharge.
In addition, when it comes to reholstering a revolver (or for that matter a DA or SA/DA pistol) putting your thumb behind the hammer gives you an obvious tactile warning that the hammer is being cocked if something is intruding into the trigger guard (including a nervous officer’s trigger finger after a high stress situation).
One method of preventing officers from cocking the revolver (or a SA/DA pistol) was to special order the revolver or pistol as DA only.
Second, a small percentage of misguided officers, clearly instructed not to cock the hammer and to always fire DA (whether they carried an SA/DA and DAO revolver or pistol) had a bad habit of staging the DA trigger, by pulling the DA trigger just short of sear release and then holding it there. That was far, far worse than cocking the hammer, as it can be hard to actually stop just short of firing, it varies by make and model of revolver. For example the more mechanical feel of the trigger on the Ruger Security/Service/Speed Six series made it easier to do than with the average S&W revolver but in all cases it could vary from chamber to chamber. Staging a DA trigger with 100% reliability is hard to do even in ideal conditions where you are not under stress or time pressure. It’s virtually impossible to do it reliably under stress.
—
Striker fired pistols like the Glock quickly supplanted and then replaced the SA/DA and DAO revolvers used by many law enforcement agencies. In many cases they were seen as ideal as the belief often was they required less training. There was no safety to mess with, and there was also just a single trigger pull to master. At a basic level it was just draw and pull the trigger, much like a DA revolver.
The problem was that the striker fired pistols had lighter and shorter trigger pulls. They were not as short and light as an SA pistol like the 1911 or Hi Power, but were much shorter and lighter than a DA revolver. More accidental discharges occurred and the Glock was over represented due to both its numbers relative to other striker fired pistols and the requirement to pull the trigger to disassemble it. Improperly clear it and it will go bang.
Some departments ordered “New York” triggers in their Glocks with a heavy (around 12 pound) trigger pull to provide some of the ND resistance of a DA revolver, although the trigger pull is still shorter.
If you look at police duty holsters back in the 1970s and 1980s and compare the, to modern duty holsters you’ll notice many duty holsters today ride out away from the duty belt while back in the day they were in close to the hip.
That’s largely an artifact of striker fired pistols and the greater potential for a negligent discharge if anything intrudes into the trigger guard while being reholstered.
It takes a lot less force and a shorter push on the striker fired holster to get an ND than with a longer heavier DA trigger, and none of the safeties on the striker fired pistol do anything to prevent it when they are all disabled by pressure on the front of the trigger. Putting the holster farther out reduces the potential for clothing related obstructions and it helps ensure the bullet will miss the officer’s leg, or at least a major artery, if they have an ND.
Several years ago a device was developed for most Glock pistols (not the 42) where the shooter can press on the back of tue slide to prevent the striker from fully cocking if the trigger is pulled while it is being reholstered. It’s much the same as putting your thumb behind the hammer on a DA revolver or pistol, except it doesn’t so much provide a tactile warning as it does prevent the pistol from fully cocking and firing.
——-
We might as well cover SA pistols like the 1911 and Hi Power as they are also in wide use. With the 1911, you can still hold the pistol pointed at the suspect safely. You just leave the manual safety on, with the thumb on top of the safety. You train to place the thumb on the safety as you draw and then depress it when you are ready to fire. Whether it’s a 1911, a Hi Power or a CZ75B carried cocked and locked, order isn’t important as if the trigger is pulled before the safety is depressed, the gun will fire when the safety is depressed.
When reholstering you train to place it on safe, but then back stop that by putting your thumb over the back of the hammer, but not to depress it. That not only controls the hammer but with an 1911 also lifts the web of your hand of the grip safety which also prevents an ND.
——
For an armed citizen with a DA revolver or DA pistol with the hammer cocked the biggest issue is the potential to shoot when you don’t actually need to shoot, such as if you draw and cock the gun and the assailant suddenly surrenders or retreats. You are only 3-4 pounds away from an unjustified use of lethal force.
There’s also a lesser issue of having time to cock the hammer back in the first place. If you do that while the assailant is trying to kick down your door and you are telling him “stop or I’ll, while you are calling 911 it’s not an issue, unless of course you then accidentally shoot while the assailant is still outside. And remember, the unintended discharge was the big issue with officer involved shoots with cocked hammers. Unlike an officer, you do not enjoy any kind of limited immunity, sovereign immunity, department attorneys, or the latitude the court has historically extended to mistake of fact shootings and by stander shootings.
If however, you have time because the assailant is still 50 yards away from you and you shoot, it’s going to be hard to demonstrate the assailant was an imminent threat regardless of whether you fired DA or SA, but having the hammer cocked just makes it look worse.
If you cock the hammer for greater accuracy as the assailant is 50 yards away from you and retreating, it’s a bad shoot and cocking the hammer just makes it more egregious.
Matt_X
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 331
- Reaction score
- 294
Allow me to add to the excellent explanations above by BB57 and WRMoore.
If you took it over the top to get our attention, or because of the way you've heard it regurgitated, clearly its the impression you got. In my opinion someone was given a a bit of advice and by the time it reached you it became an emphatic "rule".
In general, the concept is to train as you will defend because you will fall back on your training. Using double action (on a DA/SA revolver) is less likely to lead to negligent discharge or other similar mistakes under stress. This is not to say never use SA. Heck, maybe the only gun a person owns is a SA Army. But if you had a beginner - maybe you would lay that down as a rule under the same sort of thinking some police departments did.
The lawyers are not on the witness stand. By the time it hits trial, their job is to make the best case they can. The question comes down to whether the situation warranted breaking the law (shooting at another person). If they don't think they have enough evidence for intentional shooting, they will fall back on the lesser charge involving reckless or negligent discharge. Reckless may also come up in a civil trial.
Re: State of Florida vs Alverez
Since this was brought up. The news coverage included assumed eyewitness who claimed Officer Alverez entered with his pistol cocked. As stated by WR Moore, this was later disproved. Much much later, during the trial.
Additionally, there was a claim that Alverez's pistol had been modified to make it "more deadly" with a "hair-trigger". The defense then had to call expert witnesses that could state that the modifications were typical 'action cleanups' and all within the norm including the trigger pull. Finding these experts and compensating them costs time and money. The point is that it can make a defense more difficult and that is a piece of advice worth considering.
If you took it over the top to get our attention, or because of the way you've heard it regurgitated, clearly its the impression you got. In my opinion someone was given a a bit of advice and by the time it reached you it became an emphatic "rule".
In general, the concept is to train as you will defend because you will fall back on your training. Using double action (on a DA/SA revolver) is less likely to lead to negligent discharge or other similar mistakes under stress. This is not to say never use SA. Heck, maybe the only gun a person owns is a SA Army. But if you had a beginner - maybe you would lay that down as a rule under the same sort of thinking some police departments did.
Lets take this further and assume we are not dealing with a negligent discharge, but a situation where the citizen (or officer) intended to shoot but the prosecutor beleives there is evidence it was not justified. In front of the grand jury, if there is one, and during the trial the prosecutors will present their theory of what happened and why. They are allowed great latitude in doing this.
The lawyers are not on the witness stand. By the time it hits trial, their job is to make the best case they can. The question comes down to whether the situation warranted breaking the law (shooting at another person). If they don't think they have enough evidence for intentional shooting, they will fall back on the lesser charge involving reckless or negligent discharge. Reckless may also come up in a civil trial.
Re: State of Florida vs Alverez
Since this was brought up. The news coverage included assumed eyewitness who claimed Officer Alverez entered with his pistol cocked. As stated by WR Moore, this was later disproved. Much much later, during the trial.
Additionally, there was a claim that Alverez's pistol had been modified to make it "more deadly" with a "hair-trigger". The defense then had to call expert witnesses that could state that the modifications were typical 'action cleanups' and all within the norm including the trigger pull. Finding these experts and compensating them costs time and money. The point is that it can make a defense more difficult and that is a piece of advice worth considering.
Last edited:
cd228
Member
I'd recommend digging into MAS Ayoob's book " The Ayoob Files, the book". In chapter on the Luis Alvarez Incident in 1982 he discusses how single action became relevant in a prosecution and the Miami PD's decision to go DAO. FWIW according to Ayoob, no one could prove scientifically if the weapon was fired DA or SA. There where a number of accusations and arguments in that particular case.
Separate from the above incident is NYPD, who required their revolvers to be made double action only after one of their officers accidentally shot a suspect with a cocked revolver. I want to say it was in the late 80s early 90s.
The theory behind the DAO is that the longer trigger pull and heavier weight reduces the chance of an accidental discharge. The startle response or sympathetic action of the hand is part of the concern. It's also a means of lawyer proofing a service weapon.
Your 1911 is an apples to oranges comparison as it has a manual safety. you have to deliberately deactivate the safety in order to utilize the nice light and short trigger. This would prevent you from actually touching off a round should you get startled.
On the practical side, shooting double action doesn't require you you to break or change grip every time IOT cock the hammer.
Last edited:
I stand corrected per the above and others. And I thank you for the positive remark.
I haven't reviewed every self defense prosecution that has ever gone down the pike but, in general, what we sometimes call a righteous shoot will rarely result in a criminal prosecution in a "normal" jurisdiction - leftwing cities and DAs not included as normal. Even a cocked revolver will be insufficient for prosecution if the defender is justified. (Never mind over zealous prosecutors - that's a horse of a different color).
The gun used in a self defense situation will not matter if the defender did everything else correctly as the law allows. We get to decide if we like revolvers, TDA pistols, single action pistols, single action revolvers, etc. Justification is the key and a 50 yard shot at a fleeing goblin is not justified.
Back in my cowboy action shooting days we used to discuss whether it was a good idea to use a single action revolver for self defense. The answer is very simple. YES, if that's your gun of choice and you can handle it adequately. For cowboy action shooters with skills the single action revolver cannot be beat for a good choice. Sadly, concealing most of them is difficult but when you consider how fast all experienced cowboy action shooters are you can understand why it's a reasonable choice.
Doug M.
Member
Like many real world examples based on actual events, the "rule" is often presented without context. Since the context (like the Alvarez case) makes a huge difference, it has to be part of the presentation. As I recall, some kid testified that Alvarez cocked the revolver and it was shown that he could not have seen what he claimed. This resulted in inept prosecutors arguing that the shooting was negligent, not justified.
One of the problems I see with trial lawyers, which include prosecutors, is that they may not have a solid grounding in the technical issues that impact their case. I am known to older people in our state association as being more familiar with firearms and LE stuff. Some come to me for help with understanding stuff. Not everyone has the background to do that, not everyone has the will to ask or even the awareness that they need more info.
Good medical malpractice lawyers (both plaintiff and defense) have a brilliant understanding of medical work, but no experience cutting in to bodies to fix them. They also make use of good medical folks to enlighten and explain. There is a heck of a difference between being an excellent surgeon, for example, and being a good witness in such a case. The use of experts and how to understand the need for them was not part of my law school experience. I learned that from doing child protective cases with complicated medical issues.
I do a lot of public records stuff at work, and have watched body cam footage in related classes. The vast majority of people watching the footage do not see the cues of pending violence.
One of the problems I see with trial lawyers, which include prosecutors, is that they may not have a solid grounding in the technical issues that impact their case. I am known to older people in our state association as being more familiar with firearms and LE stuff. Some come to me for help with understanding stuff. Not everyone has the background to do that, not everyone has the will to ask or even the awareness that they need more info.
Good medical malpractice lawyers (both plaintiff and defense) have a brilliant understanding of medical work, but no experience cutting in to bodies to fix them. They also make use of good medical folks to enlighten and explain. There is a heck of a difference between being an excellent surgeon, for example, and being a good witness in such a case. The use of experts and how to understand the need for them was not part of my law school experience. I learned that from doing child protective cases with complicated medical issues.
I do a lot of public records stuff at work, and have watched body cam footage in related classes. The vast majority of people watching the footage do not see the cues of pending violence.
Last edited:
If the prosecution's case rests on whether you fired single action or double action, they have a really weak case. If you told the prosecutor you fired single action, you are really dumb. If you shoot someone, whether in self-defense or not, the only person you should talk to is your lawyer. You are not going to make things better by explaining.
scooter123
Member
IMO these bits of "advice" border on Urban Myths. One single case I know of resulted in the conviction of someone why fired a revolver from single action as the "cause" and it was the shooters claim that it was accidental that resulted in that conviction. Quite simply if he had stated that he intended to shoot the person charging him with tire arm raised and in hand he would have walked away free of any conviction.
The lesson to be learned here isn't that cocking a revolver can get you convicted, opening you big fat mouth is what can get you convicted. When questioned your ONLY answer should be that you want to consult with an Attorney. That is your answer to every single question, even the one where they ask you your name.
The lesson to be learned here isn't that cocking a revolver can get you convicted, opening you big fat mouth is what can get you convicted. When questioned your ONLY answer should be that you want to consult with an Attorney. That is your answer to every single question, even the one where they ask you your name.
