DA/SA Question

[white cloud]

So I have a question. I read any number of times in various places that having a defense revolver with SA capability is a bad idea from a liability stand point. I wonder why SA in revolver is a "no no" but this feature seems to be OK for traditional SA/DA autoloaders like SIGs or Beretta 92s, etc. Why is that?
Our local PD carries a traditional SIG P series gun.

BTW, I carry a S&W 649 and have no intention of getting rid of the SA functionality.

 

[OKFC05]

If I have shot a few rounds with my SIG and want to reholster, I can operate the decocker with my thumb and reholster one handed.
The same operation with my Model 66 cocked is more difficult to do one handed, safely.
If you're just popping a few caps at the range it makes little difference but when doing serious work has led to shootings tough to explain.

 

[ContinentalOp]

With a DA/SA revolver, you have to manually cock the hammer to get it into SA mode. As OKFC05 said, it can be difficult, and possibly dangerous, to de-cock under stress. Add in the fact that most DA revolvers have very light triggers in SA and the stress of a self defense encounter and you have the makings for a stress-induced unintentional discharge. People who advocate DAO revolvers for self defense use argue that SA is a bad idea for self defense for this reason and that malicious prosecutors (or plaintiffs, in a civil case) could argue that you "cocked" the hammer for intimidation, that you did so and recklessly caused an unintentional discharge resulting in injury, or some similar claim. Having a DAO revolver pretty much eliminates that possibility. This is on top of the fact that SA capability in a revolver is pretty much useless in self defense shootings as they are typically reactive situations taking place within a few seconds.

With DA/SA semi-autos, the heavier, longer initial DA pull has the same resistance to an unintentional discharge as a DA revolver. Most of them have a decocker function so one can decock the gun safely (CZ75 is an example of a DA/SA gun without a decocker). Also, most DA/SA semi-autos still have a relatively firm SA pull, typically greater than 4lbs, which is what many professionals say should be the minimum SA pull weight on a defensive gun to mitigate the risk of having an unintentional discharge. I suppose one could argue that a DA/SA semi-auto could also be manually cocked initially and have the same liability issue as a cocked revolver, but again I think the heavier SA pull weight mitigates that risk, too.

 

[nachogrande]

DAO SEMI'S

I like the DA/SA just fine, but can see police & military going DAO exclusively. There is some merit to their logic IMO. A shame it's come to this. (more lawyer proof)

 

[PPS1980]

442/642 baby!

 

[WR Moore]

Continental Op pretty much nailed the reason behind the DAO concept for defensive revolvers, and the explanation of the TDA semi-auto. There's no forensic method to determine if your revolver was cocked or not, so the opposing lawyer is free to put forth their theory of how someone got shot. Might be fact, might be moon beams, it's up to the jury to decide-and you can bet there's no one on the jury who's a gun owner.

Add to that the fact that if action work has been done to a revolver, the single action pull is going to be waaaaay less than factory spec. The dreaded "hair trigger" so beloved of tort attorneys. Which is one of the reasons PPC and other competition revolvers have been rendered DAO (at least at one time, DA revolvers had their triggers weighed single action, woe to you if your trigger pull was less than 4 lbs, which it would be in competition) for a very long time. Granted, in the LE sector this was also driven by liability suits and negligent discharges. Add into that the stress factors affecting strength, touch, trigger verification reflex and perception during a threat situation, the DAO defensive firearm is a really, really good idea.

And, if the opposing attorney hasn't been very thorough in their case prep, it's hysterically funny to watch them try to demonstrate how you created the "hair trigger" to the jury with a properly modified DAO revolver. It's even funnier if the hired "expert" they prop up in front of the jury (and have to pay-or at least they're supposed to) is the one who can't make it happen.

Frankly, I've found the DAO semi-auto to be a better "practical" gun than the TDA. You have the same trigger pull all the time and it's generally much shorter than the initial DA stroke.

 

[AZretired]

So I have a question. I read any number of times in various places that having a defense revolver with SA capability is a bad idea from a liability stand point. I wonder why SA in revolver is a "no no" but this feature seems to be OK for traditional SA/DA autoloaders like SIGs or Beretta 92s, etc. Why is that?
Our local PD carries a traditional SIG P series gun.

BTW, I carry a S&W 649 and have no intention of getting rid of the SA functionality.

In a revolver the SA feature can be tough to safely decock under stress and has lead to unintentional shootings. That's why most police departments deactivated the SA mode. In an auto like the Sight they have a De-cocker that safely puts the gun in DA mode.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[iPac]

Accidents can happen to anyone, but folks who daily carry should have enough skill and practice to eliminate any of the fears relating to SA shooting of a revolver.

I'm fully aware of each side of the debate and the pros and cons to each side too. It has little influence on my personal preferences. Any revolver I am carrying needs to have the SA and DA functioning. Sometimes you may need that SA shot if shooting at a distance.

For instance, I have practiced drawing from the holster and cocking the hammer as my gun comes up into position. It's actually a relatively easy task. Of course, in a real situation stress would be a factor, and my initial plans aren't to SA cock my gun, but it could be done. I also have no problems dropping the hammer on my guns with finger and thumb.

Now, I train using DA only most of the time, but I also train with cocking the hammer too, and use cocking the hammer for longer shot training. So it's good to have the option.

FYI, my EDC has a DA pull of about 7# and a SA pull of about 2# 4oz.

I have no fears or hesitation carrying. Granted, if the need arises to use it, I would most likely be firing it DA though.

 

[Wise_A]

So I have a question. I read any number of times in various places that having a defense revolver with SA capability is a bad idea from a liability stand point. I wonder why SA in revolver is a "no no" but this feature seems to be OK for traditional SA/DA autoloaders like SIGs or Beretta 92s, etc. Why is that?
Our local PD carries a traditional SIG P series gun.

BTW, I carry a S&W 649 and have no intention of getting rid of the SA functionality.

The theory is that you'll be accused of cocking it and firing unintentionally. Which is sort of silly, given that you yourself are affirming that the shot was intentional. Basically, they'd be claiming that you're lying to cover up negligence.

It's "ok" on a DA/SA pistol because idiots don't know **** about guns.

The idea of having to decock is tenuous at best. For one thing, you'd only be cocking the revolver to begin with when there was, realistically, already a deadly threat that was perhaps unavoidable but not quite imminent. For another, decocking a revolver isn't that hard or dangerous. It's even possible to insert an object in between the hammer and frame as an additional means of safety. The process is mentally difficult for some people to find acceptable, because it involves squeezing the trigger when you don't intend to shoot. Which is good, that should give you a headache.

Carry what you want to carry. If what you want to carry has five or six chambers and an exposed hammer, so be it.

 

[forrestinmathews]

How about a single action revolver? Did you cock that to intimidate or because the situation existed where you reasonably believed that your next action would be to shoot?

 

[Kanewpadle]

In self defense situations revolvers are meant to be shot double action only. This of course excludes SA revolvers. This isn't something new. Been that way for generations.

 

[ispcapt]

If you intend to shoot someone and you shoot them then it doesn't matter if you shot them DA or SA.
If you did not intend to shoot someone and you shot them anyway then it doesn't matter if you shot them DA or SA.
This argument that you can be held liable because you accidently shot someone SA but wouldn't be liable if DA is totally silly. If you accidently shot someone whether the gun was DA or SA won't matter. It's the act. Think about it and anyone who has any reasoning can see it. Does it make any difference if you say "I didn't intend to shoot that person. It was an accident. But I was shooting DA so it's not a hair trigger and I'm not liable." Totally silly.
This discussion has been had for years by those who have never investigated and prosecuted shootings or been involved in civil cases involving shootings.

 

[fishcreekrim]

This trend of shooting into crowds suggests a possibility of returning
Fire across an auditorium. Deliberate single action fire would be very helpful in that circumstance. That said I recognize the added risk from a
light trigger pull in a close encounter. Those that pack revolvers have
a choice to make.

 

[WC145]

So I have a question. I read any number of times in various places that having a defense revolver with SA capability is a bad idea from a liability stand point.

It's a bunch of BS, DA revolvers have been carried for self defense and by LE and military since they were introduced without any special liability issues exclusive to the design.

My suggestion is to stop reading postings from the worry warts and nanny types on the internet, learn your weapon's manual of arms thoroughly, and use common sense in the handling, carry, and use of your revolver.

 

[GerSan69]

Heh. Lots of folks out there have overinflated views of their own skills (I think the call them "skillz") and want to pontificate authoritatively about how you should carry your gun, what gun to carry, blah, blah, blah. Don't listen to them.

Having said that, I will tell you this, from years of carrying guns: The only things you need to know are first, how to handle any gun safely and then how to handle YOUR gun safely. The rest comes from practice, practice, practice. If you're going to carry a gun in public, concealed or otherwise, then an NRA concealed weapons class is a good idea, even if it's not required in your state. It's important to know the laws even more than which holster to use, etc. Never forget that you're handling a deadly weapon and respect it as such. Don't be afraid of it, respect it. Really, until you reach that point, anything else is meaningless.

When you've done all that, when you've reached the point where you're comfortable with a firearm, then go waste some $ on tactics training or whatever they call it.

 

[Rpg]

So I have a question. I read any number of times in various places that having a defense revolver with SA capability is a bad idea from a liability stand point. I wonder why SA in revolver is a "no no" but this feature seems to be OK for traditional SA/DA autoloaders like SIGs or Beretta 92s, etc. Why is that?
Our local PD carries a traditional SIG P series gun.

BTW, I carry a S&W 649 and have no intention of getting rid of the SA functionality.

The single action feature isn’t a problem, so long as you use it appropriately. That generally means not using it in the vast majority of sd situations.

The concern is you cock the thing then have a negligent discharge related to the much lighter sa trigger. That could occur either lowering the hammer or in a premature discharge.

Some police departments went to DAO revolvers to accommodate the lowest level of firearms skill the department would encounter with their cops.

For a civilian, not constrained by worried bean counters in risk management, and willing to learn good gun handling skill there is no benefit to disabling the sa capability of your revolver.

SA capability creates no inherent legal risk in itself.

The risk arises from poor gun handling skills: no different than any accidental discharge scenario

 

[Walkingwolf]

So I have a question. I read any number of times in various places that having a defense revolver with SA capability is a bad idea from a liability stand point. I wonder why SA in revolver is a "no no" but this feature seems to be OK for traditional SA/DA autoloaders like SIGs or Beretta 92s, etc. Why is that?
Our local PD carries a traditional SIG P series gun.

BTW, I carry a S&W 649 and have no intention of getting rid of the SA functionality.

It's basically personal choice. If you train shooting SA revolver then you should be capable of doing it safely. Remember people have been defending themselves, as well as hunting with single action pistols for over 100 years.

I am a big fan of SA revolvers, probably becaues my first handgun was a cap, and ball revolver. I took a good number of rabbits, and squirrel with that little revolver. I always have a NAA single action revolver in my pocket.

 

[Wise_A]

I am a big fan of SA revolvers, probably becaues my first handgun was a cap, and ball revolver.

Man, you are old.

In all seriousness, a BP revolver is on my list somewhere.

 

[TomkinsSP]

Man, you are old.

Hey, those Samuel C***s were a big deal, made our 1806 flintlocks obsolete overnight.

 

[American1776]

revolvers are not dangerous to decock: I put my left thumb between the cocked hammer and the frame, squeeze the trigger, let go of the trigger, wiggle my thumb out from between the hammer and the frame while my right thumb eases the hammer back to transfer bar.

Revolvers *are* potentially dangerous in single action mode. My S&W revolvers in SA mode are VERY sensitive, with zero 'take up' before the hammer falls.