bmcgilvray
Member
I don't care for any DAO gun, revolver included. I like having single-action capabilities. I like choices. In a self-defense situation I might "cheat" under the right circumstances.
DA/SA Question
- Thread starter white cloud
- Start date
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
I don't touch my gun unless I intend to shoot. No warning shots, no warnings period, threaten my family, and that is it. If I can walk away, and my family is not involved that is the choice I prefer. I shoot a SA revolver the same as I did hunting, draw, cock, and shoot. Shooting at a rabbit you only get one shot no matter how many rounds you have. Shooting self defense is not much different, that first shot better count.
In self defense situations revolvers are meant to be shot any way possible. This of course includes single SA revolvers. This isn't something new. Been that way for generations.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,762
- Reaction score
- 7,170
Some folks here seem to have lost the original question posed by the OP. For those who claim it doesn't matter, I suggest reading State vs Luis Alverez (or the other way around, can't recall).
Speed reading version: Miami Police Officer Alverez intentionally shot a felon who was reaching for his illegal firearm. The prosecution/persecution version (after Miami burned) was that the service pistol was cocked and the resultant discharge was negligent. Alverez was acquitted. (Can't recall if Miami burned again.) Shortly thereafter, Miami turned all their revolvers into DAO. While we don't know what the Prosecutors would have done if that was done prior to the incident, it would have removed a hook for the prosecution to establish their theory of the event. Also, recall that civil cases only need preponderance of the evidence/number of kleenex prompted by the heart rending story, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speed reading version: Miami Police Officer Alverez intentionally shot a felon who was reaching for his illegal firearm. The prosecution/persecution version (after Miami burned) was that the service pistol was cocked and the resultant discharge was negligent. Alverez was acquitted. (Can't recall if Miami burned again.) Shortly thereafter, Miami turned all their revolvers into DAO. While we don't know what the Prosecutors would have done if that was done prior to the incident, it would have removed a hook for the prosecution to establish their theory of the event. Also, recall that civil cases only need preponderance of the evidence/number of kleenex prompted by the heart rending story, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Last edited:
DocB
Member
Single action for when you want to hit a rattlesnake in the head. Double action when confronted by a human rattlesnake.
Actually there's more to the Alverez case than him being charged because his pistol was cocked. A lot more.
The prosecution contended that Johnson was turning around to face Alverez when Alverez shot him and that Johnson did not present a threat when he was shot. Alverez contends that Johnson was reaching for a gun when Alverez shot him.
Puts a different spin on what you quoted doesn't it. I know there are some 'defensive tactics experts' who like to use Alverez in their teachings. They use just the part that fits what they want to teach but they don't actually use the entire case. They spin it to fit what they want it to say instead of teaching what Alverez was actually about.
Last edited:
OP
white cloud
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 1,138
- Reaction score
- 1,542
I am the O.P. This has been an interesting thread. I appreciate everyone's responses.
What prompted this thread was my wife and I were shooting her Model 67. I used to shoot NRA Bulls Eye competition. If I shot her gun the "Bulls Eye" way, it was easy to make good hits at 50 yards. At closer ranges it was really easy to make hits either S.A. or D.A. I realize that the "Bulls Eye" way is not practical shooting and I will never have to fire at 50 yards but one wonders how much "progress" we have actually made.
What prompted this thread was my wife and I were shooting her Model 67. I used to shoot NRA Bulls Eye competition. If I shot her gun the "Bulls Eye" way, it was easy to make good hits at 50 yards. At closer ranges it was really easy to make hits either S.A. or D.A. I realize that the "Bulls Eye" way is not practical shooting and I will never have to fire at 50 yards but one wonders how much "progress" we have actually made.
RGVshooter
Member
A lot of overthinking's going on here. I believe the real concern on any pistol that is carried for personal defense is modifying the trigger to make it lighter. THAT, is the real liability issue in self defense shootings, not whether the pistol has a exposed hammer or not, or if its DA/SA. As long as the trigger is within factory specs, it shouldn't be a issue.
I'll reference the sticky that's posted here on this forum. Facts About "Light Trigger Pull Liability"
I'll reference the sticky that's posted here on this forum. Facts About "Light Trigger Pull Liability"
The_Truth
Member
Whoever told you this has no idea what they're talking about
RGVshooter
Member
well whoever told you that a DA/SA pistol with a stock factory trigger is a liability has no idea what they're talking about either.
The_Truth
Member
well whoever told you that a DA/SA pistol with a stock factory trigger is a liability has no idea what they're talking about either.
That's exactly what I was saying. I was replying to OP
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
You are either justified to use deadly force, or you are not. It really is pretty simple.
My revolvers can be fired SA or DA. That is why I have them. Why would a gun maker make a SA/DA if you are not supposed to be able to fire it SA?
I also have a Browning HiPower that I get along with just fine.
I also have a Browning HiPower that I get along with just fine.
RGVshooter
Member
Oh thank god, I thought I was about to get in a keyboard belly bopping contest. Hahaha.
Sad how times have not changed....no more in fear of getting a gig.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,762
- Reaction score
- 7,170
ispcapt-forgot the part about turning, in fact, I'd have to go find my notes. I do recall that there was miscommunication/misinterpretation during walk through because of crime scene processing as to how the suspect responded. Thus the turning, raised hands.
Alverez did fire intentionally because of the suspects furtive movement consistent with drawing the firearm he'd admitted to carrying.
That said, Miami did go DAO almost immediately afterward. My recollection was that an AD was also part of the prosecutions theory: Alverez intentionally shot a non threat or, alternatively, cocked his service revolver and negligently shot the suspect. I didn't include all the details because the notes aren't real handy and that part wasn't immediately germane to what we were discussing. That type of situation is ripe for such chicanery by a prosecutor/tort attorney with an axe to grind. It was never my intention to mislead or make the story fit the situation.
Alverez did fire intentionally because of the suspects furtive movement consistent with drawing the firearm he'd admitted to carrying.
That said, Miami did go DAO almost immediately afterward. My recollection was that an AD was also part of the prosecutions theory: Alverez intentionally shot a non threat or, alternatively, cocked his service revolver and negligently shot the suspect. I didn't include all the details because the notes aren't real handy and that part wasn't immediately germane to what we were discussing. That type of situation is ripe for such chicanery by a prosecutor/tort attorney with an axe to grind. It was never my intention to mislead or make the story fit the situation.
Last edited:
The prosecution introduced the theory it was an accidental discharge. Who knows why. Doesn't make any sense. But then not all prosecutors are top drawer material. The prosecution contended it was an accidental shooting. Alverez said "nope, it was not an accident. I intended to shoot him and here's why." Being SA or DA didn't and wouldn't have made a difference.
Last edited:
nachogrande
Member
UNLESS YOU PLANNED ON USING IT AS A CLUB...
Is there another way of firing a S/A revolver WITHOUT cocking it? If there was no threat, it should have stayed in the holster. However in 2018 Matt Dillon has been retired for some time.
Is there another way of firing a S/A revolver WITHOUT cocking it? If there was no threat, it should have stayed in the holster. However in 2018 Matt Dillon has been retired for some time.
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
I have no use, personally, for the single action option in a self-defense handgun.
I'm elderly, with slower reflexes than I used to have. My hands are messed up with rheumatoid arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome. In a defense situation I wouldn't be confident I wouldn't fumble cocking the hammer and lose time and waste a round. If, heaven forbid, I have to use my gun to defend my ancient bacon, it's almost inevitably going be up close and very, very quick. An aimed shot at more than ten yards is extremely unlikely, and I'll risk the chance.
I've carried DAO revolvers for twenty years. They are just the tools in which I have confidence.
I'm elderly, with slower reflexes than I used to have. My hands are messed up with rheumatoid arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome. In a defense situation I wouldn't be confident I wouldn't fumble cocking the hammer and lose time and waste a round. If, heaven forbid, I have to use my gun to defend my ancient bacon, it's almost inevitably going be up close and very, very quick. An aimed shot at more than ten yards is extremely unlikely, and I'll risk the chance.
I've carried DAO revolvers for twenty years. They are just the tools in which I have confidence.
Similar threads
