View Full Version : Will striker fired pistols obsolete the traditional type actions for self defense ?
Well, for me they have. Along with them being easier "for me" to shoot and master, I like just about everything about them. The trigger in my Walther PPQ is close to perfect for me, with a little bit of take up, 5.5lb pull with a nice clean break that does not disturb the sights and a nice short reset. My S&W M&P FS 9 with Apex Tactical parts is also real sweet. Even the triggers on my well used Glock Gen 3 17 & 19 are pretty nice for stock factory self defense pistols. Will they gradually replace other self defense pistol action types ?
Most of the world still uses DA/SA pistols.
I don't think they're going anywhere anytime soon.
Alaskapopo
07-01-12, 23:37
Most of the world still uses DA/SA pistols.
I don't think they're going anywhere anytime soon.
But we are the trend setters in this area. For a long time the rest of the world was using pocket pistols as carry guns for their police and military officers. I could give a crap less about what the French( fill in other non US country here) are doing.
Yes DA SA designs are already obsolete and on the way out. Yes they still work and if you own one it does not mean you have to sell it. But are they the best choice any more no.
pat
Switched from HK USP's to Glocks and haven't looked back. I generally see more striker pistols than any other in classes. Maybe it has been coincidence, or it is the new wave that's here to stay.
Microalign
07-02-12, 10:14
I think that DA/SA pistols are also on the way out. During the age of mercuric priming and less dependable quality controls, making DA/SA pistols like the P38 was a good idea for that second strike ability. The problem with DA/SA guns is that it almost doubles the manufacturing cost of the gun versus a typical striker fired pistol, and it is more complex needing tighter quality controls. It adds more moving parts to the gun making it more susceptible to potential problems due to debris, and it tends to make the gun's maintenance schedule more frequent. It forces the shooter to have to master multiple trigger modes, and it takes up more space internally limiting grip modules and preventing the gun design from having a low bore axis.
I still use DA/SA Sigs on duty, because I have no choice. I would rather go with a single trigger condition striker fired pistol, or with a HK LEM system.
F-Trooper05
07-02-12, 11:19
I think you guys overestimate the knowledge-base of 95% of gun owners who couldn't tell you the difference between a striker and a hammer if they had to.
Alaskapopo
07-02-12, 11:48
I think you guys overestimate the knowledge-base of 95% of gun owners who couldn't tell you the difference between a striker and a hammer if they had to.
That may be true but striker fired guns are also cheaper which will also make the more popular with the demographic of which you speak.
pat
Awesome1228
07-02-12, 12:29
That may be true but striker fired guns are also cheaper which will also make the more popular with the demographic of which you speak.
pat
True, but popular doesn't always equal better. Just look at Britney Spears and Justin Bieber. Popular as hell, but awful.
So people who don't really know any better will buy what's cheap and perceived to be better, whether it is or not.
Obsolete? I don't think so. Not the only game in town anymore though, for sure.
AZ-Renegade
07-02-12, 12:53
I wouldn't call the DA/SA obsolete, but when you see the newer pistol designs coming out, most of them are striker fired.
I would be interested to find out which of the two designs (Striker and DA/SA) tend to have more parts in their designs.
Well, for me they have. Along with them being easier "for me" to shoot and master, I like just about everything about them. The trigger in my Walther PPQ is close to perfect for me, with a little bit of take up, 5.5lb pull with a nice clean break that does not disturb the sights and a nice short reset. My S&W M&P FS 9 with Apex Tactical parts is also real sweet. Even the triggers on my well used Glock Gen 3 17 & 19 are pretty nice for stock factory self defense pistols. Will they totally obsolete other self defense pistol action types ? Probably not, but in 10 more years I think we will see a lot less of them.
When you say best for you, are you basing this on hits on target at different distances AND faster times against a clock or...?
Not obsolete.
I shoot a Beretta M9 faster and more accurately than a G19. Totally user preference.
Alaskapopo
07-02-12, 14:14
True, but popular doesn't always equal better. Just look at Britney Spears and Justin Bieber. Popular as hell, but awful.
So people who don't really know any better will buy what's cheap and perceived to be better, whether it is or not.
Obsolete? I don't think so. Not the only game in town anymore though, for sure.
Popular is not always right but I will say in this case short trigger striker fired guns are better. Better in that they are easier to master, easier to shoot, easier to train people on. There are no down sides. DA/SA guns are on their way out. That does not mean you have a useless gun and if your used to it keep on trucking. However for shooters getting into the world its better to just pass right over DA SA guns. This is coming from someone who has carried my share of DA SA guns in my career.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-02-12, 14:20
Not obsolete.
I shoot a Beretta M9 faster and more accurately than a G19. Totally user preference.
The Beretta M9 is a full size gun (actually beyond that its freaking huge) so its not a huge surprize you can shoot it faster than a compact concealment pistol. Thats akin to saying you can shoot a K Framed Smith faster than a J Framed smith. (under the DUH catagory) A more valid comparision would be the Glock 17 or 34. I will admit a Beretta 92 with a trigger job can be shot very well. However it suffers from the same thing all DA's do a longer heaver trigger pull for that most important first shot. It requires you to master both trigger pulls and you have to remember to decock the gun. Lots more things to train new shooters on and for what. There is no plus to a DA SA trigger system.
Pat
According to who?
You?
Okay I'm convinced. I will now disregard my own experience and accept what you tell me.
Self loading pistols made revolvers obsolete like over 100 years ago. At least that was announced when they become popular in early XX century.... :sarcastic:
Alaskapopo
07-02-12, 16:33
According to who?
You?
Okay I'm convinced. I will now disregard my own experience and accept what you tell me.
Own experience doing what? Sounds like someone needs to pull their head out of the sand and look around. The use of DA SA guns is fading fast. Go to training, go to competition, it really does not matter the venue they are losing ground. This is not earth shattering and has been happening for several years. Today you see mostly striker fired pistols then custom 1911's in professional hands.
Pat
gunrunner505
07-02-12, 16:41
I'll agree that striker pistols have advantages over DA/SA pistols. Do I think DA is dead? No.
Striker pistols have the advantage of having one constant trigger pull to master
DA pistols have a long heavy first shot trigger pull then it switches to a completely different trigger pull. To some this is an issue, to others not so much.
Do you shoot it well? Then it's right for you and keep rolling.
Awesome1228
07-02-12, 16:51
Go to training, go to competition, it really does not matter the venue they are losing ground.
Pat
Losing ground does not mean losing relevance.
Maybe losing popularity. Why that may be happening is open to debate. Easy of use, getting a new shooter up to speed and the other point you made are valid. Much lower cost is also valid. Cheaper does not equal better. I'm not saying striker fired are automatically inferior, but I don't think it fair to say a da/sa gun is inferior either. Different, of course. Much of it really does come down to personal preference.
Popular is not always right but I will say in this case short trigger striker fired guns are better. Better in that they are easier to master, easier to shoot, easier to train people on. There are no down sides. DA/SA guns are on their way out. That does not mean you have a useless gun and if your used to it keep on trucking. However for shooters getting into the world its better to just pass right over DA SA guns. This is coming from someone who has carried my share of DA SA guns in my career.
Pat
Saying that they're easier to shoot and easier to master makes a case that the 1911 is the best pistol out there. It is the easiest and most forgiving pistol to shoot. Meaning you can make a lot of trigger mistakes and still get hits on target. It can be extremely accurate even in the hands of a less experienced shooter. It's not that hard to remember to flip safety on before holstering. That's a matter of training.
I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I'm saying dedicated shooters should go out and try different guns before deciding. Make up their own minds. Run drills against a clock and figure it out. Also, beginners, IMHO, should rent or borrow for awhile because they don't have the experience to know what works for them and what doesn't.
In the end, a good, dedicated shooter is going to have to work hard anyway. It doesn't matter if it's SF, SA or DA/SA. Being a good shooter takes a lot of time and practice. IMHO, there isn't one right answer for everyone. I don't believe in the one size fits all theory. I don't believe Glock 19 is the right answer to every handgun self defense question, just as I don't believe 9mm is the right answer to every SD question. And this all comes from someone who has a Glock 17 and really likes it.
Own experience doing what? Sounds like someone needs to pull their head out of the sand and look around. The use of DA SA guns is fading fast. Go to training, go to competition, it really does not matter the venue they are losing ground. This is not earth shattering and has been happening for several years. Today you see mostly striker fired pistols then custom 1911's in professional hands.
Pat
My experience shooting, competing, firearms in general, etc.
As to the rest of your post, how does a striker fad this make DA SA completely obsolete?
Answer: It doesn't. What matters is the shooter and his/her familiarity with the firearm they are using.
Black goat
07-02-12, 19:26
If i may step in on Alaskapopo's behalf a bit, I think the point is that a DA/SA has no tangible benefit over an SFA, and though one can train to overcome the DA/SA, and in fact will not hinder a shooter with adequate experience behind one, the striker has no need to overcome the slight complexity that comes with the DA/SA (I find the DA pull to be less of an issue than the first SA shot).
That combined with the general simplicity of most striker fired handguns when compared to their DA/SA alternatives (and the often lower price likely due to the simplicity of manufacturing and materials they are made from) is leading to the rise in SFA popularity. So one does not need to try and defend or justify their use and ownership of DA/SA (They are still as capable), but you surely can see why the benefit of simplicity of a SFA makes it a more logical to make if one is deciding on a firearm to use for training/competition/duty. I do think we may see a arise in LEM/DAK type systems, as I know a lot of groups and people prefer hammer fired firearms, but also appreciate the consistent trigger pull (just need some makers to refine and hone their quality down but Light LEM from H&K is rather workable.)
On a side note, if one is trying to argue for either side, looking at agencies, forces, units, or anything with a bureaucratic procurement set up may be misleading. These organizations may be able to demonstrate the effectiveness (or lack there of) of a platform through their use, but the reasons they issue what they do are generally not influenced purely by what they believe is the best choice from a use standpoint and are often beleaguered by ridiculous requirements (I believe a police department discussed on another forum ruled out Gen4 G22's as they were not readily available in two tone from the factory and they required that, despite its positive testing and record as a police issue sidearm)
Alaskapopo
07-02-12, 20:20
Saying that they're easier to shoot and easier to master makes a case that the 1911 is the best pistol out there. It is the easiest and most forgiving pistol to shoot. Meaning you can make a lot of trigger mistakes and still get hits on target. It can be extremely accurate even in the hands of a less experienced shooter. It's not that hard to remember to flip safety on before holstering. That's a matter of training.
.
The 1911 is a wonderful firearm and I compete with them and until this last year carried them. The problem with the 1911 as a self defense weapon comes from its high maintance schedule. If you shoot your guns like I do you will be wearing parts out regulary and frankly I could not or rather did not want to afford purchasing two custom 1911's (one for training and one for carry). I had a Wilson CQB that ran great until it didn't then it was one thing after another than needed repair or replacement. Glocks are not like that thankfully and can go a long time with little to no maintance. The other issue I had with single stack 1911's is they are low capacity but that is another debate. Your right that an experienced shooter can do well with any firearm. My point is some are a lot easier to learn and master than others.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-02-12, 20:24
My experience shooting, competing, firearms in general, etc.
As to the rest of your post, how does a striker fad this make DA SA completely obsolete?
Answer: It doesn't. What matters is the shooter and his/her familiarity with the firearm they are using.
A fad I am assuming that is sarcasim. Jeff Cooper was right double action autos were an ingenious solution to a non existant problem. Some people think they are safer but the reality is all guns are only as safe as their users. Like I said before DA SA guns are on their way out. Not my opinion so much as an obvious observation from being a cop for 13 years, a firearms instructor for 11 years and a competative shooter for 6 years.
Not trying to insult anyone who likes these firearms. (I have a soft spot for old Sigs and Beretta's) Just stating it like it is. If they work for you great, but they are on their way out.
Pat
...Jeff Cooper was right double action autos were an ingenious solution to a non existant problem. Some people think they are safer but the reality is all guns are only as safe as their users...
Absolutely right on both counts. I have always felt that the advent of the DA/SA in a self loader was a diversion and stunted handgun development
Like I said before DA SA guns are on their way out.
and it's about damn time!
The striker is superior to the hammer in almost every way. Faster locking time, harder strikes and more consistent and reliable ignition. That's why it's used in bolt action rifles. It's also a more compact and simpler design. In handguns it also has the added advantage of being cocked on closing. None of the extraction energy is used to cock the pistol as it is with hammer ignition self loaders. Striker ignition systems also produce crisper trigger breaks.
Since most, if not all of the striker ignition system is internal, it's exposure to the elements and outside debris is minimized. Since striker springs are simply compressed, instead of bent or torqued as most hammer springs are, they last longer.
Long before Glocks and even the VP70z or the HK P7, I've thought a striker made sense for a pistol. Even single action hammer fired pistols are surpassed by the striker system
Alaskapopo
07-02-12, 21:56
Absolutely right on both counts. I have always felt that the advent of the DA/SA in a self loader was a diversion and stunted handgun development
and it's about damn time!
The striker is superior to the hammer in almost every way. Faster locking time, harder strikes and more consistent and reliable ignition. That's why it's used in bolt action rifles. It's also a more compact and simpler design. In handguns it also has the added advantage of being cocked on closing. None of the extraction energy is used to cock the pistol as it is with hammer ignition self loaders. Striker ignition systems also produce crisper trigger breaks.
Since most, if not all of the striker ignition system is internal, it's exposure to the elements and outside debris is minimized. Since striker springs are simply compressed, instead of bent or torqued as most hammer springs are, they last longer.
Long before Glocks and even the VP70z or the HK P7, I've thought a striker made sense for a pistol. Even single action hammer fired pistols are surpassed by the striker system
Nah there just a fad.:haha:
I know Tier 1 instructors like Claude Werner formerly of Rogers school currently prefers DA/SA guns. A bit dated but so did John Hall of FBI FTU fame. I can do more precise work with my sigs trigger than my glock 19. So there is still definitely a school out there for them.
Alaskapopo
07-02-12, 22:08
I know Tier 1 instructors like Claude Werner formerly of Rogers school currently prefers DA/SA guns. A bit dated but so did John Hall of FBI FTU fame. I can do more precise work with my sigs trigger than my glock 19. So there is still definitely a school out there for them.
Sigs are accurate guns generally more so than Glocks but that is not about the trigger system. The first shot on the Sig is definately harder to hit with. Tier 1 guys are people too with thier own likes and dislikes and they seem to be leading the trend away from DA SA guns, rather than being a last hold out.
Pat
The striker is superior to the hammer in almost every way. Faster locking time, harder strikes and more consistent and reliable ignition. That's why it's used in bolt action rifles. It's also a more compact and simpler design. In handguns it also has the added advantage of being cocked on closing. None of the extraction energy is used to cock the pistol as it is with hammer ignition self loaders. Striker ignition systems also produce crisper trigger breaks.
Since most, if not all of the striker ignition system is internal, it's exposure to the elements and outside debris is minimized. Since striker springs are simply compressed, instead of bent or torqued as most hammer springs are, they last longer.
Long before Glocks and even the VP70z or the HK P7, I've thought a striker made sense for a pistol. Even single action hammer fired pistols are surpassed by the striker system
Pretty much everything you posted there is wrong.
Get a clue on how handguns work.
The 1911 is a wonderful firearm and I compete with them and until this last year carried them. The problem with the 1911 as a self defense weapon comes from its high maintance schedule. If you shoot your guns like I do you will be wearing parts out regulary and frankly I could not or rather did not want to afford purchasing two custom 1911's (one for training and one for carry). I had a Wilson CQB that ran great until it didn't then it was one thing after another than needed repair or replacement. Glocks are not like that thankfully and can go a long time with little to no maintance. The other issue I had with single stack 1911's is they are low capacity but that is another debate. Your right that an experienced shooter can do well with any firearm. My point is some are a lot easier to learn and master than others.
Pat
Yes, you're saying mastering two things, in this case the DA and SA, is harder than mastering one. I don't think anyone can argue with that.
I went from a Glock 30 to a XD and then a HK USP. I like and shoot it better Maybe one day i will go with a LEM on My HK but for Now I like the DA/SA over the Striker But that is Just what works for me .
DA/SA are still being made so i doubt they will Fade away anytime soon
DA/SA will be around for quite some time. Military Units (Tier 1) around the world and here in the US ( who drives weapon development), still select and choose to issue DA/SA pistols over models with striker fired actions.
The DA/SA action is NOT as big of a hindrance as some people on the errornet make it out to be. What's so wrong with one smooth DA pull, then 15 more trigger pulls that are MUCH better than any striker fired trigger on the market? Honestly, under a timer, I can not tell the difference between the first pull and the next 15 with my SIGs. And yes, the first round goes where I want it to.
Alaskapopo
07-03-12, 00:45
DA/SA will be around for quite some time. Military Units (Tier 1) around the world and here in the US ( who drives weapon development), still select and choose to issue DA/SA pistols over models with striker fired actions.
The DA/SA action is NOT as big of a hindrance as some people on the errornet make it out to be. What's so wrong with one smooth DA pull, then 15 more trigger pulls that are MUCH better than any striker fired trigger on the market? Honestly, under a timer, I can not tell the difference between the first pull and the next 15 with my SIGs. And yes, the first round goes where I want it to.
For starters the first shot is the most important and many shooters who use a DA pull under stress end up blowing the first shot. With a DA first shot you either need to slow down or get less accurate. No way around it your fighting a longer heavier pull. Now for the next trigger pulls I would have to argue that the next 15 are any better than a good striker fired trigger pull and in many cases their worse (depending on the design). With a well tuned trigger and a lot of practice you can get close to rivaling an equally skilled shooter with a striker fired gun but you will always be at a disadvantage if everything else is equal.
Pat
For starters the first shot is the most important and many shooters who use a DA pull under stress end up blowing the first shot. With a DA first shot you either need to slow down or get less accurate. No way around it your fighting a longer heavier pull. Now for the next trigger pulls I would have to argue that the next 15 are any better than a good striker fired trigger pull and in many cases their worse (depending on the design).
Pat
very true good thing about My HK I carry it Cocked and Locked Like a 1911
Alaskapopo
07-03-12, 01:25
very true good thing about My HK I carry it Cocked and Locked Like a 1911
That is the best way to carry an HK in my opinion but I like the variant that does not decock. When I had a USP I ended up decocking it when taking the safety off more times than not.
Pat
very true good thing about My HK I carry it Cocked and Locked Like a 1911
Likewise, I carry my CZ-75 in condition 1. I have only used it single action, and have never even live fired it once in double action. Having started shooting with striker fired pistols, I'm fully sold on single action hammer guns.
Anyone who wants Glocks and such can have them. I'll stick with CZs, Hi-Powers, and 1911s.
Alaskapopo
07-03-12, 02:00
Likewise, I carry my CZ-75 in condition 1. I have only used it single action, and have never even live fired it once in double action. Having started shooting with striker fired pistols, I'm fully sold on single action hammer guns.
Anyone who wants Glocks and such can have them. I'll stick with CZs, Hi-Powers, and 1911s.
The reason I stopped carrying 1911's HP's etc was they did not have the time lasting reliability that Glocks and similar guns have. Not that they can't be reliable it just takes a lot more TLC and that is something I don't want to have to do.
Pat
My first pistol was a Glock (29SF) which kaboomed around round 350. I've had fewer...er...reliability problems with other brands. ;)
That personal experience aside, I'm no hater of striker fired guns. For anyone not wanting to learn to deal with a manual safety and condition 1 carry, then I'd point them straight to a PPS or PPQ. However, I think enthusiast support for hammer guns will exceed our lifetimes.
That is the best way to carry an HK in my opinion but I like the variant that does not decock. When I had a USP I ended up decocking it when taking the safety off more times than not.
Pat
You install $9.95 part (Variant 5, 6, 9, 10 detent plate) in some less than a minute (including field strip) with use of small punch. Then you have safety with on/off and no de-cocking. HK throws this plate in as bonus part for free in "higher" USP models.
Alaskapopo
07-03-12, 03:50
My first pistol was a Glock (29SF) which kaboomed around round 350. I've had fewer...er...reliability problems with other brands. ;)
That personal experience aside, I'm no hater of striker fired guns. For anyone not wanting to learn to deal with a manual safety and condition 1 carry, then I'd point them straight to a PPS or PPQ. However, I think enthusiast support for hammer guns will exceed our lifetimes.
The Glock 29 is not the best example of a striker fired pistol nor did its action have anything to do with your KB. More likely faulty ammo. Your logic is akin to not recommending DA SA guns becaue Taurus DA autos suck.
Pat
Pretty much everything you posted there is wrong.
Get a clue on how handguns work.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks. I needed a good laugh
The Dumb Gun Collector
07-03-12, 07:02
It will probably be a long time before the rest of the world jumps on the bandwagon with us on this one. Most of the handguns adopted since the 1980s have continued to be both hammer fired and da/sa. The safteyless striker fired guns are not as safe for day to day handling. A lot of departments around here toy with the NY trigger variants in attempt to deal with this. In the end, you have a gun with a trigger almost as bad as the da stroke but on every shot.
What the striker guns as they exist today offer is ease of instruction. The average police officer can be taught to qualify with a striker gun more easily than a da/sa. They are also cheaper to manufacture and procure and that never hurts.
I suspect people would be better off learning to handle a Da/sa. It may be harder to qualify for novices, but they are exactly the kind of folks that benefit the most from the added safety of the da/sa.
I was at a class the other day where all the officers were asked to raise their hands if they had fired their weapon in anger in the past few years. One or two did. Then they were asked how many had crashed their car (including fender benders)during the same time period. Most raised their hands . The instructors point was that they should wear their damn sestbelts because it is more likely that they would break their neck in a car accident then have to jo out if the car in a hurry. I think that applies here.
DA/SA are still being made so i doubt they will Fade away anytime soon
Not by Smith and Wesson.
Has anyone notice that S&W has stopped making DA/SA pistols? There is probably a reason for that.
DA/SA is far from obsolete. The best handguns on the market are in fact DA/SA weapons. I highly prefer it over striker fired and feel it's a premium feature, definitely not a bad thing. S&W is not making them anymore because the law enforcement market has leaned towards the ease of striker fired -- they are just capitalizing on Glock's success.
FN and HK come to mind.
Not by Smith and Wesson.
Has anyone notice that S&W has stopped making DA/SA pistols? There is probably a reason for that.
yes they are still making the SW1911 But again On the Mainstream your right they are Copying Glock with the M&P
That is the best way to carry an HK in my opinion but I like the variant that does not decock. When I had a USP I ended up decocking it when taking the safety off more times than not.
Pat
Roger On that I had only Decock My HK a few times But have got where it is Not a issue Now .But for a 10 dollar part i might have to look into installing one to do away with the Decocker altogether
Awesome1228
07-03-12, 10:32
Not by Smith and Wesson.
Has anyone notice that S&W has stopped making DA/SA pistols? There is probably a reason for that.
The reason for that is called "profit". Why focus on a product line that performs poorly compared to the flavor of the month that is selling like hotcakes? (apparently at some point hotcakes sold really, really well...) Everyone is on the M&P bandwagon, so Smith and Wesson is simply focusing their efforts on supplying that demand. Business decision, not relevance of DA/SA.
Not obsolete.
I shoot a Beretta M9 faster and more accurately than a G19. Totally user preference.
Sure, but most people are doing this in SA mode (not DA mode and is why they shoot it better). The M9 is also a larger and heavier gun so that plays into how fast and accurately they can shoot it.
C4
RC51_Texas
07-03-12, 10:56
I'd answer your question as a "Yes". That said, I still shoot my CZ75 more accurately that any of my Glocks.
But, as Grant states above, that's in SA, not DA ...
Microalign
07-03-12, 12:26
I'd answer your question as a "Yes". That said, I still shoot my CZ75 more accurately that any of my Glocks.
But, as Grant states above, that's in SA, not DA ...
Yep, a single condition trigger, that is light with a relatively short travel is the way to go. Anything that compromises this is to add safety against negligent discharge from the operator. DAO, or DA/SA are for added safety against operator error.....but compromise the effectiveness of the pistol. I've put a lot of focus on shooting DA/SA Sigs over the years because it is my only duty option. Yes, I am very good with the DA shot, but it is a performance compromise. If I rush the first DA shot to compete with the Glock shooter next to me, it often results in poor accuracy. If I ensure that the DA shot is accurate, it takes more time to depress the long trigger length with enough control to keep the sight picture from moving.
Keep the pistol in a well made holster, and the safety level of a SF pistol goes way up. The holster should be an integral part of the pistol.
The reason for that is called "profit". Why focus on a product line that performs poorly compared to the flavor of the month that is selling like hotcakes? (apparently at some point hotcakes sold really, really well...) Everyone is on the M&P bandwagon, so Smith and Wesson is simply focusing their efforts on supplying that demand. Business decision, not relevance of DA/SA.
It a business decision based on the fact that the DA/SA guns are not selling well, so it is completely relevant.
Alaskapopo
07-03-12, 14:38
It will probably be a long time before the rest of the world jumps on the bandwagon with us on this one. Most of the handguns adopted since the 1980s have continued to be both hammer fired and da/sa. The safteyless striker fired guns are not as safe for day to day handling. A lot of departments around here toy with the NY trigger variants in attempt to deal with this. In the end, you have a gun with a trigger almost as bad as the da stroke but on every shot.
What the striker guns as they exist today offer is ease of instruction. The average police officer can be taught to qualify with a striker gun more easily than a da/sa. They are also cheaper to manufacture and procure and that never hurts.
I suspect people would be better off learning to handle a Da/sa. It may be harder to qualify for novices, but they are exactly the kind
That is false. More ND have been recorded with DA revolvers than any other weapon in police hands. Its about training. Dr. Enoca's work showed if you have your finger on the trigger when you should not you will have an ND regardless of trigger pull weight. Its a training issue. With bad training you will have ND's with DA SA guns, Glocks 1911's etc. If you train properly your chances on all guns will be much less. This is a common misconception held by DA SA fans. Their guns are not safer.
Pat
Saying that they're easier to shoot and easier to master makes a case that the 1911 is the best pistol out there. It is the easiest and most forgiving pistol to shoot. Meaning you can make a lot of trigger mistakes and still get hits on target. It can be extremely accurate even in the hands of a less experienced shooter. It's not that hard to remember to flip safety on before holstering. That's a matter of training.
And who is to argue against that logic?!
I surely don't.
Awesome1228
07-03-12, 15:48
It a business decision based on the fact that the DA/SA guns are not selling well, so it is completely relevant.
Maybe I didn't state my point clearly. Let's try again. Smith and Wesson's DA/SA guns weren't selling well, and their M&P was. That doesn't mean that there are no companies that are successfully selling DA/SA guns. For instance, SIG has sold more guns recently than any other time in their history and most of them are DA/SA.
I'm not arguing which is better here, simply stating my opinion that DA/SA is not obsolete. Simply by definition of the word, they are not obsolete. According to Webster, obsolete means no longer in general use or of a discarded type, neither of which is true. Declining use, well maybe. My point is that WHY they are in declining use is at least in my mind, up for discussion. I don't feel that it is due to inferior design. There are arguments either way.
I believe we have come to the consensus that DASA guns are NOT, I repeat NOT obsolete.
:lazy:
Alaskapopo
07-03-12, 16:39
From your link.
Like any system, the DA/SA has pros and cons. Let's start with the cons, because they're far more popular on the internet.
1. The DA pull is harder to shoot well compared to SFA/SAO/DAO/whatever. I cannot say that's wrong. All else being equal, having an 8-10# first pull is, from a pure performance standpoint, a disadvantage over having a 3-5# first shot. You can train to overcome it -- both IDPA and USPSA have had multiple national titles won with DA/SA guns -- but it does require proper training and as mentioned previously that training can be hard to find even among otherwise well known instructors.
2. The "DA-to-SA transition" is harder to shoot well compared to SFA/SAO/DAO/whatever. Again, I cannot say that's wrong. In fact, in my experience it's actually the first SA shot, not the DA shot, that tends to be the most trouble for DA/SA shooters and especially for experienced DA/SA shooters. Again, it's not massive nor impossible to overcome, but even a small disadvantage that requires dedicated time to answer is still a disadvantage.
3. Shooter needs to remember to decock. I almost hate to list this because I honestly believe it is 100% the fault of the instructor when it happens, but still in fairness it is a step that SFA/DAO guns do not need.
Now for the pro's:
1. Safety coming out of the holster. A DA/SA gun is always ready to fire as soon as the trigger is pulled with no need to disengage a safety (no need... that doesn't prevent some people from carrying safety-on or being mandated to carry that way). But by dint of a trigger pull that is both longer and heavier than most other actions, there is far more tactile feedback that the trigger is being pulled in between the start of inadvertent unintentional movement and the Big Loud Noise. We've lost sight of this as a community with the prevalence of ever lighter and shorter SFA triggers and candidly I doubt we'll see the pendulum swing back any time soon. Performance on the square range -- particularly by those folks who don't really know how to shoot a DA/SA well -- is real while responding to an unknown assailant in the dark is, for most folks, merely hypothetical. The shooting community always blames the operator for every accident and never considers the role that equipment plays in making some guns more or less likely to facilitate those accidents. So for the most part, I'm barking at the moon on this. I believe it's a huge benefit. When I say it aloud in front of the mirror, there are two of us.
2. Safety going into the holster. While not unique to DA/SA guns, the benefit of having an exposed hammer that can be trapped and controlled during holstering is a significant and demonstrable safety advantage. This is undeniable. I've spent far too much time with far too many departments that have switched from DA/SA guns to SFA guns and seen first hand the result of people who holster too fast with their fingers too close to the trigger, or gear that gets inside the trigger guard, etc. Again, some will argue that it's a training issue and that mistakes are always 100% the operator, but I believe the redundant safety benefit of thumbing the hammer during holstering is huge.
3. DA/SA guns are very shootable with proper instruction and training. As mentioned above, quite a few people have delivered tremendous success with DA/SA guns. While opponents like to harp on the long, heavy first shot they seem to forget about the long string of shorter, light followup shots. Let's compare an average Glock to a typical SIG. The Glock has ~5.5# trigger pull for each shot. The SIG shooter needs to work through a ~9# first shot... and then he's got ~4# trigger pulls until he decocks the gun. With some tuning, the DA pull will still be longer and heavier than the Glock (and thus safer imo) but the SA can easily come down to the 3# range. The first shot is harder, ok. But all the rest are easier.
4. Shooting DA/SA guns trains you to shoot just about any trigger system. I consider this a minor benefit for anyone outside of the professional training realm, but the reality is that if you can master a DA/SA action and maintain your skill level with it, you can pick up just about anything else and shoot it well. ]
END QUOTE.
So he admits what we have said here with flaws of the obsolete DA SA design and his pros are arugable at best.
1. No need to take the safety off on a striker fired pistol and with 1911's its a training issue that is easy to learn with just a little time on the pistol. Far easier than it is to teach a new shooter to hit with a heavy DA first shot.
2. Safety out of the trigger again a training issue and one far more easy to over come than a 12 pound DA pull is to hit with.
3. The first shot is harder (most important) and the rest are easier is entirely dependant on how you have your trigger set up on either gun. I prefer a good Glock trigger to most DA SA triggers in Single action mode because most have a long reset.
4. I carry a pistol for protection not to learn how to shoot other action types. Totally a BS argument on that one.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-03-12, 16:40
I believe we have come to the consensus that DASA guns are NOT, I repeat NOT obsolete.
:lazy:
Maybe in your own mind. Back when my first agency switched from DA Beretta's,Sigs and HK's to Glocks the qualification scores went up an average of 10% to 15%. That in and of itself shows why DA SA designs are on their way out.
Pat
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks. I needed a good laugh
You're quite welcome.:D
The USPSA production nationals was won with a Beretta 92 last year. I'd say it's more the pilot than the plane.
Popularity with LE/mil does not equal performance capability.
Maybe I didn't state my point clearly. Let's try again. Smith and Wesson's DA/SA guns weren't selling well, and their M&P was.
Isn’t that what I just said?
Maybe in your own mind. Back when my first agency switched from DA Beretta's,Sigs and HK's to Glocks the qualification scores went up an average of 10% to 15%. That in and of itself shows why DA SA designs are on their way out.
Pat
They went up because striker fired weapons are easier to learn to shoot well, especially if your not a "shooter" like 99% of LEO's. If you're a "shooter" (like the majority on this forum, I assume), then DA/SA pistols should not be a problem to master and become just as proficient with it as a striker fired pistol.
Who knows... maybe NSW/DEVGRU, Australian SAS, Poland's GROM, Canada's JTF-2, British SAS/SBS, German SF and NZ SAS, just to name a few, should take weapon advise from a cop in a Podunk town in Alaska... because what do they know about weapons and how to deploy them in dynamic situations, including HR where theres a lot riding on that first DA trigger pull.:blink:
They went up because striker fired weapons are easier to learn to shoot well, especially if your not a "shooter" like 99% of LEO's. If you're a "shooter" (like the majority on this forum, I assume), then DA/SA pistols should not be a problem to master and become just as proficient with it as a striker fired pistol.
Who knows... maybe NSW/DEVGRU, Australian SAS, Poland's GROM, Canada's JTF-2, British SAS/SBS, German SF and NZ SAS, just to name a few, should take weapon advise from a cop in a Podunk town in Alaska... because what do they know about weapons and how to deploy them in dynamic situations, including HR where theres a lot riding on that first DA trigger pull.:blink:
Ok, but I think Alaska's point is that the SF guns will work for all, from guys who shoot just enough to qual to dialed in shooters like Delta operators. I said earlier that a dedicated shooter can shoot any quality pistol and make it work well, he agreed with that. I don't think anyone is arguing software is more important than hardware. Unfortunately not everyone keeps their software updated, nor do they care to.
And since you bring up high speed units and their adoption of DA/SA, I feel the need to point out that some of those guys leave for the private sector and end up preferring SF pistols. Kyle Defoor now prefers Glock and said that he made the switch because when he was at, IIRC, Tigerswan and a lot of those guys were shooting Glock and he made the transition as well. He has stated in the past that SF fired guns are a better choice. Jason Falla has said that he believes Glock is the best service pistol on the market by far. And IIRC, didn't Delta adopt .40 cal Glocks? My point is that it works both ways. .
They went up because striker fired weapons are easier to learn to shoot well, especially if your not a "shooter" like 99% of LEO's. If you're a "shooter" (like the majority on this forum, I assume), then DA/SA pistols should not be a problem to master and become just as proficient with it as a striker fired pistol.
Who knows... maybe NSW/DEVGRU, Australian SAS, Poland's GROM, Canada's JTF-2, British SAS/SBS, German SF and NZ SAS, just to name a few, should take weapon advise from a cop in a Podunk town in Alaska... because what do they know about weapons and how to deploy them in dynamic situations, including HR where theres a lot riding on that first DA trigger pull.:blink:
And a lot of these groups/teams either have a Glock or have transitioned to the Glock (completely).
As we all know, pistol shooting is hard. It is even harder when you have a first trigger pull that weighs 8-12 pounds and then another trigger that is half of that. Then you have to remember to de-cock the gun when done. Can it be learned? Of course. Since most people (LE, Civy, etc) have LIMITED time to shoot and no money for training, it becomes a hard gun to shoot well.
I have a personal friend that shoot's a DA/SA gun. He shoots once a month with me. At best, he is an "ok" shooter. He has been shooting this gun for 2yrs now. Two weeks ago, he picked up a striker fired gun. First time to the range with it and his shooting ability improved 100%! It was amazing to see. So that means what training he had received and practiced was always there, but because of the DA/SA trigger pull he just couldn't apply it all that well.
C4
And a lot of these groups/teams either have a Glock or have transitioned to the Glock (completely).
I can speak about only one of those groups, that not only did not transition to Glock (while they do have them in their inventory), but Grom experience and lessons from IRQ and AFG, made other units under Command of Special Forces in Poland to adopt SA/DA pistol as standard in place of previously used Glock (HK USP SD9). Glocks are still there, but they do not buy more of them (we are not rich enough just to trash can them, when top units get new equipment, old one goes down the line).
And actually one of reasons to go for SA/DA where reliability problems related to striker firing mechanism in pistols (Glock and Wist-94) used in IRQ and AFG. I was told by soldier from one of those units that "Glocks are great in the city back home, but on long patrol in desert or mountains better to have USP, that will fire everytime when trigger is pulled".
And a lot of these groups/teams either have a Glock or have transitioned to the Glock
C4
Which units are those? The only one that I could think of that may have switched to Glock is GROM, but it sounds like montrala took care of that answer. I've seen very recent training photos of GROM and they all had DA/SA USP's.
HackerF15E
07-04-12, 11:19
I believe we have come to the consensus that DASA guns are NOT, I repeat NOT obsolete.
I have read this thread three times, and I still can't really wrap my mind around what the OP is actually asking....because it's not just a claim that DA/SA pistols are somehow eclipsed in effectiveness by striker-fired pistols.
I don't see how a different type of firearm action mechanism -- better or worse than others, notwithstanding -- would ever make obsolete "the traditional type actions for self defense".
If people can still carry a Colt M1903, or a Smith Model 10, and effectively employ tactics to defend themselves with those pistols, how is the gun and the tactic "obsolete"?
It would have been better if the OP had simply said, "I like striker fired pistols better, and I think they have advantages over other types", and left out what the impact might be on other types of pistols (like saying they'll become 'obsolete') this would be a much different discussion.
KalashniKEV
07-04-12, 13:28
SA, DA/SA, DAO/LEM/whatever, and Striker fired will always remain options and will never obsolete any other method of operation. It comes down to preference.
This remains true whether you're talking about an individual user or agency.
So long as the pistol is a quality design, built from quality materials, and QC'd, a well maintained gun will always be viable.
The Dumb Gun Collector
07-04-12, 14:21
That is false. More ND have been recorded with DA revolvers than any other weapon in police hands. Its about training. Dr. Enoca's work showed if you have your finger on the trigger when you should not you will have an ND regardless of trigger pull weight. Its a training issue. With bad training you will have ND's with DA SA guns, Glocks 1911's etc. If you train properly your chances on all guns will be much less. This is a common misconception held by DA SA fans. Their guns are not safer.
Actually, the difficulty with the DA revolvers was that officers had a habit of thumb cocking them so they could have a lighter trigger. Which proves the point that lighter triggers are always going to be more susceptible to ND. Even Glock, who basically blazed the trail by calling the safteyless pistol a "safe action" doesn't recommend their 3.5 pound connector for duty use.
Actually, the difficulty with the DA revolvers was that officers had a habit of thumb cocking them so they could have a lighter trigger. Which proves the point that lighter triggers are always going to be more susceptible to ND. Even Glock, who basically blazed the trail by calling the safteyless pistol a "safe action" doesn't recommend their 3.5 pound connector for duty use.
Along those lines, it isn't only the finger that can depress the trigger.
I prefer SAO, better than SF or DA/SA, but i do like high capacity as well which is the only reason I won't beat the 1911 drum here. I carry a DA/SA on duty. I can put that first shot where I want it without a problem. My biggest problem was crashing through my 2nd shot after the DA pull when it switched to SA.
I like the simplicity of SF triggers and own glocks, but I hate the way a glock trigger feels. Regardless of my dislike of how the glock triggers feel I shoot them fast and accurately.
If Sig made a SAO P226, and brought real quality control back, I think you'd have one of the easiest to shoot, most accurate pistols on the market. It'd have high capacity rivaling the SF polymers, the light trigger for every shot, and that super sweet short reset.
They make the p220 in SAO not sure why you can't get a normal p226 in that configuration.
Black goat
07-04-12, 17:30
If Sig made a SAO P226, and brought real quality control back, I think you'd have one of the easiest to shoot, most accurate pistols on the market. It'd have high capacity rivaling the SF polymers, the light trigger for every shot, and that super sweet short reset.
They make the p220 in SAO not sure why you can't get a normal p226 in that configuration.
That would be fantastic to see a p226 SAO (not the x5 series) offered, I would even take one made to their apparently lessened standards of recent times.
That would be fantastic to see a p226 SAO (not the x5 series) offered, I would even take one made to their apparently lessened standards of recent times.
If they offered a tac ops in SAO I'd pay MSRP for that :stop: well maybe not but I'd buy one in a hurry.
If Sig made a SAO P226, and brought real quality control back, I think you'd have one of the easiest to shoot, most accurate pistols on the market. It'd have high capacity rivaling the SF polymers, the light trigger for every shot, and that super sweet short reset.
I'd get one. I run my DA/SA pistols as if they were SAO and just took my CZ-75 in to the shop yesterday to get converted to SAO permanently. High cap SAO is where it's at.
Even the x-5 tactical looks pretty bad ass, but don't think it would fit in 226 holsters, and the price is ridiculous. http://img.tapatalk.com/ae3a84b0-e2d8-374e.jpg
D.S. Brown
07-04-12, 22:00
How about this? DA/SA pistols are slowly being replaced by striker fired handguns, not completely, but slowly, like a process, in the same way that:
Colt SAA made their predecessor cap and ball counterparts obsolete.
Double action revolvers essentially usurped the defensive role of SA revolvers, not completely, and SA revolvers as created by Ruger and Freedom Arms have a hunting following.
Semi-auto handguns, believed to have become more reliable with greater ammunition capacity started to replace DA revolvers found predominantly in holsters of police officers and defense minded citizens starting 20-25 years ago. Sure there are police officers and defense minded citizens that still use DA revolvers for work and/or defense, but those numbers are fewer and fewer each year. Try to find a medium to large size municipal, state or federal agency that still primarily issues its officer a DA revolver, and allows them to use nothing else. Good luck.
It's about the progress in technology, and as the technology continues to improve for striker fired guns, the fewer DA/SA guns you'll see. Ten years from now their issuance to LE agencies and defense minded civilians will likely continue to decline.
This is simply the way that technology progresses. Think of it as different technology, sure you could use one of those bulky cell phones from the 80's that you carried a battery pack with. You could talk into it similarly as you do any smartphone today, but why would you want to?
I would say that striker fired guns aren't making DA/SA obsolete. I would say there is a strong belief by those knowledgeable, and those not so much that striker fired guns, though not necessarily better than DA/SA autos, have easier user interface i.e user friendly, borrowing from the parlance of our times.
Now all that being said, there is a DA/SA pistol that is growing on me significantly, a polymer framed 9mm CZ-P07. The few I've seen and felt have a smooth double action trigger pull, that I would not call heavy.
On a different note, I notice that some of you, when confronted with someone else's opinion, and having little to nothing to refute will draw on personal attacks on the person disagreeing with you. One of the first things I do before I come here is park my ego at the door. I'm no moderator, so take this what it's worth, but I prefer the professionalism here, vs hanging out at another forum dedicated to the dominant brand of polymer framed handguns made in Austria.
Alright back on topic, striker fired pistols making da/sa pistols obsolete? Discuss.
Best,
Dave
Which units are those? The only one that I could think of that may have switched to Glock is GROM, but it sounds like montrala took care of that answer. I've seen very recent training photos of GROM and they all had DA/SA USP's.
USA TIER 1 and some TIER 2 units.
C4
USA TIER 1 and some TIER 2 units.
C4
On Army side yeah, but I didn't name those.;)
NSW still issues the P226, and also has P239's and HK45ct's available. The AF guys carry whatever is used by the guys that they're attached to. The Marines still issue the 1911 and M9's.
FWIW, DEVGRU,NSW tested the HK45C, P220 and G21 when they were looking for a .45. They chose the DA/SA HK (V3) over the others. If the the TDA pistol really hampered their skills, I doubt that it would have been chosen, nor would they continue to issue SIGs.
DA/SA is far from obsolete. The best handguns on the market are in fact DA/SA weapons. I highly prefer it over striker fired and feel it's a premium feature, definitely not a bad thing. S&W is not making them anymore because the law enforcement market has leaned towards the ease of striker fired -- they are just capitalizing on Glock's success.
FN and HK come to mind.
I own an FNP-45 Tactical, I'd take a Smith and Wesson M&P 45 over it any day. I might also take a Gen 4 Glock 21, they seem to be a genuine improvement over the Gen 3 in this chambering. That isn't to say the FN is a bad pistol, there are just better ones that cost less.
I've been thinking about getting an HK45C, but if I did I'd probably convert it to a Light LEM instead of DA/SA. HK just makes a fantastic product, which is why I hope that they make a "P40" that is striker fired.
How about this? DA/SA pistols are slowly being replaced by striker fired handguns, not completely, but slowly, like a process
I think that is a very accurate assessment.
On Army side yeah, but I didn't name those.;)
NSW still issues the P226, and also has P239's and HK45ct's available. The AF guys carry whatever is used by the guys that they're attached to. The Marines still issue the 1911 and M9's.
FWIW, DEVGRU,NSW tested the HK45C, P220 and G21 when they were looking for a .45. They chose the DA/SA HK (V3) over the others. If the the TDA pistol really hampered their skills, I doubt that it would have been chosen, nor would they continue to issue SIGs.
The Army side is rather important as they represent the largest numbers in the Special Operations community.
From what I have been made aware of, the NSW community doesn't put a lot of attention towards pistols (secondary or tertiary weapon). From this, one could make the assumption that shooting a pistol (well) is not as great of importance to them as shooting their long guns (well). So in that respect, it doesn't really matter if the trigger pull is 12lbs or not (as they just don't use them that much/have to shoot super hard quals with them).
DISCLAIMER:The above is just my .02 based on observations and conversations with active duty NSW folks and the instructors that help train them. It was never meant to be a put down or hostile in any way shape or form.
C4
I think that is a very accurate assessment.
I agree.
If I could, I would get the sales number for HK and check to see which trigger setup is chosen the most. DA/SA or LEM. These numbers would serve to illustrate the fact that given a choice, people will not choose a DA/SA weapon.
C4
I never understood the idea of comparing police or military organizations and their firearms choices and rationalizing them. Organizations consider alot more criteria that is relevant to them and is not relevant to the armed citizen.
On a side note I don't think any other firearms company could match the price Glock can offers its firearms on a large scale. Could be a reason why there is alot of units and agencies running Glocks. I am talking about a company with quality service pistols not some junk.
People make a bigger deal with it then needs to be. It does not really matter. What matters is a persons own personal experience and what they shoot best. I have seen it go both ways. I have seen people shoot da/sa better then SF and vice versa.
It seems to me that this is just another topic that people like to argue, kind of like calibers.
I never understood the idea of comparing police or military organizations and their firearms choices and rationalizing them. Organizations consider alot more criteria that is relevant to them and is not relevant to the armed citizen.
On a side note I don't think any other firearms company could match the price Glock can offers its firearms on a large scale. Could be a reason why there is alot of units and agencies running Glocks. I am talking about a company with quality service pistols not some junk.
People make a bigger deal with it then needs to be. It does not really matter. What matters is a persons own personal experience and what they shoot best. I have seen it go both ways. I have seen people shoot da/sa better then SF and vice versa.
It seems to me that this is just another topic that people like to argue, kind of like calibers.
Understand your point and it is important for a Civy to find the gun that BEST meets their needs. I see about 30 new shooters every month at the classes we teach. About 2-5 of that bunch will have a DA/SA gun. When they shoot their pistols, they either cock the hammer BEFORE firing or basically pull the trigger as fast as they can (known thrown round) just to get to the SA trigger pull. So I think this is why SOME Civy's like the DA/SA guns (as they only shoot them in SA mode). I don't allow them to get away with this and make them shoot the first round on DA every single time. As they say, "you gotta dance with the fat girl that brought ya!"
I think what draws attention to .Mil selected guns is that they go through a lengthy selection process and that really pushes the gun to its limits and Civy's like seeing this.
C4
How about this? DA/SA pistols are slowly being replaced by striker fired handguns, not completely, but slowly, like a process, in the same way that:
Colt SAA made their predecessor cap and ball counterparts obsolete.
Double action revolvers essentially usurped the defensive role of SA revolvers, not completely, and SA revolvers as created by Ruger and Freedom Arms have a hunting following.
Semi-auto handguns, believed to have become more reliable with greater ammunition capacity started to replace DA revolvers found predominantly in holsters of police officers and defense minded citizens starting 20-25 years ago. Sure there are police officers and defense minded citizens that still use DA revolvers for work and/or defense, but those numbers are fewer and fewer each year. Try to find a medium to large size municipal, state or federal agency that still primarily issues its officer a DA revolver, and allows them to use nothing else. Good luck.
It's about the progress in technology, and as the technology continues to improve for striker fired guns, the fewer DA/SA guns you'll see. Ten years from now their issuance to LE agencies and defense minded civilians will likely continue to decline.
This is simply the way that technology progresses. Think of it as different technology, sure you could use one of those bulky cell phones from the 80's that you carried a battery pack with. You could talk into it similarly as you do any smartphone today, but why would you want to?
I would say that striker fired guns aren't making DA/SA obsolete. I would say there is a strong belief by those knowledgeable, and those not so much that striker fired guns, though not necessarily better than DA/SA autos, have easier user interface i.e user friendly, borrowing from the parlance of our times.
Now all that being said, there is a DA/SA pistol that is growing on me significantly, a polymer framed 9mm CZ-P07. The few I've seen and felt have a smooth double action trigger pull, that I would not call heavy.
On a different note, I notice that some of you, when confronted with someone else's opinion, and having little to nothing to refute will draw on personal attacks on the person disagreeing with you. One of the first things I do before I come here is park my ego at the door. I'm no moderator, so take this what it's worth, but I prefer the professionalism here, vs hanging out at another forum dedicated to the dominant brand of polymer framed handguns made in Austria.
Alright back on topic, striker fired pistols making da/sa pistols obsolete? Discuss.
Best,
Dave
I guess I could or should have worded my post like your first sentence above, which may have better conveyed my question instead of using the word obsolete. "How about this? DA/SA pistols are slowly being replaced by striker fired handguns, not completely, but slowly, like a process, in the same way that:
Colt SAA made their predecessor cap and ball counterparts obsolete."
Gary1911A1
07-05-12, 10:20
It's my understanding striker fired pistols are also cheaper to make than a DA/SA pistol. Given the tight budgets of many agencies I'm sure this is another reason striker fired pistols are chosen over a DA/SA design.
I grew up shooting 1911s, and for years, drank the Gunsite kool-aid regarding DA/SA guns. Then I started actually shooting them, and lo and behold, the DA pull wasn't all that bad. Is it as ideal as a tuned 1911? No, but nothing is in terms of trigger mechanics. However, once that first DA shot is out of the way, my tuned 92 runs very similarly to my 1911s in terms of pull weight, crispness, and reset distance, although the geometry is of course different.
Getting comfortable with the DA pull of the first shot took some time and effort, but I think it's worth it for the versatility. I do think the notion that a DA pull protects against negligent discharges from poor trigger discipline is false. In an OWB holster, I think a striker-fired pistol with no safety is fine. But as soon as I start going IWB, or some other method like a fanny pack (which I find works well in specific situations such as jogging, etc), I get nervous. I like either having a manual safety (a la the M&P line) or an exposed hammer as an additional layer of protection.
I suppose that means I'm not against striker-fired guns per se, just striker fired guns with no manual safety when used IWB or with alternative carry methods. I would hate to see DA/SA guns go by the wayside, simply because they work best for me and my needs.
Black goat
07-05-12, 14:09
It's my understanding striker fired pistols are also cheaper to make than a DA/SA pistol. Given the tight budgets of many agencies I'm sure this is another reason striker fired pistols are chosen over a DA/SA design.
Not only are they generally cheaper, but they also tend to be simple and easier to service.
Larry Vickers
07-05-12, 18:15
Without question the trend is for striker fired constant trigger pull handguns to replace DA/SA handguns- doesn't mean the DA/SA guns will be taken out of service anytime soon but for all but the most proficient shooters the constant trigger pull will allow for dramatically better results; in the hands of the average shooter the contrast is remarkable
Over time the use in all sectors of DA/SA handguns will decline and constant trigger action pistols will increase- in my classes which are primarly civilian open enrollment the constant trigger action/ striker fired pistols dominate by a wide margin
Ask yourself this; if a shooter can be trained to keep his finger off the trigger except when the decision has been made to engage the threat and the tap , rack, bang has been properly programmed ( thus eliminating the need for a second strike at the primer) then exactly why would someone or an agency/unit chose a DA/SA pistol?
LAV
Without question the trend is for striker fired constant trigger pull handguns to replace DA/SA handguns- doesn't mean the DA/SA guns will be taken out of service anytime soon but for all but the most proficient shooters the constant trigger pull will allow for dramatically better results; in the hands of the average shooter the contrast is remarkable
Over time the use in all sectors of DA/SA handguns will decline and constant trigger action pistols will increase- in my classes which are primarly civilian open enrollment the constant trigger action/ striker fired pistols dominate by a wide margin
Ask yourself this; if a shooter can be trained to keep his finger off the trigger except when the decision has been made to engage the threat and the tap , rack, bang has been properly programmed ( thus eliminating the need for a second strike at the primer) then exactly why would someone or an agency/unit chose a DA/SA pistol?
LAV
My employer believes the ridiculously long and heavy first trigger pull of the p220 ensures "that you really have to want to pull the trigger." Some of us are working at places stuck in the dark ages.
Ask yourself this; if a shooter can be trained to keep his finger off the trigger except when the decision has been made to engage the threat and the tap , rack, bang has been properly programmed ( thus eliminating the need for a second strike at the primer) then exactly why would someone or an agency/unit chose a DA/SA pistol?
LAV
LAV, that's the million dollar question... then why do top tier .mil units, US and foreign, still select and issue DA/SA pistols (mainly SIGs and HK's) over striker fired pistols?
rotorblade
07-05-12, 20:28
Without question the trend is for striker fired constant trigger pull handguns to replace DA/SA handguns- doesn't mean the DA/SA guns will be taken out of service anytime soon but for all but the most proficient shooters the constant trigger pull will allow for dramatically better results; in the hands of the average shooter the contrast is remarkable
Over time the use in all sectors of DA/SA handguns will decline and constant trigger action pistols will increase- in my classes which are primarly civilian open enrollment the constant trigger action/ striker fired pistols dominate by a wide margin
Ask yourself this; if a shooter can be trained to keep his finger off the trigger except when the decision has been made to engage the threat and the tap , rack, bang has been properly programmed ( thus eliminating the need for a second strike at the primer) then exactly why would someone or an agency/unit chose a DA/SA pistol?
LAV
Exactly I went Glock some years back going from Sig Beretta. Learned just to tap rack bang it was a real wakeup call for me.
LAV, that's the million dollar question... then why do top tier .mil units, US and foreign, still select and issue DA/SA pistols (mainly SIGs and HK's) over striker fired pistols?
Sig doesn't make a Striker fired Gun and Neither does HK. (HK P7 Squeeze cockers not included which they don't make anymore.)
They can't choose what is not there to choose.
But give HK time to make a Striker fired P30 and You watch what happens.
HK P30 or HK45 I would buy but anything new Sig is like asking a girl out that you know has notches in her bed post.
Larry Vickers
07-05-12, 21:32
To answer the spec ops question, and Grant alluded to this in an earlier post, the units that put a priority on handgun marksmanship almost universally use a constant trigger action pistol - my former unit is considered by everyone in the community to be the best in the world with a handgun ( a topic that is universally agreed upon within the spec ops community) - they have fielded a constant trigger action pistol from day one ; first a 1911 then a G22
Many of these spec ops units view the pistol as a back up weapon only - one that is used in case a long gun primary goes down; this means it is primarily a defensive tool with limited offensive use
The spec ops units that use handguns in an offensive role are more likely to use a constant action pistol - in addition some of them use the handgun in a single action cocked and locked format ( for instance Aussie SAS and cocked and locked HK USP 9mm) thus by passing the DA mode
As time goes on the DA/SA pistol use will fade but will certainly never go away
LAV
To answer the spec ops question, and Grant alluded to this in an earlier post, the units that put a priority on handgun marksmanship almost universally use a constant trigger action pistol - my former unit is considered by everyone in the community to be the best in the world with a handgun ( a topic that is universally agreed upon within the spec ops community) - they have fielded a constant trigger action pistol from day one ; first a 1911 then a G22...
LAV
This is one reason why many of the best gunfighters of the late 19th Century/early 20th Century switched from the Colt SAA to the 1911 instead of to a DA revolver
Alaskapopo
07-05-12, 23:20
LAV, that's the million dollar question... then why do top tier .mil units, US and foreign, still select and issue DA/SA pistols (mainly SIGs and HK's) over striker fired pistols?
Because the military is slow to change. Money is invested heavily in their current design and as a handgun its not their primary weapon so its not a priority to them. However for those of us where the handgun is a primary tool we are by passing the DA SA design in droves. (Law enforcement)
Pat
If the pistol ain't striker fired... then I'm not all that interested in it anymore.
Microalign
07-06-12, 00:49
To answer the spec ops question, and Grant alluded to this in an earlier post, the units that put a priority on handgun marksmanship almost universally use a constant trigger action pistol - my former unit is considered by everyone in the community to be the best in the world with a handgun ( a topic that is universally agreed upon within the spec ops community) - they have fielded a constant trigger action pistol from day one ; first a 1911 then a G22
LAV
Good info. Their caliber selections are also interesting.
Ask yourself this; if a shooter can be trained to keep his finger off the trigger except when the decision has been made to engage the threat and the tap , rack, bang has been properly programmed ( thus eliminating the need for a second strike at the primer) then exactly why would someone or an agency/unit chose a DA/SA pistol?
LAV
In my experience if the primer doesn’t go off the first time, most of the time a second strike won’t set it off. You’re better off putting a new round in the chamber even if you have a second strike capable gun.
In my experience if the primer doesn’t go off the first time, most of the time a second strike won’t set it off. You’re better off putting a new round in the chamber even if you have a second strike capable gun.
Right. I have seen people pull the trigger four or five times when they could have just ejected the old round and put a new one in and driven on.
Its kind of one of those things where the person knows that they have the option to pull the trigger over and over so they do that instead of going with the better option.
C4
Cagemonkey
07-06-12, 09:39
Without question the trend is for striker fired constant trigger pull handguns to replace DA/SA handguns- doesn't mean the DA/SA guns will be taken out of service anytime soon but for all but the most proficient shooters the constant trigger pull will allow for dramatically better results; in the hands of the average shooter the contrast is remarkable
Over time the use in all sectors of DA/SA handguns will decline and constant trigger action pistols will increase- in my classes which are primarly civilian open enrollment the constant trigger action/ striker fired pistols dominate by a wide margin
Ask yourself this; if a shooter can be trained to keep his finger off the trigger except when the decision has been made to engage the threat and the tap , rack, bang has been properly programmed ( thus eliminating the need for a second strike at the primer) then exactly why would someone or an agency/unit chose a DA/SA pistol?
LAVConsidering your association with HK and assuming they'd ask for your input, is their any plans in the future for them to design and release a modern striker fired handgun?
Considering your association with HK and assuming they'd ask for your input, is their any plans in the future for them to design and release a modern striker fired handgun?
Not LAV, but have spoken to one of HK LE guys and he did advise that a striker fired P30 is being worked on. Now, how long will it take for that gun to appear? Who knows, but IMHO, that gun should rule the market when it does come.
C4
Defaultmp3
07-06-12, 10:37
Considering your association with HK and assuming they'd ask for your input, is their any plans in the future for them to design and release a modern striker fired handgun?
Info from an inside guy from HKPro:
Reportedly this design has been shelved at HK GmbH for the time being. The original customer for it (Bavarian police) have opted to stay with their P7's for the moment. However this could all change if another agency with the interest and the funds steps up to the plate. It is going to happen - it has to. No major pistol supplier should be in this maker without a direct striker-fired competitor to the Glock.
Not LAV, but have spoken to one of HK LE guys and he did advise that a striker fired P30 is being worked on. Now, how long will it take for that gun to appear? Who knows, but IMHO, that gun should rule the market when it does come.
C4
Well, if they are starting with a clean sheet, less hope they give it a lower bore to grip axis than the P30. While the P30's RSA might help some with muzzle flip, it will always have more than the M&P or Glock pistols IMO. Just like with the PPQ, it's not necessarily a deal breaker, but given the choice I would prefer a low bore to grip axis gun.
Cagemonkey
07-06-12, 18:27
Not LAV, but have spoken to one of HK LE guys and he did advise that a striker fired P30 is being worked on. Now, how long will it take for that gun to appear? Who knows, but IMHO, that gun should rule the market when it does come.
C4Thanks Grant. I think the P7's are nice guns, but they have always been expensive.
Not obsolete but definitely out numbered.
My personal feeling is that simpler is better. I know most of us here would put in the time to be proficient at whatever weapon they had available but the average gun owner ( not shooter owner ) would not. I think the popularity is a combination of factors not just the trigger system. For example I love sigs but they are heavier, carry less ammo (most for their size ) and you either get to pick start DA or hammer back. This is why I choose to carry and shoot a glock and many others the m&p or xd :bad:. Some will make a case for the re-strike capability on the da/sa so I'm sure they will be around for longer than all of us will be.
Nothing wrong with the DA/SA guns like the M9, or Sigs since It's a personal choice.
For ME DA/SA pistols are obsolete. I used to carry a SIG P228 for a few years and just couldn't shoot it at speed as well as a modern striker style trigger. I still like DA/SA style pistols for occasional range use, but they will never be my first choice for CCW.
4. I carry a pistol for protection not to learn how to shoot other action types. Totally a BS argument on that one.
Pat
+1
Unless you're an instructor or a competitor I can't see any need to be familiar with every action type. You've got your weapon and that's the one you'll use. Not some other.
IMO yes it is for DA/SA guns but not SAO guns.
train of abuses
07-18-12, 16:19
Larry, thanks for giving us the real deal on SA/DA. Stuff like this is why this is by far the best firearms related forum on the internet.
... anything new Sig is like asking a girl out that you know has notches in her bed post.Experience and proven performance isn't a bad thing, actually. It's a LOT less frustrating than someone who doesn't know what they're doing.
I started my shooting career with Sigs. So I am use to DA/SA. Now I shoot HK45 V3 (Decock only). and I shoot it very well, IMO. I like DA/SA's just fine. Strikers are great, but I guess not for me at the moment.
Six pages and no one has given a reason why a DA/SA pistol is better than something with a constant trigger pull.
I came up on 1911s, carried an HK cocked and locked and switched to striker fired. There are NO advantages to TDA. If I want a hammer gun it will be cocked and locked or DAK/LEM. My revolvers even lack exposed hammers.
I had a buddy who swore by a Sig 220. Loved that gun. Then he went shooting with it. Not cans, targets, with an instructor. Next time I saw him he had a 1911, then a Glock.
Everything I said here goes especially for institutions as they have to turn wage slaves into gunfighters.
mike benedict
07-20-12, 05:04
While I believe that you should proficient with DA/SA pistols. A striker fired pistol is a much better platform.
I train a bunch of new shooters and it is always easier if they have a striker fired pistol.
While I believe that you should proficient with DA/SA pistols. A striker fired pistol is a much better platform.
What about DA/SA striker fired pistols then? Are they much better platform, because those are striker, or much lesser platform because those are DA/SA?
Are we talking
1. Striker vs Hammer
or
2. Constant pull (SA, Safe Action, Quick Defense, LEM, DAK, LDA, etc) vs DA/SA?
Initially I was thinking we talk about 1. Then we moved to 2. And now we mix them up? :blink:
What about DA/SA striker fired pistols then? Are they much better platform, because those are striker, or much lesser platform because those are DA/SA?
Are we talking
1. Striker vs Hammer
or
2. Constant pull (SA, Safe Action, Quick Defense, LEM, DAK, LDA, etc) vs DA/SA?
Initially I was thinking we talk about 1. Then we moved to 2. And now we mix them up? :blink:
there are da/sa striker fired pistols?
I agree.
If I could, I would get the sales number for HK and check to see which trigger setup is chosen the most. DA/SA or LEM. These numbers would serve to illustrate the fact that given a choice, people will not choose a DA/SA weapon.
C4
but if you called up sig and asked them how many people order daks and how many order tda you might get a very different answer. the dak is fairly miserable. i have seen people trade out their daks for tda. i have not seen anyone trade a tda sig for a dak. this is all very anecdotal, but i also see no reason for anyone to trade a tda sig for a dak, as i think that lowly of the dak.
there are da/sa striker fired pistols?
Yes. Walther P99AS
It will probably be a long time before the rest of the world jumps on the bandwagon with us on this one. Most of the handguns adopted since the 1980s have continued to be both hammer fired and da/sa. The safteyless striker fired guns are not as safe for day to day handling. A lot of departments around here toy with the NY trigger variants in attempt to deal with this. In the end, you have a gun with a trigger almost as bad as the da stroke but on every shot.
What the striker guns as they exist today offer is ease of instruction. The average police officer can be taught to qualify with a striker gun more easily than a da/sa. They are also cheaper to manufacture and procure and that never hurts.
I suspect people would be better off learning to handle a Da/sa. It may be harder to qualify for novices, but they are exactly the kind of folks that benefit the most from the added safety of the da/sa.
I was at a class the other day where all the officers were asked to raise their hands if they had fired their weapon in anger in the past few years. One or two did. Then they were asked how many had crashed their car (including fender benders)during the same time period. Most raised their hands . The instructors point was that they should wear their damn sestbelts because it is more likely that they would break their neck in a car accident then have to jo out if the car in a hurry. I think that applies here.
i feel like this is a post that contains the competing factors that exist in law enforcement acquisition and these factors exist in a different perspective for individual gun owners.
the first factor is inherent and perceived safety.
the second factor is inherent and perceived ease of use.
under inherent and perceived safety:
in the end safety is a training issue. less a manufacturer defect or modification gone awry, safety resides with the human behind the firearm. that being said, in a world of many diverse people and the gaussian statistics that go along with such, there will be people who behave more safely than others, where the average pretty safe and the extremes are consummately safe and totally film-myself-doing-stupid-stuff-and-put-it-on-youtube unsafe. as such the market will produce guns that have varying levels of safety built in either perceived or actual.
for a law enforcement agency choice the options will revolve around liability and teaching to the lowest common demoninator. not everyone in law enforcement is serious about firearms. it shouldn't come as a surprise that the gaussian statistics apply to law enforcement personnel too. someone who is not interested or serious about firearms in law enforcement just end up as people who don't care but have higher round counts than their untrained counterparts. i feel that this is where you hear about the double action first pull being beneficial to avoid negligent discharges and other similar perspectives. law enforcement agencies must make decisions for the lowest common demoninator. you can't expect anyone to rise to the performance level that is required, because undoubtedly over the lifecycle of an acquisition you will be encountered with a statistically certain amount of people who will be characteristically incapable of rising to that standard and that will create a liability issue.
the individual firearm owner has the benefit of choosing whatever he wants, he is only liable for his own behavior. so this person can tailor his purchase to his level of competency or comfort. i have heard on more than one occassion that the additional grip safety on the springfield xd was attractive because it is an additional safety feature, despite my personal opinion that it adds no real value. but this perception of an added safety benefit ends up being a marketing tool. even with this perspective, the individual will evolve over his shooting experience and will change his preference based on advances in his compentency and comfort. do we see individuals firearms owners moving from tda guns to striker fired guns? i think the answer is yes.
point be clear, if everyone trained correctly and took firearms seriously, there would not necessarily be any need for a gun more inherently safe (outside of what is required by sound engineering). but alas, we live in a world that is nonuniform and as such we deal with diversity and the reality of the statistics as a result.
on inherent and perceived ease of use:
it would appear that trigger pull/press weight and consistency are some of the principle factors in ease of use of a firearm. these also happen to be the principle factors in relation to firearm safety. the relationship goes that the lighter the trigger the less safe the firearm and the more measures that need to be in place to prevent unintential discharge.
light consistent trigger pulls from striker fired guns are easier to teach novices and easier for proficient shooters to execute. both the novice and the proficient benefit.
the tda trigger press can be mastered by the proficient, but is difficult on the novice or the unattentive who are in a gun-carrying occupation, at the same time however they are "more inherently safe" which benefits this demographic. the same can be said of the various double action only variants too.
so does a law enforcement agencies choose something that benefits the least common denominator as far as safety goes, or benefits everyone as far as actual shooting performance goes? i think the answer is that they hazard on the side of safet, frequently. especially considering that real engagements with firearms are seldom and daily motions with firearms are frequent.
will more and more agencies forgo engineered safety in favor of a higher standard of safety from their least common demoninator? and does an evolution like that make striker fired pistols the natural choice? i think the answer here is also yes, and i will wait and see.
These discussions always remind me why I think the Hk LEM is the greatest duty trigger ever designed. It has a long first stage that adds to the safe handling, same trigger poundage with each shot,LEO can ride the hammer as he holsters the gun, and you don't have to remember to decock after a gunfight. It's as good as it gets.
Alaskapopo
07-20-12, 18:33
These discussions always remind me why I think the Hk LEM is the greatest duty trigger ever designed. It has a long first stage that adds to the safe handling, same trigger poundage with each shot,LEO can ride the hammer as he holsters the gun, and you don't have to remember to decock after an altercation. It's as good as it gets.
It has a long stage that makes hitting the target slower understress. For safety keep your damn finger off the trigger until your ready to shoot. Don't do that with a LEM and you will still have a ND. The safey is your brain.
Pat
The Dumb Gun Collector
07-20-12, 20:15
If it is all nothing but keeping your finger off the trigger--is any trigger too light?
If it is all nothing but keeping your finger off the trigger--is any trigger too light?
Exactly, totally agree. I think most LEO's finger gets on the trigger on some circumstances. This is why I think the LEM is so good for a duty trigger. The benefits for the LEM far outweighs the cons.If for nothing more than being able to holster with your thumb over the hammer, never heard of HK leg in LEO circles.
If it is all nothing but keeping your finger off the trigger--is any trigger too light?
If you follow the logic of "finger of the trigger is the only, the one, and the primary safety", then no, we should be all just fine with carrying 18 oz triggers cocked and unlocked.
It has a long stage that makes hitting the target slower understress. For safety keep your damn finger off the trigger until your ready to shoot. Don't do that with a LEM and you will still have a ND.
Pat
This is dichotomous black-and-white response of somebody who hasn't spent much time with LEM. 9 months after switching from Glock to LEM P30 I hit targets just the same. Took a lot work, but the results are what they are, according to my log book.
Over the two years of running Glock I had five NDs, all under conditions of pushing my speed to max. In some instances those didn't even look like an ND to outside observers as the hits were just above the target. I knew though they were NDs as they came off before I intended to. None were intentional, just pushing speed as hard as I could. In these 9 months with P30 - none, zero. No matter how hard I push, I can't outrun the LEM trigger unintentionally. There is no doubt that LEM has a wider margin of safety, a concept that those who don't live in black and white have accepted long ago.
brushy bill
07-20-12, 22:46
If it is all nothing but keeping your finger off the trigger--is any trigger too light?
yea verily...it is more than this.
Alaskapopo
07-21-12, 05:14
If it is all nothing but keeping your finger off the trigger--is any trigger too light?
It becomes too light when you can not control when its going to break. If a shot breaks before you want it to while your pulling the trigger its too light. Thats about the only time. There are a lot more triggers that are way too heavy than that are too light on combat pistols.
Pat
The Dumb Gun Collector
07-21-12, 08:30
Why do you think it is the Glock asks us to carry their pistol in a rigid holster?
Your thread title is "obsoleting" the English language...
And no, striker fired pistols (in my opinion) are just another type of action with it's merits and drawbacks.
Alaskapopo
07-21-12, 15:55
Ok, never said I was.I was just stating that I didn't pull my opinion out of thin air.
Any evidence or proof of this? What do you mean by "things"?
Actually yes. Police hit ratios with revolvers with their long hard pulls were even worse than they are today. Plus anyone who shoots very much can tell you that a longer harder pull will make the gun harder to shoot well understress. I can attest to this from my own shooting experience in competition and from my close call of the furry kind. I was using a 870 and I some how managed to pull the trigger that was not 10 pounds over a half inch of travel.
So if LEO's don't train enough, and things don't always come out good, then why should we rely on their brain to perform well and not make a mistake when the SHTF?People get in car accidents, bump into each other in the grocery store, etc.Why should not touching the trigger be any different, especially considering the state of mind they are in at the time?
What is your point here. Yes people will screw up but giving them a gun that makes it harder to shoot well will not stop the screw ups. Train them better so there are less screw ups. Don't try to fix software problems with hardware solutions. It simply does not work and you create other problems. Also with proper training your training the subconscious not the conscious mind so they will not have to think about it. If you train someone properly they don't think to keep their finger out of the trigger guard they just do it until its time to fire. If you have someone who is not trained to this point they are not going to be safe with a 20 pound DA pull either. Dr. Enoka established this with his studys on negligent discharges
Didn't post it to show his preference, but that the LEM trigger isn't holding most shooters back from performing well with them.I haven't heard of an abundance of Border patrol agents being injured due to the slower LEM trigger in their P2000's.There are many other factors to slow them down much more than the LEM trigger.
It is holding shooters back from their potential. Some people carry condition 3 and can draw faster than people who don't train as well carrying condition 1. However that does not prove that condition three carry is smart. I bet I could stand on my head and shoot better than a lot of shooters but that does not make it a viable technique.
Better triggers don't make you a better shooter but they unleash more of your potential. If your training is shit your shooting will still be shit. If you've got good training it will work in your favor. Just keep your damned finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.
maddawg5777
07-21-12, 20:44
I agree its all about training not so much about the trigger. I trained on the M9 for years and tried multiple striker fired types. I still ended up buying a 92a1. My times were not much different between these platforms plus I had a bunch of mags for a Beretta so why not. I agree for the shooter who doesn't train often or is new the constant trigger pull of striker fired pistols takes much less time to master, but if one happens to like DA/SA and puts the time in with it they're not worse off in any way.
Im no pro by any means just what I have observed personally teaching both my wife and mother how to properly run a pistol. Once again my .02 cents.
For starters
For starters, while striker fired weapons are becoming increasingly popular among police units (hint: cost is the driver) and some units are getting to carry Glocks, almost the entire military uses DA/SA...
Now I do agree that among most that can not train enough to master the DA/SA, the striker is the better option.....However, the SOF armories are chock full of M11s, P226s, HK45s, some FN FNP, etc.
Alaskapopo
08-02-12, 17:46
For starters, while striker fired weapons are becoming increasingly popular among police units (hint: cost is the driver) and some units are getting to carry Glocks, almost the entire military uses DA/SA...
Now I do agree that among most that can not train enough to master the DA/SA, the striker is the better option.....However, the SOF armories are chock full of M11s, P226s, HK45s, some FN FNP, etc.
Hint for the military a sidearm is a secondary sidearm almost an afterthought. For police officers its usually our primary weapon due to the nature of our job. The most eliete military units use Glocks or custom 1911's with the exception of the SEALS. Also saying that striker fired guns are becoming increasingly popular is a huge understatement. They have taken over LEO work pure and simple, and cost is not the driving factor. It is simply because they are easier to train on and work better for most people when compared to obsolete DA SA designs. You only have to look to professional trainers and competition shooters who are allowed to use what they want by choice and you will see a majority of them carrying either custom 1911's or striker fired guns. Very very few use DA SA designs anymore.
pat
They have taken over LEO work pure and simple,
pat
Not entirely.
I do agree that the majority of departments are moving to striker guns but there are still a ton of them using Sigs or similar.
And to claim that cost is not the driver is ridiculous. They choose the weapon that meets the accuracy and reliability requirements for the least amount of money to include factory support.
And, knowing how little real training too many officers get, I agree that ease of training is a factor, though secondary to cost.
Alaskapopo
08-02-12, 18:28
Not entirely.
I do agree that the majority of departments are moving to striker guns but there are still a ton of them using Sigs or similar.
And to claim that cost is not the driver is ridiculous. They choose the weapon that meets the accuracy and reliability requirements for the least amount of money to include factory support.
And, knowing how little real training too many officers get, I agree that ease of training is a factor, though secondary to cost.
Its not cost because guys like me at many departments to the weapon selection. If a Sig cost half as much as a Glock I still would not want it. The training issues, high bore axis, terrible DA pull etc are all turn offs and that goes for most DA SA guns.
Pat
Ok, now I remember how much you like to argue using opinion as fact.
LOL :p
Alaskapopo
08-02-12, 22:19
Ok, now I remember how much you like to argue using opinion as fact.
LOL :p
I understand side arm choices are very personal to some people and when someone insults ones choice that can ruffle feathers. But we are all adults here and should be able to share our opinions with respect for one another. So if we can get back on topic that would be great.
Pat
Its not cost because guys like me at many departments to the weapon selection. If a Sig cost half as much as a Glock I still would not want it. The training issues, high bore axis, terrible DA pull etc are all turn offs and that goes for most DA SA guns.
Pat
So you're saying that cost is never part of the equation?
Alaskapopo
08-02-12, 22:58
So you're saying that cost is never part of the equation?
Not saying its not part of the equation or never part but it is not the driving force as was implied. If that were the case we would all be carrying Ruger P95's the came in way under Glock for cost per pistol. Cost is not the reason why striker fired pistols are taking over. Of course that is my opinion. My first service pistol was a personally owned HK USP in 45 acp which I do not miss after going Glock with several other pistols carried during my 13 years. (HK,Sigs, Glocks, custom 1911's etc)
Pat
Serpico1985
08-02-12, 23:56
I think cost is a HUGE factor for most departments. Putting aside the debate of the merits of da/sa vs striker fired, sf guns are cheaper and right or wrong that has an effect on their popularity, i think.
Are there any reliable and accurate da/sa guns that are as cheap as glocks and m&p's? Only one I can think of is the Sig 2022, which is cheaper than glcks and m&p's. Any others?
Alaskapopo
08-03-12, 00:00
I think cost is a HUGE factor for most departments. Putting aside the debate of the merits of da/sa vs striker fired, sf guns are cheaper and right or wrong that has an effect on their popularity, i think.
Are there any reliable and accurate da/sa guns that are as cheap as glocks and m&p's? Only one I can think of is the Sig 2022, which is cheaper than glcks and m&p's. Any others?
There is the Sig and the Ruger P95 and a few others that come in at the same price point. Cost is a factor but its not the (Factor) too many experts like Larry Vickers agree that striker fired guns have more going for them than DA SA guns. If people wanted DA SA polyimer guns at a low price point companies would make them. But their absence speaks for itself. It you take cost out of it there are plenty of reasons to go with a striker fired gun over a DA SA gun. For example the Walther PPQ vs the HK P30. Many an HK fan wants a striker fired verson of the P30. No one is asking for a hammer DA SA version of the PPQ and in fact the PPQ is an improvement over the DA SA Walther P99.
Pat
Straight Shooter
08-03-12, 00:42
This aint nothing but another "9mm vs. .45ACP" debate.
I think if you train with whichever you decide to use, youll be as competent with it as the guy who trains and uses the other.
Ive got both, and when I grab my M9 or G21 I dont stop to ****in debate the merits/pro's/cons of each.
I just pick em up and hit what Im aiming at.
Period.
Be careful now, Streck. Popo is a cop in Podunk Alaska, and he plays gun games! He knows all, and should be allowed to speak with authority!
Aside from this being very childish, the idea that a cop doesn't know what he's doing because he's not LAPD SWAT is retarded.
Childish banter does not belong on m4carbine. I will let the mods handle this one. I am disappointed however. Generally most posters on this site are tolerant enough to argue points without slinging insults. One thing however, what do you have against rural law enforcement or the shooting sports?
Pat
Just pointing out that, you, try to state your OPINION as absolute fact, when in reality its not. You're arguing with people that have seen many more weapons issued to various types of people, and have seen more ammo put through said weapons than you (probably myself included). Stop stating your opinion as fact, because it is not.
Yes, S&W and Glock give their weapons away for free, including new holsters, magazine holders and armorer training in exchange for old guns. That is a very a very tempting deal when most states, counties and cities are broke. For example, the state that I am in, and several counties hopped on the contract too, traded heavily used USP's for new M&P's, leather, holsters, training and ammo, strait across for the old guns. Hell of a deal! The LE dealer that handled a lot of the transactions even stated, who happens to be an HK and S&W LE dealer, that the majority of the guys weren't happy but it was too good of a deal to pass up. He also said that their have already been more problems with the M&P's that there ever was with the HK's. He said so on a public forum, so go ahead and search for it. Now, just because they switched out of a DA/SA pistol for striker fired one, does that make the striker action better? Obviously, not in this case, just cheaper.
Personally, I have seen many more problems with M&P's and Glocks than I have HKs and SIGs, new or old. Also, I think the whole "DA/SA is so hard to learn" crap is just that, crap. It's turned into an errornet meme, just like the Glock kaboom crap. Sure, if you only put a couple of boxes of ammunition through your gun in a year ( like 95% of LE), then yeah, striker fired pistols are for you. If you're a "shooter" then you shouldn't have a hard time with DA/SA guns. As I have said before, if TDA were such a hindrance, then the majority of top tier SOF around the world wouldn't issue them.
Alaskapopo
08-03-12, 05:47
Just pointing out that, you, try to state your OPINION as absolute fact, when in reality its not. You're arguing with people that have seen many more weapons issued to various types of people, and have seen more ammo put through said weapons than you (probably myself included). Stop stating your opinion as fact, because it is not.
Yes, S&W and Glock give their weapons away for free, including new holsters, magazine holders and armorer training in exchange for old guns. That is a very a very tempting deal when most states, counties and cities are broke. For example, the state that I am in, and several counties hopped on the contract too, traded heavily used USP's for new M&P's, leather, holsters, training and ammo, strait across for the old guns. Hell of a deal! The LE dealer that handled a lot of the transactions even stated, who happens to be an HK and S&W LE dealer, that the majority of the guys weren't happy but it was too good of a deal to pass up. He also said that their have already been more problems with the M&P's that there ever was with the HK's. He said so on a public forum, so go ahead and search for it. Now, just because they switched out of a DA/SA pistol for striker fired one, does that make the striker action better? Obviously, not in this case, just cheaper.
Personally, I have seen many more problems with M&P's and Glocks than I have HKs and SIGs, new or old. Also, I think the whole "DA/SA is so hard to learn" crap is just that, crap. It's turned into an errornet meme, just like the Glock kaboom crap. Sure, if you only put a couple of boxes of ammunition through your gun in a year ( like 95% of LE), then yeah, striker fired pistols are for you. If you're a "shooter" then you shouldn't have a hard time with DA/SA guns. As I have said before, if TDA were such a hindrance, then the majority of top tier SOF around the world wouldn't issue them.
1. Not sure who you are talking about when you said I am arguing with someone who has seen more weapons issued than I have. Frankly we have no way to know that nor does it really matter as it would be just a Dick measureing contest. I have been working 13 years and have been involved in two departments going to Glocks. I can tell you that Glock does not give their guns away for free nor does it give holsters. It does offer trade in on your old service weapons and it gives a pretty good price on the weapons you plan to purchase. But the guns are not free. That is not my opinion its FACT.
2. As for striker fired guns vs DA SA guns shootablility. This is fact not opinion. I saw officers scores go up an average of 10%. Fact most of your professional firearms instructors don't shoot DA SA guns. Fact most of your competative shooters are not using DA SA guns. These guys shoot for a living and they want to win and by and large with few exceptions they are not chosing DA SA guns. So its not crap that DA SA guns are harder to master and harder to shoot well. Is DA SA impossible to shoot no. Is it slower or less accurate then you would be for your first shot on a stirker fired gun definately.
3. Not lets talk about the military. The best of the best use Glocks or custom 1911's with the exception of the SEALS. Also as was pointed out before for the military a sidearm is a secondary weapon of little importance. In fact the miltiary has had a few trials now to replace the M9 but each time has figured it simply was not important enough for them to do it. When you look at the military as a whole not many carry sidearms. Compare that with LEO's where we all do.
The fact is I have stated my opinion as an opinion and facts as facts. What you have done was to make a slam towards me because you don't care for what I have to say. We can disagree but we should be able to do that without the personal crap.
By the way the Glock KaBoom thing is not crap been there and seen it more than once. So what you read from other posters on the net is not always wrong. Now for an opinion. I could care less what top SOF units outside of the USA chose as their sidearm. The best of the best are in this country when it comes to firearms and there is little need to look outside.
Pat
Hint for the military a sidearm is a secondary sidearm almost an afterthought. For police officers its usually our primary weapon due to the nature of our job.
For military units, SOF units were used as an example, pistol is secondary firearm. But this mean that when soldier grabs this pistol, it means SHTF and things went FUBAR. So when he grab his secondary firearm it must work, right now, on first trigger pull. It does not matter that for better part of the day he hauled it in sand, dirt, over rocks, been in sand storm, on the beach, crossing the river or swamp, mud or in arctic conditions and what not.
For Police, pistol is mostly, as we call it here "obedience enforcing tool". It sits in holster, mostly with no environmental factors to consider and most of the time it leaves holster, it is to enforce obedience. Of course, Police Officers do expect their guns to work, but demands on reliability of this guns are actually lower that for military pistols.
Polish Army experimented with striker pistols for our regular troops (wz94 Wist) and SOF units (Glock 17). It was nice until we started to see action. Wist was so much a disaster, that troops in emergency mode received P83 Wanad (9x18mm Makarov) from reserves. SOF units changed Glocks for HK USP. Glocks are kept for "Police type missions", but were found not suited for combat missions.
You can tell, "what the hell Poles knows about firearms!". We know what we've learned with blood of our soldiers.
Our Police on the other hand is now almost entirely armed with striker fired pistols, bought in tenders, where price was only factor used to choose among offers (that fulfilled some basic requirements like caliber, mag capacity, size, mass and black color and that is all)
Alaskapopo
08-03-12, 06:00
For military units, SOF units were used as an example, pistol is secondary firearm. But this mean that when soldier grabs this pistol, it means SHTF and things went FUBAR. So when he grab his secondary firearm it must work, right now, on first trigger pull. It does not matter that for better part of the day he hauled it in sand, dirt, over rocks, been in sand storm, on the beach, in swamp, mud and what not.
For Police, pistol is mostly, as we call it here "obedience enforcing tool". It sits in holster, mostly with no environmental factors to consider and most of the time it leaves holster, it is to enforce obedience. Of course, Police Officers do expect their guns to work, but demands on reliability of this guns are actually lower that for military pistols.
Polish Army experimented with striker pistols for our regular troops (wz94 Wist) and SOF units (Glock 17). It was nice until we started to see action. Wist was so much a disaster, that troops in emergency mode received P83 Wanad (9x18mm Makarov) from reserves. SOF units changed Glocks for HK USP. Glocks are kept for "Police type missions", but were found not suited for combat missions.
You can tell, "what the hell Poles knows about firearms!". We know what we've learned with blood of our soldiers.
Our Police on the other hand is now almost entirely armed with striker fired pistols, bought in tenders, where price was only factor used to choose among offers (that fulfilled some basic requirements like caliber, mag capacity, size, mass and black color and that is all)
For police the sidearm is the weapon we have on use when things go to shit. I respect soldiers and what they do but do not minimize the sacrafices police officers make and have made.
As for no environmental factors. That is pure bull shit. I have been on gun calls in -40 below weather in blowing snow. Other officers have crawled through mud and sand and had to use their weapons. Also if your saying the Glock 17 can't handle harsh conditions you would be full of it. Glock has established itself as an excellent military and police sidearm.
Pat
Magic_Salad0892
08-03-12, 07:02
I respect soldiers and what they do but do not minimize the sacrafices police officers make and have made.
Yeah. I like Montrala's posts, but that was teetering on the brink of prioritizing human life.
That said... that Glock pistol that American SOF are using are not fit for military service. They're obediance enforcing tools....
And people bringing up SEALs preferring DA/SA pistols makes me think about Kyle Defoor's favorite pistol...
I know... sample of one, and all... but he's a pretty experienced sample of one... And I also know that he speaks highly of the SIG.
For military units, SOF units were used as an example, pistol is secondary firearm. But this mean that when soldier grabs this pistol, it means SHTF and things went FUBAR. So when he grab his secondary firearm it must work, right now, on first trigger pull. It does not matter that for better part of the day he hauled it in sand, dirt, over rocks, been in sand storm, on the beach, crossing the river or swamp, mud or in arctic conditions and what not.
For Police, pistol is mostly, as we call it here "obedience enforcing tool". It sits in holster, mostly with no environmental factors to consider and most of the time it leaves holster, it is to enforce obedience. Of course, Police Officers do expect their guns to work, but demands on reliability of this guns are actually lower that for military pistols.
Polish Army experimented with striker pistols for our regular troops (wz94 Wist) and SOF units (Glock 17). It was nice until we started to see action. Wist was so much a disaster, that troops in emergency mode received P83 Wanad (9x18mm Makarov) from reserves. SOF units changed Glocks for HK USP. Glocks are kept for "Police type missions", but were found not suited for combat missions.
You can tell, "what the hell Poles knows about firearms!". We know what we've learned with blood of our soldiers.
Our Police on the other hand is now almost entirely armed with striker fired pistols, bought in tenders, where price was only factor used to choose among offers (that fulfilled some basic requirements like caliber, mag capacity, size, mass and black color and that is all)
It's been posted on M4C that not long ago GROM selected the PPQ. Is that accurate?
1. Not sure who you are talking about when you said I am arguing with someone who has seen more weapons issued than I have. Frankly we have no way to know that nor does it really matter as it would be just a Dick measureing contest. I have been working 13 years and have been involved in two departments going to Glocks. I can tell you that Glock does not give their guns away for free nor does it give holsters. It does offer trade in on your old service weapons and it gives a pretty good price on the weapons you plan to purchase. But the guns are not free. That is not my opinion its FACT.
2. As for striker fired guns vs DA SA guns shootablility. This is fact not opinion. I saw officers scores go up an average of 10%. Fact most of your professional firearms instructors don't shoot DA SA guns. Fact most of your competative shooters are not using DA SA guns. These guys shoot for a living and they want to win and by and large with few exceptions they are not chosing DA SA guns. So its not crap that DA SA guns are harder to master and harder to shoot well. Is DA SA impossible to shoot no. Is it slower or less accurate then you would be for your first shot on a stirker fired gun definately.
3. Not lets talk about the military. The best of the best use Glocks or custom 1911's with the exception of the SEALS. Also as was pointed out before for the military a sidearm is a secondary weapon of little importance. In fact the miltiary has had a few trials now to replace the M9 but each time has figured it simply was not important enough for them to do it. When you look at the military as a whole not many carry sidearms. Compare that with LEO's where we all do.
The fact is I have stated my opinion as an opinion and facts as facts. What you have done was to make a slam towards me because you don't care for what I have to say. We can disagree but we should be able to do that without the personal crap.
By the way the Glock KaBoom thing is not crap been there and seen it more than once. So what you read from other posters on the net is not always wrong. Now for an opinion. I could care less what top SOF units outside of the USA chose as their sidearm. The best of the best are in this country when it comes to firearms and there is little need to look outside.
Pat
1. Then the departments you have seen go to Glocks aren't big enough to get the special treatment. Yes, they give Glocks away, or at least they used to,and that is well known. Lately, S&W has been beating them at their own game and offering better deals. So what you said is NOT A FACT.
2. Like I said. For a group of non shooters like 95% of LEO's, the striker action is the way to go. They shoot a couple hundred rounds at most a year and call it good. When I carried Glocks for a while, I was slower and my scores dropped compared to my SIGs. Picking up the SIG again felt like I was driving a Cadillac instead of a Pinto. So I would say your opinion depends on the individual, so again, NOT A FACT.
3. The secondary becomes a primary more than you think in SOF, especially in NSW. I'm not going to dig around for it, but I think it was Frogman who said that they transition to their secondary more than any other unit because of the type of work they do in tighter places (ships, in hides etc etc). So the pistol becomes a primary more than you think.
I have seen Glocks kaboom too, but it has turned into an internet meme. It doesn't happen nearly as much a people lead on, especially considering how many Glocks are out there. While we have the best .mil in the world, including our SOF's, you would would have to be pretty short sighted to discount other SOF around the world. They have worked hand and hand with ours throughout this war, and are VERY capable units.
Go to training, go to competition, it really does not matter the venue they are losing ground.
And yet there is a contingent of competition shooters that believe that the 31 excellent single action shots outweigh the minor disadvantage of the double action.
2. Like I said. For a group of non shooters like 95% of LEO's, the striker action is the way to go. They shoot a couple hundred rounds at most a year and call it good. When I carried Glocks for a while, I was slower and my scores dropped compared to my SIGs. Picking up the SIG again felt like I was driving a Cadillac instead of a Pinto. So I would say your opinion depends on the individual, so again, NOT A FACT.
3. The secondary becomes a primary more than you think in SOF, especially in NSW. I'm not going to dig around for it, but I think it was Frogman who said that they transition to their secondary more than any other unit because of the type of work they do in tighter places (ships, in hides etc etc). So the pistol becomes a primary more than you think.
Aren't you and Pat saying the same thing? For most shooters, SF pistols are the better choice because of their ease of use. And for good shooters, it doesn't really matter because a good shooter can pickup just about any quality gun, run it pretty well; and with practice, run it really well. You guys seem to pretty much be making the same point.
I remember reading where Frogman wrote that, but he also wrote that while the Sigs were fine pistols, he thought NSW should issue 1911s. This was about the time he was developing the C&S Trident.
Alaskapopo
08-03-12, 13:15
And yet there is a contingent of competition shooters that believe that the 31 excellent single action shots outweigh the minor disadvantage of the double action.
What are you talking about? The divisions where you shoot non 1911 type guns is production and the mag cap limit for production is 10 rounds. (USPSA rules) In open division shooters (where I compete mostly) all use custom double stack 1911's and the mag size is limited to 171mm which comes out to 30 38 super comp rounds. Perhaps your speaking of a different sport. If your speaking of the FN 5.7 its not allowed due to its caliber being below 9mm.
Pat
Alaskapopo
08-03-12, 13:24
1. Then the departments you have seen go to Glocks aren't big enough to get the special treatment. Yes, they give Glocks away, or at least they used to,and that is well known. Lately, S&W has been beating them at their own game and offering better deals. So what you said is NOT A FACT.
Ok please cite some actual departments where Glock has just given away free guns with no trade ins and with free gear. Please only list those that you personally know about and can verify
2. Like I said. For a group of non shooters like 95% of LEO's, the striker action is the way to go. They shoot a couple hundred rounds at most a year and call it good. When I carried Glocks for a while, I was slower and my scores dropped compared to my SIGs. Picking up the SIG again felt like I was driving a Cadillac instead of a Pinto. So I would say your opinion depends on the individual, so again, NOT A FACT.
Actually the same advantages striker fired guns have for new shooters also applies to the most skilled. A gun that is easier to shoot is easier to shoot and there is no plus to a DA SA that makes it worth giving up shootability. Again that is one of the reason why the most respected firearms instructors who have the ability to carry what they want don't carry DA SA generally. I find it very hard to believe you shot faster with a Sig compared to a Glock. More accurate sure in slow fire but faster I doubt that. Have you actually looked at a timer and compared the two side by side
3. The secondary becomes a primary more than you think in SOF, especially in NSW. I'm not going to dig around for it, but I think it was Frogman who said that they transition to their secondary more than any other unit because of the type of work they do in tighter places (ships, in hides etc etc). So the pistol becomes a primary more than you think.
I won't pretend to know what Frogmen do. I will say that DELTA and the Marine Force Recon unit has made a different handgun choice.
I have seen Glocks kaboom too, but it has turned into an internet meme. It doesn't happen nearly as much a people lead on, especially considering how many Glocks are out there. While we have the best .mil in the world, including our SOF's, you would would have to be pretty short sighted to discount other SOF around the world. They have worked hand and hand with ours throughout this war, and are VERY capable units.
Not saying no one else in the world is capable but the USA is the best and we are the ones to look for when it comes to trend setting not Poland for example.
Now for another opinion. I believe you will continue to see DA SA pistols fade from memory. Striker fired guns and modified DA SA guns like the Sig DAK trigger will take over almost completely as the trend has show.
Aren't you and Pat saying the same thing? For most shooters, SF pistols are the better choice because of their ease of use.
Not really. Pat insists that the hammer fired DA/SA is obsolete....which clearly is not the case based on use....
I won't pretend to know what Frogmen do. I will say that DELTA and the Marine Force Recon unit has made a different handgun choice.
You can't know what Frogmen use but are very familiar with Delta's choices?
LOL......:suicide:
I will say that there is not a single Glock in the Crane training armory for the Special Operations Joint Armorer's Course. There are 1911s, P226s, P228s, P239s, Mk23s, HK45s,and a few FN FNP45s. I do agree that some units have Glocks, but it is not standard by any means and is for specific mission use.
Alaskapopo
08-03-12, 13:32
Not really. Pat insists that the hammer fired DA/SA is obsolete....which clearly is not the case based on use....
You can't know what Frogmen use but are very familiar with Delta's choices?
LOL......:suicide:
You need to read more carefully. I did not say I did not know what the SEALS use (P226 sig as well as a lot of other handguns in inventory even 686 Smith revolvers) I said I won't pretend to know what they do on a day in day out basis. As for DELTA's choices in sidearms its been posted and spoken about even on this forum.
Yes I feel the DA SA design is obsolete, that is my opinion. You don't see me sending snide remarks your way. I expect the same in return. Anyway we have all posted our positions even one of the forums SME's so there is not much more to be said. Carry what you like and train with it and stay safe. I am done with this thread.
Pat
What are you talking about? The divisions where you shoot non 1911 type guns is production and the mag cap limit for production is 10 rounds. (USPSA rules) In open division shooters (where I compete mostly) all use custom double stack 1911's and the mag size is limited to 171mm which comes out to 30 38 super comp rounds. Perhaps your speaking of a different sport. If your speaking of the FN 5.7 its not allowed due to its caliber being below 9mm.
Think about it for a second what does 31 single action plus 1 double action equal? 32 rounds which is relevant to pistol shooting how?
You can't know what Frogmen use but are very familiar with Delta's choices?
LOL......:suicide:
Let me clarify before hand - I don't think hammered guns are obsolete and most of the handguns I like are hammered guns. Frequently, I carry a Makarov which is definitely a hammered gun last I check.
But it's pretty common knowledge CAG/Delta/Whatever you want to call them switched over to Glocks a few years ago, G19s are widely issued in Army SF. There was even a special run of FDE G22 magazines made for Delta a couple of years ago. There are a lot of pictures of Marine Special Operations Command guys using Glocks.
To answer the spec ops question, and Grant alluded to this in an earlier post, the units that put a priority on handgun marksmanship almost universally use a constant trigger action pistol - my former unit is considered by everyone in the community to be the best in the world with a handgun ( a topic that is universally agreed upon within the spec ops community) - they have fielded a constant trigger action pistol from day one ; first a 1911 then a G22
Many of these spec ops units view the pistol as a back up weapon only - one that is used in case a long gun primary goes down; this means it is primarily a defensive tool with limited offensive use
The spec ops units that use handguns in an offensive role are more likely to use a constant action pistol - in addition some of them use the handgun in a single action cocked and locked format ( for instance Aussie SAS and cocked and locked HK USP 9mm) thus by passing the DA mode
LAV
Noticed after my post MSG Vickers already said it. Good to have SMEs to validate your spitballing.
The idea that hammered guns are done isn't one I agree with, but some pretty professional units are using striker fired weapons. Personally, I would like to see more DA/SA guns that can be carried cocked and locked issued in the Army.
It's been posted on M4C that not long ago GROM selected the PPQ. Is that accurate?
No, it is not accurate. GROM uses mostly HK in different flavors (USP Tactical as main pistol) and calibers but they also have Glocks and Sigs.
PPQ was offered 4 years ago as new service pistol for Polish Army (P99D Rad, P99Q Rad), but it was not adopted. Actually this project is origin of PPQ. Walther wanted to recoup costs from "Rad" failure (failure due to lack of interest into yet another striker firing pistol) and turned it into commercial PPQ. New pistol in works, to replace striker firing wz.94 Wist uses classic hammer firing design.
BTW I just try to offer different point of view. And point of view depends on where one is sitting and I sit far, far away (we say here that "point of view depends on point of sitting" in direct translation). My point was that military pistol is required do be reliable in much wider and much worse environmental condition and poorer maintenance than Police pistol. So level of requirements to meet for Police pistol is lower, but still allows to deliver acceptable level of reliability in Police use. But when we take this reliable Police pistol and put it in military use, sad surprises can happen. Modern striker firing pistols from respectable manufacturers, while usually meet or exceed Police requirements seldom can meet military ones (if those requirements come from field experience, not pen pushers). That is all.
ffhounddog
08-06-12, 11:24
Let me clarify before hand - I don't think hammered guns are obsolete and most of the handguns I like are hammered guns. Frequently, I carry a Makarov which is definitely a hammered gun last I check.
But it's pretty common knowledge CAG/Delta/Whatever you want to call them switched over to Glocks a few years ago, G19s are widely issued in Army SF. There was even a special run of FDE G22 magazines made for Delta a couple of years ago. There are a lot of pictures of Marine Special Operations Command guys using Glocks.
Noticed after my post MSG Vickers already said it. Good to have SMEs to validate your spitballing.
The idea that hammered guns are done isn't one I agree with, but some pretty professional units are using striker fired weapons. Personally, I would like to see more DA/SA guns that can be carried cocked and locked issued in the Army.
When I went to Campbell to visit a good friend in 5th Group I saw 1911s being used but that could be a team chief requirement. I know my buddy is a 1911 guy so that is what he deploys with. I did not see what the rest of the guys under his command had.
This whole DA/SA to Striker fired this is an argument that is not needed. The DA pull adds some weight but can be mastered then you have a short reset single action trigger. In a striker you have a constant trigger from 7 pounds down to 3.5 pounds depending on the system.
both systems work in today's age and will still be used for a long while. It all comes down to the requirements of the customers.
Yeah. I like Montrala's posts, but that was teetering on the brink of prioritizing human life.
That said... that Glock pistol that American SOF are using are not fit for military service. They're obediance enforcing tools....
And people bringing up SEALs preferring DA/SA pistols makes me think about Kyle Defoor's favorite pistol...
I know... sample of one, and all... but he's a pretty experienced sample of one... And I also know that he speaks highly of the SIG.
So Defoor's favorite pistol is a P226?
Magic_Salad0892
08-06-12, 15:14
So Defoor's favorite pistol is a P226?
No. It was a Glock 17. I figured I'd mention a 226 because if I didn't I know somebody else would've been like "Well he also loves a DA/SA gun..." or something else.
But he's said frequently on his blog that his favorite pistol is a G17.
And I also know that he speaks highly of the SIG.
I can see why you got confused, now that I see how I wrote it, but I guess I should've put more emphesis on the ''also.''
No, it is not accurate. GROM uses mostly HK in different flavors (USP Tactical as main pistol) and calibers but they also have Glocks and Sigs.
PPQ was offered 4 years ago as new service pistol for Polish Army (P99D Rad, P99Q Rad), but it was not adopted. Actually this project is origin of PPQ. Walther wanted to recoup costs from "Rad" failure (failure due to lack of interest into yet another striker firing pistol) and turned it into commercial PPQ. New pistol in works, to replace striker firing wz.94 Wist uses classic hammer firing design.
BTW I just try to offer different point of view. And point of view depends on where one is sitting and I sit far, far away (we say here that "point of view depends on point of sitting" in direct translation). My point was that military pistol is required do be reliable in much wider and much worse environmental condition and poorer maintenance than Police pistol. So level of requirements to meet for Police pistol is lower, but still allows to deliver acceptable level of reliability in Police use. But when we take this reliable Police pistol and put it in military use, sad surprises can happen. Modern striker firing pistols from respectable manufacturers, while usually meet or exceed Police requirements seldom can meet military ones (if those requirements come from field experience, not pen pushers). That is all.
Thank you very much for clearing that up!
You are quite mistaken that the Glock platform is suitable for LE but unsuitable for military combat but that can happen to anyone. ;)
Thank you very much for clearing that up!
You are quite mistaken that the Glock platform is suitable for LE but unsuitable for military combat but that can happen to anyone. ;)
Unlike some other people I do not have monopoly for being right. I know :sarcastic:
So hereby I delete lengthy comment I already wrote and I rest my case :blink:
When I went to Campbell to visit a good friend in 5th Group I saw 1911s being used but that could be a team chief requirement. I know my buddy is a 1911 guy so that is what he deploys with. I did not see what the rest of the guys under his command had.
Whenever I run into a team guy or somebody who recently got out of Army SF, I always ask them what sidearm they had. There doesn't seem to be any standard even by group. Some just carry the M9s. Some said they had an issued standard that was not an M9 or a non issued team standard. Others said they carried at individual discretion. A close friend of mine who left 7th Group carried a Ruger for example.
Maybe somebody who's currently at USASOC or just retired can drop a line on the topic. Anyways.
Absolutely right on both counts. I have always felt that the advent of the DA/SA in a self loader was a diversion and stunted handgun development
and it's about damn time!
The striker is superior to the hammer in almost every way. Faster locking time, harder strikes and more consistent and reliable ignition. That's why it's used in bolt action rifles. It's also a more compact and simpler design. In handguns it also has the added advantage of being cocked on closing. None of the extraction energy is used to cock the pistol as it is with hammer ignition self loaders. Striker ignition systems also produce crisper trigger breaks.
Since most, if not all of the striker ignition system is internal, it's exposure to the elements and outside debris is minimized. Since striker springs are simply compressed, instead of bent or torqued as most hammer springs are, they last longer.
Long before Glocks and even the VP70z or the HK P7, I've thought a striker made sense for a pistol. Even single action hammer fired pistols are surpassed by the striker system
I have read through 9 pages of posts on this topic and there is a general feeling (at least by post volume and intensity) that striker fired pistols are superior to DA/SA guns in terms of ease of training and use. I think the question is unfair. Striker vs Hammer and constant trigger pull vs not are two different debates.
As far as striker vs hammer, there is no clear winner. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. To me that makes the debate interesting. I am really surprised anyone would say that "striker ignition systems also produce crisper trigger breaks". I have a G17 and have shot XDs, M&Ps etc and I wouldn't really use crisp to describe any of those triggers. I generally would use crisp to describe a 1911 trigger or the single action pull of a P226 or M9. That may be what caused others to question the quoted post but there are some entirely valid points there. The striker design does generally have a faster lock time. Elsewhere in the thread it is argued that strikers hit harder than a hammer driven pin- that depends on trigger/striker spring particulars. I do know that most guys who try to get a light pull out of a striker fired gun, or use systems to "make your Glock feel like a 1911" seem to run into light strikes, where a 19/2011 platform you can up the mainspring rate while having only a small effect on trigger pull. The cocks on closing, uses no ejection energy to cock feature discussed above is also not necessarily an advantage. If you are trying to keep a gun flat having the hammer store some of the rearward energy from the slide lets you run a lighter recoil spring without beating the gun to death and helps keep the gun from "dipping" when it returns to battery. Tucking a pistol AIWB is also much more comfortable with a hammer, at least until the "Gadget" becomes available.
A user was ridiculed for saying that 1 heavier pull is worth it for 31 crisp single action shots- apparently striker guys never change magazines.
That said, I love striker and hammer guns. They are different. They will both be produced for quite some time. I am not a striker or hammer fanboy. I would say that hammer guns tend to have triggers with less travel and weight, and that means something when it comes to reducing human error in a shot. Striker guns are probably in general more resistant to foreign debris. The DA first pull or manual safety brain failures or issues with holstering a safe action can be trained around, but depending on individual circumstances there may be an advantage to each system.
I do think that constant pull triggers will eventually win over the different variable trigger pull systems. When shooting DA/SA guns, I feel that the design is optimized for someone who has difficulty in remembering how to operate things like manual safeties or light switches yet can remember to decock before holstering. I cringe every time we get a DA/SA shooter who stuffs a cocked and unlocked gun into a holster at a match. I guess I should be equally startled by the Glock guys running sub 4 lb triggers, but I feel like at least they know what they are up against when holstering.
The manual of arms is just TOO much easier to ignore. DA/SA stinks in every way. 1911 C/L takes a bit more tng, but is better.
Having no manual safety just makes it simple. I am finding also, that it is not that hard to get used to a Glock trigger. You can then get VERY good at it. It makes you concentrate on proper trigger control and NOT on a manual of arms per se.
The manual of arms is just TOO much easier to ignore. DA/SA stinks in every way. 1911 C/L takes a bit more tng, but is better.
If you speaking of manual of arms, except for the decocking after shooting, DA/SA and striker fired have the same manual of arms for the shooting part.
1. Draw gun
2. Start prepping the trigger when the hands come together
3. Press out while aligning the sights
4. At full extension, and sights are aligned, break the shot
And if DA/SA stinks so much why is it that so many of the winners at the USPSA Production nationals use DA/SA guns? Most years it is about 50% of the top ten. Langdon beat all the 1911 die hards with his Sig P220ST at the IDPA nationals. And the winner of this years Bianchi Cup for production was using a DA/SA CZ IIRC..
But these are people that all spent many many many hours practicing. They are experts in their fields. But just because you can't do it doesn't mean that the gun stinks.
One final thing, I love neither system, and go with what works best at the moment. In the past that was DA/SA guns of various types, so I am proficient shooting a DA/SA gun. But currently I use the M&P series for almost all of my shooting.
...I am really surprised anyone would say that "striker ignition systems also produce crisper trigger breaks"...
Remember that strikers are not only used in pistols. They are also used in rifles. Glocks, XDs and a couple other striker fired pistols use trigger actions that are designed to keep the bureaucrats happy, not shooters. The Remington 700 has a striker and can be tuned to be one of the crispest triggers in the business- at least the old style triggers, I haven't fussed with their new one
For years it's been known that the striker of the Mauser hits harder with more reliable and consistent ignition with faster locktimes than rifles with hammers. Hammer systems can be tuned for faster lock times and harder hits, but strikers can be tuned to be faster still.
In the early days of tuning 1911s, it was discovered that changing the spring rate of the hammer had a direct affect on the slide and in turn, ejection. Overcoming the hammer spring and geometry can add some interesting variables. A cock on closing striker only has to overcome the recoil spring and it won't batter itself any more than a hammer system because compressing the striker spring softens the impact of the closing slide, something the hammer fired pistol lacks.
Overall, the striker fired system is simpler, more reliable and the design is capable of producing better feeling triggers. It's trying to keep the bureaucrats happy that gums up the works. The Walther PPQ is clearly a step in the direction self loading pistol development should be taking
StrikerFired
08-08-12, 21:10
Once I decided to go with all striker fired pistols I dropped my SA/DA guns like a hot rock and never looked back. I doubt very much that we will see the end of the DA/SA pistol, but for me the decision wasn't very hard once I how much better I could use the one platform over the other.
Alaskapopo
08-08-12, 22:23
If you speaking of manual of arms, except for the decocking after shooting, DA/SA and striker fired have the same manual of arms for the shooting part.
1. Draw gun
2. Start prepping the trigger when the hands come together
3. Press out while aligning the sights
4. At full extension, and sights are aligned, break the shot
And if DA/SA stinks so much why is it that so many of the winners at the USPSA Production nationals use DA/SA guns? Most years it is about 50% of the top ten. Langdon beat all the 1911 die hards with his Sig P220ST at the IDPA nationals. And the winner of this years Bianchi Cup for production was using a DA/SA CZ IIRC..
But these are people that all spent many many many hours practicing. They are experts in their fields. But just because you can't do it doesn't mean that the gun stinks.
One final thing, I love neither system, and go with what works best at the moment. In the past that was DA/SA guns of various types, so I am proficient shooting a DA/SA gun. But currently I use the M&P series for almost all of my shooting.
Actually Glock and XD's dominate over DA SA guns in production. There is a small group that like the CZ SP101 Shadow and its a nice gun but overall you see more winners generally with Glocks. Langdon is an excellent shooter. Sevigney won limited one year with his Glock. Stuff happens some times but generally 1911's dominate all the divisions they are allowed in and Glock dominates production and SSP in IDPA.
I was taught on a TDA pistol the same way your talking. I hate preping the trigger as your going out to the target. For most shooters the shot goes off too soon and for some they simply wait until they reach full extension and then start pulling the trigger. (safer way but slower). The simple fact is DA SA guns are harder to shoot well despite the fact some individuals have done well with them.
I took first place in a local three gun match once using my Arsenal AK with a R1 dot sight. That does not mean AK's rule.
Pat
Actually Glock and XD's dominate over DA SA guns in production. There is a small group that like the CZ SP101 Shadow and its a nice gun but overall you see more winners generally with Glocks. Langdon is an excellent shooter. Sevigney won limited one year with his Glock. Stuff happens some times but generally 1911's dominate all the divisions they are allowed in and Glock dominates production and SSP in IDPA.
At the local level maybe.
2011 Production Nationals:
1st Place: Beretta Elite
4th Place: CZ SP-01
5th Place: CZ SP-01
6th Place: Sig Sauer (X5 IIRC)
7th Place: CZ SP-01
9th Place: CZ SP-01
So out of the top ten, there were 6 DA/SA guns. And honestly having about 50% of the top ten using DA/SA guns is about normal for the Production Nationals. And IMO the double action of the SP-01 (at least before the new trigger system) had quite a bit of stacking compared to other designs like Sig, and Beretta.
The fact is that people that put in the effort do quite well with them. Maybe they are less then optimal for lesser skilled shooters.
I was taught on a TDA pistol the same way your talking. I hate preping the trigger as your going out to the target. For most shooters the shot goes off too soon and for some they simply wait until they reach full extension and then start pulling the trigger. (safer way but slower). The simple fact is DA SA guns are harder to shoot well despite the fact some individuals have done well with them.
So the proper technique is just to shove the gun out there and slap the crap out of the trigger? I was taught to prep the trigger even with the 1911. Even at the holy grail of 1911s schools, Gunsite.
I took first place in a local three gun match once using my Arsenal AK with a R1 dot sight. That does not mean AK's rule.
If you are going to use competition shooters as evidence, well it would help if DA/SA guns didn't do well in competition. But it's just the opposite at the national level they do quite well.
Alaskapopo
08-09-12, 00:10
At the local level maybe.
2011 Production Nationals:
1st Place: Beretta Elite
4th Place: CZ SP-01
5th Place: CZ SP-01
6th Place: Sig Sauer (X5 IIRC)
7th Place: CZ SP-01
9th Place: CZ SP-01
So out of the top ten, there were 6 DA/SA guns. And honestly having about 50% of the top ten using DA/SA guns is about normal for the Production Nationals. And IMO the double action of the SP-01 (at least before the new trigger system) had quite a bit of stacking compared to other designs like Sig, and Beretta.
The fact is that people that put in the effort do quite well with them. Maybe they are less then optimal for lesser skilled shooters.
So the proper technique is just to shove the gun out there and slap the crap out of the trigger? I was taught to prep the trigger even with the 1911. Even at the holy grail of 1911s schools, Gunsite.
If you are going to use competition shooters as evidence, well it would help if DA/SA guns didn't do well in competition. But it's just the opposite at the national level they do quite well.
1 year they get 6 out of 10 wow. Also at the national level its all about sponsorship. You will shoot what those that pay your meal ticket want you to shoot. If your skilled enough you can over come a crappy trigger system. How many DA SA guns do you see in limited? But yet you see Glocks. Also never said proper technique was to shove the gun and slap the trigger. However with a 1911 you don't need to prep it as you draw if you do you will get a boom a lot sooner than you want. Not a big Gun Sight fan myself. They are way behind the times on their training in my opinion. Another observation was there was only 1 DA SA gun in the top 3 and that was used by a very talented shooter. I am not arguing that you can not shoot a DA SA gun well. I am stating that you will always be able to shoot a gun with a single trigger pull better and with less effort. There is no good reason to go with a DA SA gun in this day and age.
1 year they get 6 out of 10 wow. Also at the national level its all about sponsorship. You will shoot what those that pay your meal ticket want you to shoot.
Looks like CZ has lot more $$$ to spend on sponsorship than Glock then. 4 of top 10 shooters on their payroll? I must buy some shares in CZ then, business seem to be better for them, than for Glock :p
In Europe, in IPSC shooting there is strong trend to dump Glocks in favor of CZ SP-01, Tanfoglio Stock II/III and Grand Power K100. Now, with "15 rounds loaded" IPSC Production rule more SIGs and HKs show up as well. Walther still did not catch on.
Before SP-01 Glock was "king of the hill" based on magazine capacity only, then CZ came and raised. Then new rule leveled playfield on magazine capacity race.
Comparing a slicked out heavy CZ with a DA trigger as light as the SA pull, fired by a guy who shoots 1000 rounds a day to the average guy who may shoot 1000 rounds/qtr max, and stock production is apples/oranges. And... these SP-01s are NOT manual safety?
And... these SP-01s are NOT manual safety?
SP-01 Shadow is the one used for competition. It has manual safety. SP-01 Tactical has de-cocker, but I never seen anyone use it in IPSC competition. This is true, that factory Shadow has DA trigger pull not much heavier than some pistols have SA. But for IPSC Production any trigger tuning (or any tuning at all) is banned. Only factory parts and any kind of modification to them (including polishing) is forbidden.
But thread is about "self defence", so let's not go too deep into competition world.
Once I decided to go with all striker fired pistols I dropped my SA/DA guns like a hot rock and never looked back. I doubt very much that we will see the end of the DA/SA pistol, but for me the decision wasn't very hard once I how much better I could use the one platform over the other.
This was my experience as well. I still like Sig's and HK's, but for serious use, its all Glock's or Caracal's.
1 year they get 6 out of 10 wow. Also at the national level its all about sponsorship. You will shoot what those that pay your meal ticket want you to shoot. If your skilled enough you can over come a crappy trigger system. How many DA SA guns do you see in limited? But yet you see Glocks.
Actually of that list probably 3 or 4 are sponsered by the gun companies that they are shooting. Phil Strader for example dumped the M&P that he was having issues with for the CZ. But if they can't compete with the gun, they won't shoot it, as their sponsers want winners, not someone just showing up.
Limited is a whole other ball game. But we were talking about defensive guns right? Limited guns are more about tayloring the gun to the sport, then the gun themselves.
Also never said proper technique was to shove the gun and slap the trigger. However with a 1911 you don't need to prep it as you draw if you do you will get a boom a lot sooner than you want. Not a big Gun Sight fan myself. They are way behind the times on their training in my opinion.
Though they still hold onto the Weaver stance, their program is still top notch.
There are few production 1911s that you can't prep. Sure it's not a mile long like most striker actions, DAOs, or DA/SAs but there is still distance to prep.
Another observation was there was only 1 DA SA gun in the top 3 and that was used by a very talented shooter. I am not arguing that you can not shoot a DA SA gun well. I am stating that you will always be able to shoot a gun with a single trigger pull better and with less effort. There is no good reason to go with a DA SA gun in this day and age.
So now you want to limit it to the top three to make a point? I use the top ten because the people in that group tend to win a majority of the titles, with the exact winner being whoever had the best day.
If it is as you say, they shoot whoever pays the bills. Then to them the trigger action really doesn't matter does it. If you are a skilled shooter and use proper technique trigger action doesn't matter. Rob Leatham will still be one of the best if he is shooting a 1911, a Sig X5, or even a XDM. Why because they moved beyond trivial arguments about what is the "best" action, and simply practice to shoot the gun.
Alaskapopo
08-09-12, 14:53
Actually of that list probably 3 or 4 are sponsered by the gun companies that they are shooting. Phil Strader for example dumped the M&P that he was having issues with for the CZ. But if they can't compete with the gun, they won't shoot it, as their sponsers want winners, not someone just showing up.
Limited is a whole other ball game. But we were talking about defensive guns right? Limited guns are more about tayloring the gun to the sport, then the gun themselves.
Though they still hold onto the Weaver stance, their program is still top notch.
There are few production 1911s that you can't prep. Sure it's not a mile long like most striker actions, DAOs, or DA/SAs but there is still distance to prep.
So now you want to limit it to the top three to make a point? I use the top ten because the people in that group tend to win a majority of the titles, with the exact winner being whoever had the best day.
If it is as you say, they shoot whoever pays the bills. Then to them the trigger action really doesn't matter does it. If you are a skilled shooter and use proper technique trigger action doesn't matter. Rob Leatham will still be one of the best if he is shooting a 1911, a Sig X5, or even a XDM. Why because they moved beyond trivial arguments about what is the "best" action, and simply practice to shoot the gun.
Here is the deal we have established that a great shooter can over come even the worst trigger design. However what is to be gained by going with a DA SA design other than sponsorship money. Absolutely nothing.
Limited guns make find defensive pistols so long as you can carry them. And no we were not talking about defensive guns, we were talking about trigger systems. The point being Glocks are still competative in limited while DA SA guns are not and 2011's rule there with their excellent triggers.
As for Gun Sight they are stuck in a time warp and have not progressed forward in years. The simple fact is DA SA guns don't offer any advantages over single trigger guns and they have a host of hurdles for shooters to overcome to shoot them well. Then even when the shooters are at their best they will still do better with single trigger guns. DA SA guns are a solution to a nonexistant problem. Jeff Cooper got that one right.
Pat
Here is the deal we have established that a great shooter can over come even the worst trigger design. However what is to be gained by going with a DA SA design other than sponsorship money. Absolutely nothing.
Again, for some the 31 fantastic single action shots out weigh the single double action shot.
And again maybe half of them are sponsered by gun companies.
Limited guns make find defensive pistols so long as you can carry them. And no we were not talking about defensive guns, we were talking about trigger systems. The point being Glocks are still competative in limited while DA SA guns are not and 2011's rule there with their excellent triggers.
Limited guns are more then just a trigger. Other wise the Sig X5, CZs and other SAO guns would be more represented.
And most limited guns are finicky.
As for Gun Sight they are stuck in a time warp and have not progressed forward in years.
Have you been to Gunsite? Except for the whole Weaver stance they are a great school. A little expensive and a much slower progression compared to some "high speed" schools but their students leave with a firm grasp of all the subject taught.
The simple fact is DA SA guns don't offer any advantages over single trigger guns and they have a host of hurdles for shooters to overcome to shoot them well. Then even when the shooters are at their best they will still do better with single trigger guns. DA SA guns are a solution to a nonexistant problem. Jeff Cooper got that one right.
Compared to most striker guns they have one advantage, they typically have a better trigger pull in single action mode. Compared to SAO guns they don't have a safety.
Alaskapopo
08-09-12, 15:24
Again, for some the 31 fantastic single action shots out weigh the single double action shot.
And again maybe half of them are sponsered by gun companies.
Limited guns are more then just a trigger. Other wise the Sig X5, CZs and other SAO guns would be more represented.
And most limited guns are finicky.
Have you been to Gunsite? Except for the whole Weaver stance they are a great school. A little expensive and a much slower progression compared to some "high speed" schools but their students leave with a firm grasp of all the subject taught.
Compared to most striker guns they have one advantage, they typically have a better trigger pull in single action mode. Compared to SAO guns they don't have a safety.
Limited guns are fincky. That is pure fiction. I have been using my STI Edge for the last 5 years with only one issue (had to replace the factory plastic mainspring housing with a steel one) and have put several thousand rounds through it.
As for Gun Sight the LEO training in my state is heavily based on Gun Sight. (Our top instructors went there and brought stuff back) The problem is more than just weaver which is also retarded by the way. The have other obsolete things they cling to like tactical reloads. Sure they teach people how to shoot thats not that difficult. But if you are beyond the basic level and want the best training available. Look some where else. As for a value for the money in training they are about the worst.
Actually with the exception of the SP101 and Sigs with the short reset trigger mod most DA SA guns have a long trigger reset (in SA mode) and are not what I would call better than a tuned Glock trigger. I have a lot of time on various DA SA guns from HK, Sig, Beretta, Walther etc. Compared to a SAO gun they have a decocker which is a draw on that point. Some DA SA guns also have a safety as well.
Pat
Remember that strikers are not only used in pistols. They are also used in rifles. Glocks, XDs and a couple other striker fired pistols use trigger actions that are designed to keep the bureaucrats happy, not shooters. The Remington 700 has a striker and can be tuned to be one of the crispest triggers in the business- at least the old style triggers, I haven't fussed with their new one
For years it's been known that the striker of the Mauser hits harder with more reliable and consistent ignition with faster locktimes than rifles with hammers. Hammer systems can be tuned for faster lock times and harder hits, but strikers can be tuned to be faster still.
In the early days of tuning 1911s, it was discovered that changing the spring rate of the hammer had a direct affect on the slide and in turn, ejection. Overcoming the hammer spring and geometry can add some interesting variables. A cock on closing striker only has to overcome the recoil spring and it won't batter itself any more than a hammer system because compressing the striker spring softens the impact of the closing slide, something the hammer fired pistol lacks.
Overall, the striker fired system is simpler, more reliable and the design is capable of producing better feeling triggers. It's trying to keep the bureaucrats happy that gums up the works. The Walther PPQ is clearly a step in the direction self loading pistol development should be taking
Thank you for clarifying that statement, that makes more sense. A tuned 700 trigger is definitely a pleasure to use. It seems like the PPQ design relies on releasing a fully cocked striker, similar to the bolt action rifle triggers you reference.
It is curious to me that there are relatively few striker fired semi auto rifles. I know the VZ58 is one- and I am not aware of any others. I am sure they exist, but something about that makes me wonder why they are not more prevalent if it is absolutely superior system.
To say the Mauser hits harder than a hammer rifle, isn't really fair. We are talking about self defense semi automatic pistols, and at least with current designs hammer guns like sigs offer a harder hit than strikers- lots of people can't use wolf primers in striker guns due to FTF/ light strike issues. Also an increased poundage striker spring has a stronger negative effect on trigger pull than a heavier mainspring.
As far as the cock on closing design, the compression of the striker spring does provide an advantage in the sense that you can run a recoil spring that is stronger than necessary without battering the gun. I don't think it is any harder to balance the recoil and mainsprings of a hammer gun than it is to balance the recoil, striker, and sometimes trigger springs of a gun like a Glock.
I still don't know if I would say that striker guns are capable of producing better trigger pulls, especially as presently constituted. We have the PPQ, and a plethora of guns with mushy/gritty/heavy pulls and looong resets. The 700, or Mauser, or other bolt guns don't really have a "reset" so that aspect of the trigger that is incredibly relevant to semi auto pistols is missing. The PPQ itself certainly hasn't replaced the DA/SA guns in the armories of the world, nor dethroned the hammer guns in USPSA and similar games- but is like you said a step in the right direction. I still think that in currently available handguns the hammer design provides better trigger characteristics than a striker, as evidenced by the legions of 19/2011s out there that have pulls that put even factory Remington 700s to shame.
That said I have a Glock 17 with a dot connector and stock springs next to me as I type- the 1911 is in the range bag for more precision work. I do love this forum as there are people such as yourself who can help bring the conversation to a higher level and make the forum a source of knowledge rather than simple opinion. There is still a hearty helping of opinion, particularly in the "strikers rule" side of things, but at least we can discuss the relative merits of each system.
Limited guns are fincky. That is pure fiction. I have been using my STI Edge for the last 5 years with only one issue (had to replace the factory plastic mainspring housing with a steel one) and have put several thousand rounds through it.
That is what they all say. And shortly there after they often say "My gun has never done that before, must be my reloads."
As for Gun Sight the LEO training in my state is heavily based on Gun Sight. (Our top instructors went there and brought stuff back) The problem is more than just weaver which is also retarded by the way. The have other obsolete things they cling to like tactical reloads. Sure they teach people how to shoot thats not that difficult. But if you are beyond the basic level and want the best training available. Look some where else. As for a value for the money in training they are about the worst.
So you've never actually been to Gunsite? And yet you can tell me what they are teaching, hmmm. :confused:
Actually with the exception of the SP101 and Sigs with the short reset trigger mod most DA SA guns have a long trigger reset (in SA mode) and are not what I would call better than a tuned Glock trigger. I have a lot of time on various DA SA guns from HK, Sig, Beretta, Walther etc. Compared to a SAO gun they have a decocker which is a draw on that point. Some DA SA guns also have a safety as well.
So a stock Beretta is worse then a tuned Glock? :suicide:
Alaskapopo
08-09-12, 15:55
That is what they all say. And shortly there after they often say "My gun has never done that before, must be my reloads."
So now you're calling me a liar. My videos are up for all to see and there are plenty of other shooters on here that know you're full of shit if you are saying limited guns are un-reliable. It might interest you to know that the majority of a TAC optics and limited class shooters in Three gun are running USPSA limited pistols without issue. You don't really start seeing fincky guns until you get to open. But then again if you shoot competatively you would know that.
So you've never actually been to Gunsite? And yet you can tell me what they are teaching, hmmm. :confused:
I have never jumped off a cliff either and I know its not a good idea. If you don't understand the concept of train the trainer then you're too simple minded to carry on a conversation with.
So a stock Beretta is worse then a tuned Glock? :suicide:
I would say a tuned Glock trigger is better than a tuned Beretta trigger.
Oh I am fully aware that Open guns extremely finicky. But quite a number of limited guns have issues.
If anyone is simple minded it would be the one that tells me that Gunsite is dated without actually being there. I am aware of train the trainer. But what comes back is clouded by the trainer's biases and opinions. Of course one doesn't know exactly when your instructor went to Gunsite, it might have been the early days when Col. Cooper owned it, the dark days after Col. Cooper sold it, might be the period that Buzz ran the place but Cooper still taught there, or it might be the post Cooper era at Gunsite. The curriculum of what was taught varies across the eras, and year to year.
Personally I've been to Gunsite, it wasn't as horrible as people make it out to be. Yes they taught Weaver as the primary stance. But it was a solid class covering the fundamentals, with a touch of tactics (they introduce those slowly throughout the program). And my point was that they the holy grail of the 1911, taught prepping the trigger during the press out.
As far as tuned Glock vs tuned Beretta. That is a matter of opinion, both can be pretty good. But you weren't comparing those were you? You made the asinine comment that a tuned Glock trigger was better then most stock DA/SA triggers in single action.
Alaskapopo
08-09-12, 18:07
Oh I am fully aware that Open guns extremely finicky. But quite a number of limited guns have issues.
If anyone is simple minded it would be the one that tells me that Gunsite is dated without actually being there. I am aware of train the trainer. But what comes back is clouded by the trainer's biases and opinions. Of course one doesn't know exactly when your instructor went to Gunsite, it might have been the early days when Col. Cooper owned it, the dark days after Col. Cooper sold it, might be the period that Buzz ran the place but Cooper still taught there, or it might be the post Cooper era at Gunsite. The curriculum of what was taught varies across the eras, and year to year.
Personally I've been to Gunsite, it wasn't as horrible as people make it out to be. Yes they taught Weaver as the primary stance. But it was a solid class covering the fundamentals, with a touch of tactics (they introduce those slowly throughout the program). And my point was that they the holy grail of the 1911, taught prepping the trigger during the press out.
As far as tuned Glock vs tuned Beretta. That is a matter of opinion, both can be pretty good. But you weren't comparing those were you? You made the asinine comment that a tuned Glock trigger was better then most stock DA/SA triggers in single action.
Clearly you are simple minded as you don't understand how train the trainer is supposed to work. Nothing was clouded by the instructors opinions as they bought the crap Gun Sight sold hook line and sinker. Great school 20 years ago now not so much because they have not changed in that time.
As for the Beretta triggers. Try to read more carefully. I was not even the poster to bring up Beretta's!
Unless my perspective of shooting USPSA, Three gun and Steel challenge is very unique. (Also IDPA but that is outside this discussion) I can tell you that limited guns generally with few exceptions run very very well. In fact most open guns also run well but they do take more work to keep running well. I have shot in all divisions and feel I have a pretty good grasp on the situation.
Pat
Clearly you are simple minded as you don't understand how train the trainer is supposed to work. Nothing was clouded by the instructors opinions as they bought the crap Gun Sight sold hook line and sinker. Great school 20 years ago now not so much because they have not changed in that time.
:blink: I see this is a monologue, you have your opinions, and don't care about anyone else's opinions. You just want to make statements about the school you've never been to my evaluating a trainer that may or may not be teaching what they currently teach at Gunsite, let alone matching exactly what they taught him when he was last there.
If you can't see how asinine that it, you are the simply minded one.
Also it is spelled Gunsite.
As for the Beretta triggers. Try to read more carefully. I was not even the poster to bring up Beretta's!
Actually you did, you compared to tuned Glock saying it was better then a DA/SA trigger and then listed various brands.
Keep digging, if you dig far enough you might strike oil.
Unless my perspective of shooting USPSA, Three gun and Steel challenge is very unique. (Also IDPA but that is outside this discussion) I can tell you that limited guns generally with few exceptions run very very well. In fact most open guns also run well but they do take more work to keep running well. I have shot in all divisions and feel I have a pretty good grasp on the situation.
I've been around all the major action pistol shooting sports. The failure rate on race guns (both limited and open) is unacceptably high, and the stoppages aren't typically ammo failures but gun oriented failures like failure to feed, failures to eject, or the gun breaking.
Where as compared to Glock, M&P, Sigs, and other quality hand guns stoppages rates typically are less than 1 per 10,000 rounds fired. And the stoppages are typically ammo related, like failures to fire.
Now that is not to say that they break every match. Simply that almost every time someone tells me that their limited gun has had no issues. Like clockwork their gun breaks sometime that match.
Thank you for clarifying that statement, that makes more sense. A tuned 700 trigger is definitely a pleasure to use. It seems like the PPQ design relies on releasing a fully cocked striker, similar to the bolt action rifle triggers you reference.
Yes, the striker in the PPQ is held at full cock
It is curious to me that there are relatively few striker fired semi auto rifles. I know the VZ58 is one- and I am not aware of any others. I am sure they exist, but something about that makes me wonder why they are not more prevalent if it is absolutely superior system.
The hammer type is part of the trigger group and easier to make removable for maintenance. Strikers remain with the bolt and the spring pressure can make removing the striker an interesting proposition
To say the Mauser hits harder than a hammer rifle, isn't really fair. We are talking about self defense semi automatic pistols, and at least with current designs hammer guns like sigs offer a harder hit than strikers- lots of people can't use wolf primers in striker guns due to FTF/ light strike issues. Also an increased poundage striker spring has a stronger negative effect on trigger pull than a heavier mainspring.
The Mauser rifle has one of the most positive ignitions of any small arm due to it's heavy striker. The cocking indicator which protrudes from the bolt shroud is really there to add mass to the striker. Being used as a cocking indicator is really a secondary and not very important function. Shooters in the late 1800s and early 1900 noticed that the ignition of the striker fired Mauser was much more positive with faster locking times than the hammer fired rifles of the time. Pistols were at an even greater disadvantage and why pistol primers are made of softer materials.
Hammers lose energy due to the circular motion they travel. That circular travel also complicates choice of spring rate compared to the straight travel of a striker. Humans, being the imaginative and creative creatures they are, have tried all types of geometrical solutions to make the hammer ignition work in various types of firearms with varying degrees of success.
The Remington 700 uses a lighter striker and a spring designed for fast relaxation, relying more on speed than mass for ignition. This is to reduce lock time and even with a stiff spring, a crisp trigger can be had. A heavier spring does affect trigger pull weight, but the truth is a heavier trigger can be more easily tuned to be crisp than a light one, all else being equal. The trade off with the faster lock time of the 700 is that it doesn't work as well with some early types of primers. This was an important distinction back in the day because without a heavy strike, some ammo would give erratic performance. Today, modern ammunition has improved so much that the heavier strike of the Mauser and 03 isn't the advantage it once was.
Spring tension has a greater affect on the trigger pull of a hammer trigger group than a striker trigger group. It's a fairly common practice to reduce hammer spring tension to lower trigger pull weight, yet rarely is the spring rate of a striker spring reduced. In any case, reducing hammer/striker spring rate in a fighting arm is a bad idea
As far as the cock on closing design, the compression of the striker spring does provide an advantage in the sense that you can run a recoil spring that is stronger than necessary without battering the gun. I don't think it is any harder to balance the recoil and mainsprings of a hammer gun than it is to balance the recoil, striker, and sometimes trigger springs of a gun like a Glock.
It's not just the spring rate that has to be taken into consideration when tuning a hammer fired self loading pistol. The geometry of the hammer can change the force needed to cock the hammer by the moving slide. A simple change in the angle where the slide rides the hammer can change slide velocity. I changed the angle of the hammer of my Marlin where it contacts the bolt to reduce the amount of effort to work the action
I still don't know if I would say that striker guns are capable of producing better trigger pulls, especially as presently constituted. We have the PPQ, and a plethora of guns with mushy/gritty/heavy pulls and looong resets. The 700, or Mauser, or other bolt guns don't really have a "reset" so that aspect of the trigger that is incredibly relevant to semi auto pistols is missing. The PPQ itself certainly hasn't replaced the DA/SA guns in the armories of the world, nor dethroned the hammer guns in USPSA and similar games- but is like you said a step in the right direction. I still think that in currently available handguns the hammer design provides better trigger characteristics than a striker, as evidenced by the legions of 19/2011s out there that have pulls that put even factory Remington 700s to shame.
You are right in pointing out the reset. The extra parts to keep the hammer/striker from following the bolt do add to the complexity and extra movement in the trigger groups of self loading firearms.
The 1911 has a fine trigger for a self loading handgun but I have yet to encounter one that was crisper and had less creep and backlash than a properly tuned factory Remington 700 trigger. The best 1911 trigger I've ever had the pleasure to shoot was the factory trigger of my Colt Gold Cup Commander. The trigger of my PPQ is just as crisp and about a pound heavier. (I made the mistake of having the trigger tuned on my 1911, but that's a story for another time.)
That said I have a Glock 17 with a dot connector and stock springs next to me as I type- the 1911 is in the range bag for more precision work. I do love this forum as there are people such as yourself who can help bring the conversation to a higher level and make the forum a source of knowledge rather than simple opinion. There is still a hearty helping of opinion, particularly in the "strikers rule" side of things, but at least we can discuss the relative merits of each system.
I don't think hammers will ever completely go away as they do have there place. A striker fired revolver is just too bizarre to contemplate (although, if the striker mechanism were made to be really short... Hmmm.......) but in the world of self loading pistols, strikers have the advantage of fewer precision fit parts, more efficient and positive ignition and simpler design
Alaskapopo
08-09-12, 20:39
:blink: I see this is a monologue, you have your opinions, and don't care about anyone else's opinions. You just want to make statements about the school you've never been to my evaluating a trainer that may or may not be teaching what they currently teach at Gunsite, let alone matching exactly what they taught him when he was last there.
If you can't see how asinine that it, you are the simply minded one.
Also it is spelled Gunsite.
Actually you did, you compared to tuned Glock saying it was better then a DA/SA trigger and then listed various brands.
Keep digging, if you dig far enough you might strike oil.
I've been around all the major action pistol shooting sports. The failure rate on race guns (both limited and open) is unacceptably high, and the stoppages aren't typically ammo failures but gun oriented failures like failure to feed, failures to eject, or the gun breaking.
Where as compared to Glock, M&P, Sigs, and other quality hand guns stoppages rates typically are less than 1 per 10,000 rounds fired. And the stoppages are typically ammo related, like failures to fire.
Now that is not to say that they break every match. Simply that almost every time someone tells me that their limited gun has had no issues. Like clockwork their gun breaks sometime that match.
I have on opinion as you do. What struck me wrong was you calling me a liar on my limited gun working well. Not sure where you are competing but limited is the most popular division around here and the guns generally run very well. In fact much better than Sigs I have seen come from the factory box stock of late. But thats another topic. I recently have seen extraction/ejection issues with a friends M&P. I have a Dawson Precision tuned STI Edge and its been reliable for me. I seen a lot of guns just like mine pretty much every weekend shooting just fine as well. Also please post your source and your actual figures for limited and open gun failures. As you know a gun that malfunctions can cost you a match and its in the competators best interest to have reliable firearms. What I imagine is happing with you is you have a predisposal to like what you like and every time you see a gun fail that you don't like you file it away ignoreing the various Sigs, Beretta's and other guns that also have issues. I had a friend finish a match with a Beretta 92 with a broken trigger return spring. He had to manually bring the trigger forward between each round to finish the course of fire. Never had to do that with my Edge.
As for triggers yes I feel a tuned Glock trigger is better than a tuned Sig or Beretta trigger. Thats a matter of preferance.
As to Gunsite I have had more than a sample of its teaching from several instructors who have been. They are way too full of themselves teaching things like weaver that are hopelessly outdated. I am not going to throw my hard earned money out the door with them nor do I have to attend their schools to have an opinion on what they teach. Again the jumping off the cliff example. I don't have to jump off a cliff to know is a bad idea.
Pat
I have on opinion as you do. What struck me wrong was you calling me a liar on my limited gun working well.
I never called you a liar, but you seem extremely defensive about your gun choices thus you seem to take any criticism as a person attack.
I had a longer posted typed out, but honestly it is pretty clear that nothing I say is going to change your mind. You concentrate on the arrow rather then the Indian. Have fun, hopefully you knocked on wood after you said you limited gun has no issues. Wouldn't want you blowing a match.
I am really surprised anyone would say that "striker ignition systems also produce crisper trigger breaks". I have a G17 and have shot XDs, M&Ps etc and I wouldn't really use crisp to describe any of those triggers.
As Mistwolf noted, this is a result of the action type chosen as opposed to the limitations of the firing system which is some variation of the "constant action" semi-loaded action type that is somewhere between DA and SA. Law enforcement tends to prefer weapons with longer and heavier pulls after only having made the transition from revolvers at the end of the last century. Manufacturers knew and responded to this. Whether you agree with the notion that a good weapon for a beat cop or civilian self defense should have a long, mushy pull, there it is.
Both Glocks and M&Ps can be tinkered with safely to produce a short and crisp release, they just don't come from the factory that way. My Glock has an aftermarket trigger/trigger bar etc and its travel is basically just long enough for it to ride over the firing pin safety plunger and then it releases the striker. I'd describe it as pretty crisp with a short travel and all mechanical safeties are operational. It would be nice if Glock took note of some of their customers favoring this kind of trigger set up and offering a factory configuration, but whatever.
Anyways, I think most people here are debating DA/SA vs constant action and not hammer vs stiker fired. I realize DA/SA is strongly associated with hammered guns and constant action strongly associated with striker fires, but we've been off topic for a while.
Alaskapopo
08-09-12, 22:41
I never called you a liar, but you seem extremely defensive about your gun choices thus you seem to take any criticism as a person attack.
I had a longer posted typed out, but honestly it is pretty clear that nothing I say is going to change your mind. You concentrate on the arrow rather then the Indian. Have fun, hopefully you knocked on wood after you said you limited gun has no issues. Wouldn't want you blowing a match.
Actually I am very aware that the Indian matters more than the arrow. But that is not what we are debating. We are talking about the arrows or rather bows. As for blowing a match. Any man made equipment can fail and so far my limited gun has ran boringly reliable. You make a lot of blanket statements that simply were not true in my experience. Such as a hugely general statement that limited guns were finicky. Really which limited guns? That is a ridiculous statement.
Pat
Actually I am very aware that the Indian matters more than the arrow. But that is not what we are debating. We are talking about the arrows or rather bows. As for blowing a match. Any man made equipment can fail and so far my limited gun has ran boringly reliable. You make a lot of blanket statements that simply were not true in my experience. Such as a hugely general statement that limited guns were finicky. Really which limited guns? That is a ridiculous statement.
Again if someone doesn't agree with you they are ridiculous, or simple minded.
My experience doesn't match your own with respect to limited guns. At one point we had so many failures that a group of us production shooters started calling them STDs, to tease them a little. They had a sense of humor, which you appear to have had surgically removed.
And in the end it is the Indian not the arrow. Unless you are sticking the gun out there and slapping the shit out of the trigger with no regard to trigger control, shooting a DA/SA is no harder then a constant action trigger. Hell with some of the 7-8lb fatory safe action type triggers the pull is not much different from a 10lb Sig.
Alaskapopo
08-10-12, 13:42
Again if someone doesn't agree with you they are ridiculous, or simple minded.
My experience doesn't match your own with respect to limited guns. At one point we had so many failures that a group of us production shooters started calling them STDs, to tease them a little. They had a sense of humor, which you appear to have had surgically removed.
And in the end it is the Indian not the arrow. Unless you are sticking the gun out there and slapping the shit out of the trigger with no regard to trigger control, shooting a DA/SA is no harder then a constant action trigger. Hell with some of the 7-8lb fatory safe action type triggers the pull is not much different from a 10lb Sig.
Calling someone a liar is not funny. Before you deny it again. This is what you said when I said my Edge has had good reliablity. ("That is what they all say. And shortly there after they often say "My gun has never done that before, must be my reloads.")
Yes it is the indian not the arrow on that we agree. However all things being equal its easier to fire a gun with a constant trigger pull than one with two different trigger pulls. To deny that is ridiculous and anyone with any time pulling triggers on the guns in question knows that. Especially people who have taught others to shoot these guns in question. With a DA SA gun for your first shot you either need to slow down to hit while you fight through the heavier pull or you miss. This training issue is why these guns are rapidly falling out of favor.
Pat
Calling someone a liar is not funny. Before you deny it again. This is what you said when I said my Edge has had good reliablity. ("That is what they all say. And shortly there after they often say "My gun has never done that before, must be my reloads.")
As I said you appear to have your sense of humor surgically removed.
Yes it is the indian not the arrow on that we agree. However all things being equal its easier to fire a gun with a constant trigger pull than one with two different trigger pulls. To deny that is ridiculous and anyone with any time pulling triggers on the guns in question knows that. Especially people who have taught others to shoot these guns in question. With a DA SA gun for your first shot you either need to slow down to hit while you fight through the heavier pull or you miss. This training issue is why these guns are rapidly falling out of favor.
"Ridiculous", "simple minded" is that all you have? Only to the untrained is a DA/SA a hinderence.
Alaskapopo
08-10-12, 14:28
As I said you appear to have your sense of humor surgically removed.
"Ridiculous", "simple minded" is that all you have? Only to the untrained is a DA/SA a hinderence.
The reality is no matter how well trained you are a DA SA trigger system is a hinderance from shooting to your potential. If heavier longer triggers were better we would be putting them on sniper rifles as well. Granted its more of a hiderance for those of lesser training and skill which is where 99% of the pistol carrying population fits in. For those of greater skill it still keeps them from shooting to their potential at least for the first DA shot.
Pat
Calling someone a liar is not funny. Before you deny it again. This is what you said when I said my Edge has had good reliablity. ("That is what they all say. And shortly there after they often say "My gun has never done that before, must be my reloads.")
Yes it is the indian not the arrow on that we agree. However all things being equal its easier to fire a gun with a constant trigger pull than one with two different trigger pulls. To deny that is ridiculous and anyone with any time pulling triggers on the guns in question knows that. Especially people who have taught others to shoot these guns in question. With a DA SA gun for your first shot you either need to slow down to hit while you fight through the heavier pull or you miss. This training issue is why these guns are rapidly falling out of favor
Pat
I cheated for years when qualifying by using my thumb to pull the hammer of my M9 back as I drew from the holster, I did it because I knew my first shot would be more accurate, I don't consider myself to be a "gunslinger" but I am not a novice shooter either.
I know others do this, so the problem would appear to be the weapon and not the shooter.
DA SA had it's time in the sun, and I believe the new generation of pistols are superior and hope the Military will move away from the M9/1911 style weapons into a more modern system.
I like them all. SF, DA/SA and of course 1911's
...I know others do this, so the problem would appear to be the weapon and not the shooter...
Gotta disagree with this...I've seen too many run the gun too well.
IMO, the answer would be learning to operate the pistol.
Alaskapopo
08-10-12, 18:21
Gotta disagree with this...I've seen too many run the gun too well.
IMO, the answer would be learning to operate the pistol.
The guns can be ran well but they do take more effort to learn to run well vs a single trigger system like the 1911 or Glock.
Pat
The reality is no matter how well trained you are a DA SA trigger system is a hinderance from shooting to your potential. If heavier longer triggers were better we would be putting them on sniper rifles as well. Granted its more of a hiderance for those of lesser training and skill which is where 99% of the pistol carrying population fits in. For those of greater skill it still keeps them from shooting to their potential at least for the first DA shot.
I disagree, I've transitioned both ways. It is a non issue if you press out regardless of gun.
yes, eventually. A matter more of economics than ergonomics.. but I'm in favor.
Obsolete does not equal ineffective. It'd be great if English were more readily understood...
And.. when manufacturers finally get around to shrinking over-sized carbines, and producing them at a reasonable cost. you will see striker fired auto rifles.
yes, eventually. A matter more of economics than ergonomics.. but I'm in favor.
Well I agree that the gun world is moving toward striker actions, and that a majority of them are constant action guns. But I don't think it will totally eliminate DA/SA. Walther made a DA/SA P99, probably the best box stock DA/SA trigger on the market (though the AS idea was stupid).
Popo, I thought that you were bowing out of this thread a few pages ago? I guess you decided to grace us with your vast experience and opinions as facts still...
Alaskapopo
08-10-12, 21:35
Popo, I thought that you were bowing out of this thread a few pages ago? I guess you decided to grace us with your vast experience and opinions as facts still...
And I see the Sig apologist has also returned to the thread.
Why don't we both agree to act like adults and drop the petty insults. Do you think you can do that?
And I see the Sig apologist has also returned to the thread.
Why don't we both agree to act like adults and drop the petty insults. Do you think you can do that?
What petty insults? Like you you try to insinuate that you've seen more rounds through various pistols than me and the people you're trying to argue with? You boys up in Alaska must shoot a shit ton of rounds, and play lots of gun games, just sayin'....
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 00:08
What petty insults? Like you you try to insinuate that you've seen more rounds through various pistols than me and the people you're trying to argue with? You boys up in Alaska must shoot a shit ton of rounds, and play lots of gun games, just sayin'....
You really need to grow up. Yes I do shoot a lot but I am not saying I am better than anyone in this thread. Your the one trying to make this personal with your little verbal jabs. Of course that is usually what happens when people can't back up their argument. Regardless of what you think of me you should try USPSA, IDPA, Steel Challenge, Three Gun. The shooting sports are a great way to improve your skills and have fun doing it. Lets take this dispute to PM.
Pat
I cheated for years when qualifying by using my thumb to pull the hammer of my M9 back as I drew from the holster, I did it because I knew my first shot would be more accurate, I don't consider myself to be a "gunslinger" but I am not a novice shooter either.
I know others do this, so the problem would appear to be the weapon and not the shooter.
DA SA had it's time in the sun, and I believe the new generation of pistols are superior and hope the Military will move away from the M9/1911 style weapons into a more modern system.
Look at this and then tell me the weapon is the problem. http://pistol-training.com/archives/4901 The vid is Ernest Langdon shooting a beretta 92 at the carolina cup. The weapon is only the problem if you don't want to take the time to perfect the trigger on it.
Also, there's been a lot written in this thread about how a SF gun is easier to shoot. That's without a doubt true; however, I haven't seen anyone mention that box stock, neither a Glock 17/19 nor an S&W M&P 9 is generally as accurate as a Sig P226 or HK P30 or HK USP 9. I'm not saying they can't be, but it seems to rarely happen. And yes, you can put a match grade barrel in a Glock or M&P and they'll be as accurate, but you can also have a trigger job done on a DA/SA gun that makes it easier to work. The M&P, at least the one I shot, needed both.
DA/SA isn't going anywhere in the near future. When talking about trigger pull etc, people sometimes forget that after the initial DA shot, everything else is a nice SA. For some that in itself can make up for having to learn how to run two trigger pulls in one cohesive run. And if you shoot nothing but Glocks or nothing but 1911s, I guess you really only have to learn one trigger pull. But most of us shoot multiple types of guns. Bruce Gray has written that he believes that Sigs are still the best service pistol in existence. I don't agree or disagree with him. I think Sig, HK, Glock and S&W all make fine pistols. Choose the one that works best for you and go out and shoot it.
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 00:32
Look at this and then tell me the weapon is the problem. http://pistol-training.com/archives/4901 The vid is Ernest Langdon shooting a beretta 92 at the carolina cup. The weapon is only the problem if you don't want to take the time to perfect the trigger on it.
Also, there's been a lot written in this thread about how a SF gun is easier to shoot. That's without a doubt true; however, I haven't seen anyone mention that box stock, neither a Glock 17/19 nor an S&W M&P 9 is generally as accurate as a Sig P226 or HK P30 or HK USP 9. I'm not saying they can't be, but it seems to rarely happen. And yes, you can put a match grade barrel in a Glock or M&P and they'll be as accurate, but you can also have a trigger job done on a DA/SA gun that makes it easier to work. The M&P, at least the one I shot, needed both.
DA/SA isn't going anywhere in the near future. When talking about trigger pull etc, people sometimes forget that after the initial DA shot, everything else is a nice SA. For some that in itself can make up for having to learn how to run two trigger pulls in one cohesive run. And if you shoot nothing but Glocks or nothing but 1911s, I guess you really only have to learn one trigger pull. But most of us shoot multiple types of guns. Bruce Gray has written that he believes that Sigs are still the best service pistol in existence. I don't agree or disagree with him. I think Sig, HK, Glock and S&W all make fine pistols. Choose the one that works best for you and go out and shoot it.
On the accuracy issue. Generally Sigs are more accurate than Glocks but not by enough to matter. I used to carry a custom 1911 (Wilson CQB in 45 ACP) they gun would group 3 inches at 50 yards which was great. However part of what helped me make the decision to stop carrying that gun was shooting my Glock 17 on some steel targets at 100 yards. I had no problems hitting 10 and 12 inch steel plates. So is the Sig/HK more accurate sure. But does it really matter not likely. I can shoot 2 to 3 inch groups at 25 yards with my 17 and that is good enough for a service pistol. DA SA guns have pretty much gone as it is. They are not nearly as common today as they once were and they are only losing ground. So yes carry what you want and shoot it. But to the OP's question are DA SA guns obsolete I would have to say yes or at least rapidly becoming so. That does not mean if you carry a DA SA gun you need to stop. They still work fine if thats what you like. Its much the same as those chosing to carry revolvers in this day and age. Sure they work but they are not the best choice anymore. But hey if you like to carry older obsolete guns and it makes you happy then go for it.
Pat
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 05:38
S-1 asked the question to Kyle Defoor and this was the response he got. Notice the word Obsolete being used.
modern pistol
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shot a Sig for over 12 years but switched while at BW because I realized how obsolete a DA/SA gun is. I do love a Sig for ergos and the fact that it's one of the most accurate out-of-the-box pistols ever, but at some point you have to come on over for the big win (striker fired guns).
To me, there is just no good reason to shoot a pistol with a hammer anymore. We don't have different trigger pulls on carbines, so why have them on a pistol? Additionally, a striker fired pistol, like a Glock, has a very close trigger weight to that of a carbine- so there's less difference in the platforms on the trigger control level.
All that said, I learned to shoot a Sig proficiently. I actually preferred the DA during slow fire at 25 yds! How I got there was a lot of practice prepping the trigger as I was presenting to the target. A good measuring scale is if you can pull the trigger to the rear and stop halfway on demand, almost putting into a half cock position.
The new SRT (short reset trigger) is a good bet too, to reduce how much slack a Sig naturally has during reset. To see yourself, just look how much the trigger moves when you cock it.
Also keep in mind that during fast shooting, like a bill drill, you are basically doing a controlled slap of the trigger on a gun like a Sig.
I don't buy the whole "no one can shoot a DA as good as a striker" argument. Remember that Ernest Langdon won worlds one year, beating Rob Leathem at the same time, shooting a Sig P226!!!
__________________
V/R,
Kyle Defoor
Do we really need to clog up this thread with bickering?
Also keep in mind that during fast shooting, like a bill drill, you are basically doing a controlled slap of the trigger on a gun like a Sig.
Not really, you should be prepping the trigger while the gun is moving, so that when the sights settle to an acceptable picture all you have to do is break the shot. Unless you are shooting a comp'd gun, your sights settling should take more time then it takes to move the trigger.
That is how someone like Ben, Ernie, and others won world, and national level titles with an "obsolete" gun. Sure with some striker actions, and 1911s you can adjust the trigger to the point that you can slap the shit out of it like a trailer park wife with very little consequences. But that simply isn't good trigger control, and guns that don't have a really short travel on reset will suffer (which has little to do with DA/SA vs striker as some striker actions have a long reset).
I shot a Sig for over 12 years but switched while at BW because I realized how obsolete a DA/SA gun is.
Well, now we know for certain that you let others drive your opinion as evidenced by your repeating the word 'obsolete'....
It may not be your preference....you may shoot a different weapon better....you may believe that it is a better platform for any variety of reasons.....but 'obsolete' does not apply.
gunrunner505
08-11-12, 09:47
DA/SA isn't obsolete. Striker guns and hammer guns are just 2 different ways to get to the same place. Doesn't necessarily make one better than the other, different tools in the toolbox.
If you like DA/SA guns and put in the work to shoot them well you will. A friend of mine took a pistol class with a Sig and that long DA first shot got him almost every time, and he's a pretty good shooter overall. I'm sure if he spent the time at the range to master that first long trigger he'd be fine.
Striker pistols will not magically make you a better shot but a DA gun will for sure humble you. There is no one right answer, that's why there's so many cool guns out there, variety.
Either road you go, you have to put in the work.
misanthropist
08-11-12, 10:56
Well, now we know for certain that you let others drive your opinion as evidenced by your repeating the word 'obsolete'....
It may not be your preference....you may shoot a different weapon better....you may believe that it is a better platform for any variety of reasons.....but 'obsolete' does not apply.
Just thought I would point out that his use of the word "obsolete" may have more to do with the title of this thread, which asks if the pistols are obsolete, than with a quote from someone else agreeing that they are.
I would say that this is not good evidence that he is letting someone else's opinion drive his own; the question of whether the guns are obsolete is the core of this entire discussion.
As for me I tend to think their day is over...they can be shot extremely well by anyone trained to use them, of course, as has been shown over and over in this thread with various posts on who has won what.
Ten years ago, (I'm Canadian so this analogy makes sense and is legally binding up here) there were still a fair number of players in the NHL using and older style of hockey stick, which was built in a traditional way. To make slapshots with them required you to hit the puck directly. But many other players had beed switching to carbon fiber sticks, which require a different slapshot technique, which generates faster slapshots.
Now, the guys with the older sticks were still great players, so the Stanley Cup was still hoisted regularly by guys with the old style of stick. For a team in cup contention, the stick is the least of their concerns...the question will be down to the guys on the ice 99% of the time.
And an NHL player with a wet noodle will still crush a pretty good recreational player with a carbon fiber stick.
That can make it difficult to show that the new sticks are better...championships were still being recorded with the old sticks; many great players still played them...the waters were muddy.
But the question eventually becomes not "does one perform better than the other" but "does one give a better return on training time inested than the other?"
If you have 25,000 hours of training time in your life, and one piece of equipment gives you 0.3 percent more return on your training time, in the long run, it's a better choice. It doesn't matter if training can overcome the issue...that's training time that could be spent on other stuff.
It doesn't matter if some experts are able to achieve greatness with the old stick. If the new one provides better return on training investment, sooner or later, that's the way the world will go.
The last NHLer playing the old style stick retired about three years ago. Today, there is only the new style.
A single trigger pull is inherently better than dual pulls. The waters are just muddied by things like pros using TDA guns, and SIG triggers in SA being nicer than Glock triggers.
But the question isn't "are glocks better than sigs?". It's "is striker firing going to eclipse DA/SA?"
I would say yes.
A single trigger pull is inherently better than dual pulls. The waters are just muddied by things like pros using TDA guns, and SIG triggers in SA being nicer than Glock triggers.
Hockey sticks is a bad analogy. With exception of the PPQ, stock constant action triggers don't compare to almost all DA/SA guns in single actions. If I couldn't tune my action, and I needed to make extended range shots (either for qual or competition) I would want a DA/SA like a Sig or a Berreta.
People seem to forget that a 7lb striker action trigger isn't unusual out of the box, and almost all that 7lbs is at the break rather then throughout the entire. Compared to a 10lb Sig trigger, where the weight is distributed along entire trigger pull some what.
S-1 asked the question to Kyle Defoor and this was the response he got. Notice the word Obsolete being used.
modern pistol
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shot a Sig for over 12 years but switched while at BW because I realized how obsolete a DA/SA gun is. I do love a Sig for ergos and the fact that it's one of the most accurate out-of-the-box pistols ever, but at some point you have to come on over for the big win (striker fired guns).
To me, there is just no good reason to shoot a pistol with a hammer anymore. We don't have different trigger pulls on carbines, so why have them on a pistol? Additionally, a striker fired pistol, like a Glock, has a very close trigger weight to that of a carbine- so there's less difference in the platforms on the trigger control level.
All that said, I learned to shoot a Sig proficiently. I actually preferred the DA during slow fire at 25 yds! How I got there was a lot of practice prepping the trigger as I was presenting to the target. A good measuring scale is if you can pull the trigger to the rear and stop halfway on demand, almost putting into a half cock position.
The new SRT (short reset trigger) is a good bet too, to reduce how much slack a Sig naturally has during reset. To see yourself, just look how much the trigger moves when you cock it.
Also keep in mind that during fast shooting, like a bill drill, you are basically doing a controlled slap of the trigger on a gun like a Sig.
I don't buy the whole "no one can shoot a DA as good as a striker" argument. Remember that Ernest Langdon won worlds one year, beating Rob Leathem at the same time, shooting a Sig P226!!!
__________________
V/R,
Kyle Defoor
Yeah, but Kyle is also the guy that says people do things differently and if it works it works. He's never subscribed to the my way is the only way philosophy. In fact, if anything it's the opposite. He teaches what he knows and works for him, but knows others do things differently. I don't want to speak for him, but that's my impression from the things he's written.
On the accuracy issue. Generally Sigs are more accurate than Glocks but not by enough to matter. I used to carry a custom 1911 (Wilson CQB in 45 ACP) they gun would group 3 inches at 50 yards which was great. However part of what helped me make the decision to stop carrying that gun was shooting my Glock 17 on some steel targets at 100 yards. I had no problems hitting 10 and 12 inch steel plates. So is the Sig/HK more accurate sure. But does it really matter not likely. I can shoot 2 to 3 inch groups at 25 yards with my 17 and that is good enough for a service pistol. DA SA guns have pretty much gone as it is. They are not nearly as common today as they once were and they are only losing ground. So yes carry what you want and shoot it. But to the OP's question are DA SA guns obsolete I would have to say yes or at least rapidly becoming so. That does not mean if you carry a DA SA gun you need to stop. They still work fine if thats what you like. Its much the same as those chosing to carry revolvers in this day and age. Sure they work but they are not the best choice anymore. But hey if you like to carry older obsolete guns and it makes you happy then go for it.
Pat
It seems like Glock 17/19 and M&P 9s are more ammo dependent when it comes to accuracy. Sigs and HKs, at least the ones I've shot don't seem to be even close to as dependent on ammo. While I understand that every gun likes some ammo better than others; the Sigs and HKs I've shot seem to be accurate with just about every type of ammo I've run through them.
If the bolded statement is directed at me, for certain situations I think a Jframe or a 1911 is the best choice for a carry gun, so I guess I do fall into that category. Thanks for including me. :-)
Failure2Stop
08-11-12, 13:01
I have a strong preference for hammer fired pistols for carry, or at least one that has the ability for the user to block the action when holstering. All sorts of things can inadvertently push the trigger as it is seated in the holster, and having the ability to stop the trigger, hammer, or striker from moving is a good way to prevent additional holes from appearing below the holster.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 13:16
I have a strong preference for hammer fired pistols for carry, or at least one that has the ability for the user to block the action when holstering. All sorts of things can inadvertently push the trigger as it is seated in the holster, and having the ability to stop the trigger, hammer, or striker from moving is a good way to prevent additional holes from appearing below the holster.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Most of these holes that appear in ones body on holstering are caused by people not taking their finger off the trigger.
Here is a video of a female officer nearly killing a suspect just prior to re-holstering with a Beretta 92.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv89_3rrW8Y
I just don't see it. I have holstered my Glocks, 1911's, Sigs, HK's etc thousands of times over the years and never put a hole in myself. I was taught and do teach that you holster up in the exact reverse of your draw stroke. Changing your grip on the weapon to block a hammer is not conducive to that. What you can do is slow down when your are re-holstering and make sure that you sweep any clothing out of the way. There is very few times when you should be in a hurry to re-holster your firearm. Frankly I am not against hammered guns. I am against DA SA guns. Many of the guns in discussed here would be fine with me with a manual safety added so they could be carried cocked and locked.
Pat
Striker triggers seem to be easier to run at speed. The SA pull on a hammer fired pistol would tend to be better for slow precision shots, imo. Especially if your talking about Glock's and Sig's.
Many of the guns in discussed here would be fine with me with a manual safety added so they could be carried cocked and locked.
Wait wait... decocker that you use after shooting is a too complicated manual of arms. But a thumb safety that prevents you from shooting if you forget it is a perfectly fine manual of arms. :confused:
Most of these holes that appear in ones body on holstering are caused by people not taking their finger off the trigger.
Here is a video of a female officer nearly killing a suspect just prior to re-holstering with a Beretta 92.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB237rfvHys&feature=autoplay&list=PL7708AC40F2DA9666&playnext=2
I just don't see it. I have holstered my Glocks, 1911's, Sigs, HK's etc thousands of times over the years and never put a hole in myself. I was taught and do teach that you holster up in the exact reverse of your draw stroke. Changing your grip on the weapon to block a hammer is not conducive to that. What you can do is slow down when your are re-holstering and make sure that you sweep any clothing out of the way. There is very few times when you should be in a hurry to re-holster your firearm. Frankly I am not against hammered guns. I am against DA SA guns. Many of the guns in discussed here would be fine with me with a manual safety added so they could be carried cocked and locked.
Pat
I didn't see any video of a female officer re-holstering a Beretta 92.. but I do feel queezy having watched that David Olofson video.
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 14:09
Wait wait... decocker that you use after shooting is a too complicated manual of arms. But a thumb safety that prevents you from shooting if you forget it is a perfectly fine manual of arms. :confused:
I never said it was too complicated to run a decocker. You mentioned that DA SA guns have an advantage on SAO guns because they don't have a safety. I said that its a draw because DA SA guns have a decocker. I carried 1911's for several years and compete with them still. For the average gun toter a striker fired gun is better however in my opinion. However I would rather teach someone to shoot a 1911 than a Sig. The DA SA gun is simple harder to shoot for most people and even for the best it slows them down from their potential. Also if your trained properly you don't remember to use the safety it comes off during the draw stroke.
Pat
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 14:12
I didn't see any video of a female officer re-holstering a Beretta 92.. but I do feel queezy having watched that David Olofson video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv89_3rrW8Y
Not sure how the wrong video got pasted.
I never said it was too complicated to run a decocker. You mentioned that DA SA guns have an advantage on SAO guns because they don't have a safety. I said that its a draw because DA SA guns have a decocker. I carried 1911's for several years and compete with them still. For the average gun toter a striker fired gun is better however in my opinion. However I would rather teach someone to shoot a 1911 than a Sig. The DA SA gun is simple harder to shoot for most people and even for the best it slows them down from their potential. Also if your trained properly you don't remember to use the safety it comes off during the draw stroke.
So people can be trained to properly and reliably turn the safety off during the draw stroke. But they are too dumb to learn trigger control on a DA/SA. :blink:
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 15:52
So people can be trained to properly and reliably turn the safety off during the draw stroke. But they are too dumb to learn trigger control on a DA/SA. :blink:
Its not a matter of intelligence. Flipping the safety off does not make the gun harder to shoot and make hits. A 10 to 12 pound DA pull does. You can over come the DA pull and shoot well with enough practice but you will always be faster if you did not have to over come it.
Your argument is much like those who support chamber empty carry. They say the top instructors in thier field can draw/rack and fire in 1.5 seconds. Thats great but they would be even faster with the gun loaded skipping the racking the slide step. It is the same for a DA SA gun. Sure you can shoot them relatively well with effort but why bother. That action brings nothing good to the table and has a host of negatives. You can chose to handicap yourself by selecting a DA SA gun but do realize your handicaping yourself at least for the first and most important shot.
The problem I have with your trigger prepping on the draw is it produced dangerious muscle memory for the timed you draw but don't shoot. (99.99% of the time for LEO's) Meaning you train someone in live fire to draw and put their finger on the trigger and pull it out and the gun fires just about the time you get full extension. Then you also teach them to draw out to guard (low ready) when they are holding someone at gun point, doing a building search etc. It does not take much to realize some are going to be punching out to guard with their fingers on the trigger. Not a good way to train in my opinion. DA SA guns time has passed. Frankly they were never that good of an idea. As Jeff Cooper said they were an ingenious solution for a non existant problem.
Pat
Its not a matter of intelligence. Flipping the safety off does not make the gun harder to shoot and make hits. A 10 to 12 pound DA pull does. You can over come the DA pull and shoot well with enough practice but you will always be faster if you did not have to over come it.
Not flipping off the safety makes a gun very hard to shoot.
The problem I have with your trigger prepping on the draw is it produced dangerious muscle memory for the timed you draw but don't shoot. (99.99% of the time for LEO's) Meaning you train someone in live fire to draw and put their finger on the trigger and pull it out and the gun fires just about the time you get full extension. Then you also teach them to draw out to guard (low ready) when they are holding someone at gun point, doing a building search etc. It does not take much to realize some are going to be punching out to guard with their fingers on the trigger. Not a good way to train in my opinion. DA SA guns time has passed. Frankly they were never that good of an idea. As Jeff Cooper said they were an ingenious solution for a non existant problem.
There is that Jeff Cooper quote again, funny you use that when dismissing a technique that Gunsite teaches. They teach prepping the trigger even with a SAO like a 1911.
You don't teach someone to pull the trigger every time you draw. In fact most trigger prep training should start with the guns at their chest with their hands together. You keep the draw separate from training for something that happens after the decision to fire.
When I practice press outs (regardless of action) I do less then 10% of them out of the holster.
Perhaps that is the reason why you are so against DA/SAs you don't appear to have been trained to correctly use them.
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 17:51
Not flipping off the safety makes a gun very hard to shoot.
There is that Jeff Cooper quote again, funny you use that when dismissing a technique that Gunsite teaches. They teach prepping the trigger even with a SAO like a 1911.
You don't teach someone to pull the trigger every time you draw. In fact most trigger prep training should start with the guns at their chest with their hands together. You keep the draw separate from training for something that happens after the decision to fire.
When I practice press outs (regardless of action) I do less then 10% of them out of the holster.
Perhaps that is the reason why you are so against DA/SAs you don't appear to have been trained to correctly use them.
It takes a lot less work to get a new shooter to flip the safety off than it does to get them to master the typical DA to SA pull transition on a DA SA auto.
Who determines what is correctly trained? Anyway in the weaver presentation your hands never go to your chest. So sounds like you are deviating from your Gunsite training a bit. Its Grip, clear, rock and lock (where finger goes on the trigger in their dogma) Smack, push out to the target as your pulling the trigger. Now if your talking isosceles then yes your hands meet in front of your chest. Trigger prepping a 1911 on the draw is not a good idea as you only have less than 1/8 of an inch of trigger take up. In a high stress situation your going to fire prematurely if your trying to take what little slack there is out while your pushing out to the target. Yet another moment of Gunsite fallacy. You can see why I don't take them seriously and why many others don't anymore either. The Cooper remark was for you since your a Gunsite fan. At one time Gunsite training was relevant and even innovative but that time has long since past. The beauty of a striker fired pistol with one trigger system is you don't have to train the shooter to overcome a hard heavy trigger pull nor do they have to remember to flip the safety on or off.
Pat
misanthropist
08-11-12, 19:28
Hockey sticks is a bad analogy. With exception of the PPQ, stock constant action triggers don't compare to almost all DA/SA guns in single actions. If I couldn't tune my action, and I needed to make extended range shots (either for qual or competition) I would want a DA/SA like a Sig or a Berreta.
People seem to forget that a 7lb striker action trigger isn't unusual out of the box, and almost all that 7lbs is at the break rather then throughout the entire. Compared to a 10lb Sig trigger, where the weight is distributed along entire trigger pull some what.
But is the question, "are current striker fired guns superior to current TDA guns?" or is it "will striker fired guns replace TDA guns for self defense?"
It doesn't matter if glock triggers are mediocre compared to sig triggers...that's not the question. The question is: do striker fired guns have the potential to outperform TDA pistols with a given amount of training?
I would argue yes, striker firing is inherently superior with its single trigger pull. Even if current gun models are not making this apparent.
Well, Hell's Bells, if all it takes is to overcome any weapon's disadvantage is to train harder, I'm going back to my M1 Garand. More practice and dedication with a Real Man's Rifle will let me embarrass all them AR fanbois and their poodleshooters!
But is the question, "are current striker fired guns superior to current TDA guns?" or is it "will striker fired guns replace TDA guns for self defense?"
It doesn't matter if glock triggers are mediocre compared to sig triggers...that's not the question. The question is: do striker fired guns have the potential to outperform TDA pistols with a given amount of training?
I would argue yes, striker firing is inherently superior with its single trigger pull. Even if current gun models are not making this apparent.
This. Its hard to argue the benefits of simplicity with regard to striker fired pistols.
Yes its an opinion that its easier to teach shooters to flick a safety off vs use a DA SA pistol. But its an opinion based on a lot of years of shooting and training others to shoot and its backed up by qualificaiton scores. Its also an opinion shared by a lot of other firearms instructors. We have had two SMEs so far on this site say that striker fired pistols are the way to go. So I feel I am in good company.
Well you've obviously demonstrated that you don't accept the proper techniques on how to shoot a DA/SA gun, thus your training on that subject is going to be substandard IMO. Any technique that advocated beginning the trigger press when you reach full extension is going to be slower the a proper press out, regardless of trigger action. Prepping the trigger allows you to spend time making the perfect break, and having your sight picture sure, instead of having to move the trigger.
I am not saying you should take anyones work on trigger prepping. I just told you my concerns with it as a LEO and an instructor. As for being current on Gunsite training, I could care less what they are doing at this point and I think I have made that abundantly clear. You seem to be using them as some kind of expert witness. When in reality they are woefully behind the times.
You are the one arguing that Gunsite was bad. I simply used them as they are a mecca for the 1911, and even they advocate prepping the trigger on that platform. If the home of the 1911, and the influence of the modern training methods/techniques (both directly and indirectly) advocates using it on the weapon that has one of the shortest trigger pulls, it obviously has it's place on any gun that has any slack in the trigger. And there are numerous instructors that would agree, I would list them out, but honestly it would be a pretty long post.
I also note that again, you claim that Gunsite is crap training, and yet you again prove don't really know what they teach. I've learned long ago, if you can't say something good about a trainer/school, and you don't have first hand knowledge keep your trap shut about that trainer/school.
Personally they aren't an expert witness I simply used them for that one example, and you decided to ass-u-me that it meant that I endorsed the Weaver stance. It is just one of the many instructors or schools I've attended, I've taken the best from each school to form my technique. I don't feel the need to list them in my signature. And if I was in a shooting, I would bring in a Gunsite instructor as an expert witness over you. Unless you are a troll account for a major instructors I think their credentials might be just a little more in depth then your own.
Well, Hell's Bells, if all it takes is to overcome any weapon's disadvantage is to train harder, I'm going back to my M1 Garand. More practice and dedication with a Real Man's Rifle will let me embarrass all them AR fanbois and their poodleshooters!
We are talking about minor differences. If you wanted to bring up a real comparison, it would be AK vs AR.
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 21:41
Well you've obviously demonstrated that you don't accept the proper techniques on how to shoot a DA/SA gun, thus your training on that subject is going to be substandard IMO. Any technique that advocated beginning the trigger press when you reach full extension is going to be slower the a proper press out, regardless of trigger action. Prepping the trigger allows you to spend time making the perfect break, and having your sight picture sure, instead of having to move the trigger.
You are the one arguing that Gunsite was bad. I simply used them as they are a mecca for the 1911, and even they advocate prepping the trigger on that platform. If the home of the 1911, and the influence of the modern training methods/techniques (both directly and indirectly) advocates using it on the weapon that has one of the shortest trigger pulls, it obviously has it's place on any gun that has any slack in the trigger. And there are numerous instructors that would agree, I would list them out, but honestly it would be a pretty long post.
I also note that again, you claim that Gunsite is crap training, and yet you again prove don't really know what they teach. I've learned long ago, if you can't say something good about a trainer/school, and you don't have first hand knowledge keep your trap shut about that trainer/school.
Personally they aren't an expert witness I simply used them for that one example, and you decided to ass-u-me that it meant that I endorsed the Weaver stance. It is just one of the many instructors or schools I've attended, I've taken the best from each school to form my technique. I don't feel the need to list them in my signature. And if I was in a shooting, I would bring in a Gunsite instructor as an expert witness over you. Unless you are a troll account for a major instructors I think their credentials might be just a little more in depth then your own.
As far as technique for DA SA. Just because you say its the proper way does not make it so. Now that is an opinion.
I do have first hand experience with Gunsite through the train the trainer program. I don't have to jump off a cliff to know its going to hurt. Perhaps your the kind of guy who can't learn from the mistakes of others. You seem un-willing to accept the fact DA SA designs are harder to shoot well. As another poster said why bother with a system that takes more time to master yet offers nothing in return. A least with a SAO design like the 1911 you get better accuracy and the best trigger pull possible. With a DA SA you get nothing in return for that extra time spent trying to master two trigger pulls. Simple put striker fired single trigger pull guns make a lot more sense.
Pat
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 21:46
We are talking about minor differences. If you wanted to bring up a real comparison, it would be AK vs AR.
Thats your opinion. An AK can be a formidable weapon.
Pat
As far as technique for DA SA. Just because you say its the proper way does not make it so. Now that is an opinion.
LOL, when people disagree with you that is opinion, but anything you say is fact.
I do have first hand experience with Gunsite through the train the trainer program. I don't have to jump off a cliff to know its going to hurt.
I know what train the trainer is. It doesn't mean that the trainer sticks to the program, or even stays up to date. Those programs provide a lesson plan, but the instructor doesn't have to follow it when he gets home. That is a concept that you can't seem to grasp.
Perhaps your the kind of guy who can't learn from the mistakes of others. You seem un-willing to accept the fact DA SA designs are harder to shoot well. As another poster said why bother with a system that takes more time to master yet offers nothing in return.
Now that is pure opinion.
A least with a SAO design like the 1911 you get better accuracy and the best trigger pull possible. With a DA SA you get nothing in return for that extra time spent trying to master two trigger pulls. Simple put striker fired single trigger pull guns make a lot more sense.
Instead of learning the trigger pull, you should learn trigger control, and prepping the trigger that way it doesn't matter what you are shooting, you can make the most of it. That is how Phil Strader (on his own dime he wasn't sponsored by either company) was able to transition in a couple of months from a M&P to a DA/SA CZ and still score in the top ten at the USPSA nationals.
It also allows you to shoot a 7lb striker action you might be handed. When I first started shooting NRA Action Pistol this year my XDM was running about 7lbs. It was only just before Bianchi Cup when TGO worked on my gun that I got it to around 4lbs. And yet I put one of my best scores with the 7lb trigger pull.
Thats your opinion. An AK can be a formidable weapon.
And the point flew right over your head.
I was saying exactly that.
Anyways I am out, this is completely and utter pointless. We are just talking in circles.
I have a match tomorrow, and honestly it's not worth arguing with you if neither of us is going to change the others mind. Why don't we just agree to disagree?
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 22:02
LOL, when people disagree with you that is opinion, but anything you say is fact.
I know what train the trainer is. It doesn't mean that the trainer sticks to the program, or even stays up to date. Those programs provide a lesson plan, but the instructor doesn't have to follow it when he gets home. That is a concept that you can't seem to grasp.
Now that is pure opinion.
Instead of learning the trigger pull, you should learn trigger control, and prepping the trigger that way it doesn't matter what you are shooting, you can make the most of it. That is how Phil Strader (on his own dime he wasn't sponsored by either company) was able to transition in a couple of months from a M&P to a DA/SA CZ and still score in the top ten at the USPSA nationals.
It also allows you to shoot a 7lb striker action you might be handed. When I first started shooting NRA Action Pistol this year my XDM was running about 7lbs. It was only just before Bianchi Cup when TGO worked on my gun that I got it to around 4lbs. And yet I put one of my best scores with the 7lb trigger pull.
Gunsite came up in the early 90's and helped APD and AST with their firearms program and trained all the firearms arms instructors and got everyone up to speed. At that time it was a good program. Unfortunately little seems to have changed with them since them. Clinging to weaver is an example of backward thinking.
As for fact vs opinion. I have tried to clearly state when I am saying an opinion vs fact.
As for learning trigger control. You seem to believe because I don't like DA SA guns that I must have a trigger control problem and can't shoot them. (You ASSume). The fact is I can shoot them and I do just fine with trigger control thankyou very much. I have carried and shot DA SA guns for a large part of my career. I don't care for them however because they are an un-neccessary handicap and I hate them as a firearms instructor. They are pure frustration to most new shooters. Striker fired guns like the Glock are so much easier to train people on. Hence why they have gained in popularity at the expense of DA SA guns.
Pat
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 22:03
Anyways I am out, this is completely and utter pointless. We are just talking in circles.
I have a match tomorrow, and honestly it's not worth arguing with you if neither of us is going to change the others mind. Why don't we just agree to disagree?
That sounds great. Grown men can disagree. Hell I would not even mind shooting against you in a match and buy you lunch afterwards depending on who won.
pat
Failure2Stop
08-11-12, 22:41
Alaskapopo, I'm not going to quote your reply, but simply state my perspective in relation to the topic. I'm not trying to argue, or prove you "wrong", just discussing experience and observation.
I prefer Glocks, for several reasons I have previously covered, so this is most certainly not a "this is what I do, so everybody else else should too" opinion post.
Blocking the hammer while holstering:
There are most likely more incidents of people inadvertently cranking a round off during holstering due to keeping their finger on the trigger than other reasons, however, if we could prevent both types with a simple action or feature, wouldn't it be a good thing? Personally, I think so. Following a shooting, all sorts of things may cause a user to fail to completely clear the holster of obstructions, and while the user is still responsible for the weapon, reducing the ease of firing a shot during a fouled reholster is a benefit.
It doesn't really require a massive shift in grip to block the hammer. Simply move the thumb behind the hammer and press down with that thumb during holstering. It doesn't put the user at any kind of disadvantage in the process.
Comparing bad double action triggers to good single action triggers is unfair. A user that has learned good trigger control will be able to shoot a decent trigger well, whether it is double action, single action, TDA, safe action, LEM, whatever. Some are definitely better than others, and some need work to be "good" or even "decent", but many people have learned to shoot double and TDA guns very well. Between the P226 and M9 I have taught and evaluated a few thousand people how to shoot TDA/first shot double action/double single transition, and various other fundamental skills.. Between Glocks and M&Ps, I have taught and evaluated several hundred people the same type of skills. Between the High Power and 1911 I have taught and evaluated another several hundred shooters. When properly trained, I frequently see users shoot more precise groups with double action. I also see many users of double action pistols with proper training and practice get more precise and faster first round hits from the holster/presentation. A long initial pull is not as detrimental as it seems, as long as it it's properly practiced and ingrained.
I think that there are more important things to consider when choosing a duty/carry pistol than whether it is hammer or striker fired. There are plenty of good and bad examples of each, and each individual design will have its own list of pros and cons. Personally, I am looking forward to the release of an item that will allow the user to block the striker of Glock pistols during holstering, but that doesn't stop me from using them.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Alaskapopo
08-11-12, 23:37
Alaskapopo, I'm not going to quote your reply, but simply state my perspective in relation to the topic. I'm not trying to argue, or prove you "wrong", just discussing experience and observation.
I prefer Glocks, for several reasons I have previously covered, so this is most certainly not a "this is what I do, so everybody else else should too" opinion post.
Blocking the hammer while holstering:
There are most likely more incidents of people inadvertently cranking a round off during holstering due to keeping their finger on the trigger than other reasons, however, if we could prevent both types with a simple action or feature, wouldn't it be a good thing? Personally, I think so. Following a shooting, all sorts of things may cause a user to fail to completely clear the holster of obstructions, and while the user is still responsible for the weapon, reducing the ease of firing a shot during a fouled reholster is a benefit.
It doesn't really require a massive shift in grip to block the hammer. Simply move the thumb behind the hammer and press down with that thumb during holstering. It doesn't put the user at any kind of disadvantage in the process.
Comparing bad double action triggers to good single action triggers is unfair. A user that has learned good trigger control will be able to shoot a decent trigger well, whether it is double action, single action, TDA, safe action, LEM, whatever. Some are definitely better than others, and some need work to be "good" or even "decent", but many people have learned to shoot double and TDA guns very well. Between the P226 and M9 I have taught and evaluated a few thousand people how to shoot TDA/first shot double action/double single transition, and various other fundamental skills.. Between Glocks and M&Ps, I have taught and evaluated several hundred people the same type of skills. Between the High Power and 1911 I have taught and evaluated another several hundred shooters. When properly trained, I frequently see users shoot more precise groups with double action. I also see many users of double action pistols with proper training and practice get more precise and faster first round hits from the holster/presentation. A long initial pull is not as detrimental as it seems, as long as it it's properly practiced and ingrained.
I think that there are more important things to consider when choosing a duty/carry pistol than whether it is hammer or striker fired. There are plenty of good and bad examples of each, and each individual design will have its own list of pros and cons. Personally, I am looking forward to the release of an item that will allow the user to block the striker of Glock pistols during holstering, but that doesn't stop me from using them.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Well thought out post.
Not LAV, but have spoken to one of HK LE guys and he did advise that a striker fired P30 is being worked on. Now, how long will it take for that gun to appear? Who knows, but IMHO, that gun should rule the market when it does come.
C4
With P30 mags being in stock and going for just $32.95 , I wish I new if the striker fired P30/40 pistol will use the same mags. I hear there is also a P30/40 compact in the works. It might be a good time to invest in some P30 mags for the future.
Magic_Salad0892
08-11-12, 23:54
With P30 mags being in stock and going for just $32.95 , I wish I new if the striker fired P30/40 pistol will use the same mags. I hear there is also a P30/40 compact in the works. It might be a good time to invest in some P30 mags for the future offerings.
P40. Source?
P40. Source?
G3Kurz on HKPro.com
Magic_Salad0892
08-12-12, 02:26
Alaskapopo, I'm not going to quote your reply, but simply state my perspective in relation to the topic. I'm not trying to argue, or prove you "wrong", just discussing experience and observation.
I prefer Glocks, for several reasons I have previously covered, so this is most certainly not a "this is what I do, so everybody else else should too" opinion post.
Blocking the hammer while holstering:
There are most likely more incidents of people inadvertently cranking a round off during holstering due to keeping their finger on the trigger than other reasons, however, if we could prevent both types with a simple action or feature, wouldn't it be a good thing? Personally, I think so. Following a shooting, all sorts of things may cause a user to fail to completely clear the holster of obstructions, and while the user is still responsible for the weapon, reducing the ease of firing a shot during a fouled reholster is a benefit.
It doesn't really require a massive shift in grip to block the hammer. Simply move the thumb behind the hammer and press down with that thumb during holstering. It doesn't put the user at any kind of disadvantage in the process.
Comparing bad double action triggers to good single action triggers is unfair. A user that has learned good trigger control will be able to shoot a decent trigger well, whether it is double action, single action, TDA, safe action, LEM, whatever. Some are definitely better than others, and some need work to be "good" or even "decent", but many people have learned to shoot double and TDA guns very well. Between the P226 and M9 I have taught and evaluated a few thousand people how to shoot TDA/first shot double action/double single transition, and various other fundamental skills.. Between Glocks and M&Ps, I have taught and evaluated several hundred people the same type of skills. Between the High Power and 1911 I have taught and evaluated another several hundred shooters. When properly trained, I frequently see users shoot more precise groups with double action. I also see many users of double action pistols with proper training and practice get more precise and faster first round hits from the holster/presentation. A long initial pull is not as detrimental as it seems, as long as it it's properly practiced and ingrained.
I think that there are more important things to consider when choosing a duty/carry pistol than whether it is hammer or striker fired. There are plenty of good and bad examples of each, and each individual design will have its own list of pros and cons. Personally, I am looking forward to the release of an item that will allow the user to block the striker of Glock pistols during holstering, but that doesn't stop me from using them.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
I personally LIKE DA/SA guns, but you admitted it in your post. You can shoot a pistol with one trigger well with less training. A DA/SA gun will take more training to get good, and more training to say there.
Still. I do like DA/SA guns. One of my favorite pistols I've ever shot was a W. German P226, and P228s.
(My GF shoots a V3 P2000, and her dad shoots a W. German P228 now. He used to carry a Makarov, then an HK P7M8. Which he switched from because he wanted a pistol that was more user servicable. He's from West Germany. Grew up there and everything.)
Sorry I got sidetracked there.
Alaskapopo
08-12-12, 02:48
I personally LIKE DA/SA guns, but you admitted it in your post. You can shoot a pistol with one trigger well with less training. A DA/SA gun will take more training to get good, and more training to say there.
Still. I do like DA/SA guns. One of my favorite pistols I've ever shot was a W. German P226, and P228s.
(My GF shoots a V3 P2000, and her dad shoots a W. German P228 now. He used to carry a Makarov, then an HK P7M8. Which he switched from because he wanted a pistol that was more user servicable. He's from West Germany. Grew up there and everything.)
Sorry I got sidetracked there.
I will say that Sigs prior to the melt down are my favorite DA SA guns as well.
pat
Gary1911A1
08-12-12, 09:54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv89_3rrW8Y
Not sure how the wrong video got pasted.
I'd never work with that officer again.
When it comes to weapons, few things become obsolete very fast. Folks are still buying guns like Walther PPK's for self-defense and they were designed in the 20's. During the recent civil war in Libya, rebels were seen with World-War One era Carcanos, the ones with the long barrel! A few years ago the Philippine Marine Corps re-adopted the M-3 "grease gun" because many of their M-16A1's were wearing out and they didn't have the cash to buy more modern weapons. They happened to find huge crates of good condition "grease guns" in some naval warehouse somewhere. Few things become entirely obsolete. Perhaps obsolescent or even "out of fashion."
When it comes to weapons, few things become obsolete very fast. Folks are still buying guns like Walther PPK's for self-defense and they were designed in the 20's. During the recent civil war in Libya, rebels were seen with World-War One era Carcanos, the ones with the long barrel! A few years ago the Philippine Marine Corps re-adopted the M-3 "grease gun" because many of their M-16A1's were wearing out and they didn't have the cash to buy more modern weapons. They happened to find huge crates of good condition "grease guns" in some naval warehouse somewhere. Few things become entirely obsolete. Perhaps obsolescent or even "out of fashion."
I think people are confusing obsolete with useless, including yourself.
Adjective:
No longer produced or used; out of date.
Verb:
Cause (a product or idea) to be or become obsolete by replacing it with something new: "we're obsoleting last year's designs".
Synonyms:
antiquated - out-of-date - outdated - old-fashioned
No firearm that was an effective combat weapon when it was adopted/developed will ever be completely useless, but to say something is obsolete implies better alternatives have come along and replaced the type. I think it would be fair to say constant action has surpassed DA/SA for combat weapons, not sure I feel strongly about the hammer vs striker fired debate.
not sure I feel strongly about the hammer vs striker fired debate.
are your reservations to do with the 1911 or similar single action only pistols?
are your reservations to do with the 1911 or similar single action only pistols?
Yep. Single action only weapons like the 1911 are great. Same trigger pull every time. I have a DA/SA as an alternate conceal carry and it isn't a huge deal, you can train around it, but I'd love it (Makarov) even more if instead of a decocking safety it had a manual safety and a SAO trigger or no safety and a "constant action" trigger.
Like I said, I trained around it and I'm a very fast/accurate shooter with my Makarov, but I know I'd get that first shot off faster and more accurately if it had the same trigger pull every time.
Also, there seems to be some anecdotal evidence /mechanical inference leading to the conclusion hammer fired handguns give the primer a stronger pop than striker fireds for a given trigger pull weight/length. Maybe someone who knows the actual energy levels at the firing pin can confirm or deny that.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.