Are the "advantages" of DAO revolvers based upon fallacies?

B

Boats

Moderator
I have posed this topic as a question because it symbolizes that I still have an open mind about the topic, but the question needed to be asked.

When I go revolver shopping, I see DAO revolvers all of the time, SW 442/642, 640s, Ruger SP-101's with chopped hammers, Tauri of various nomenclature, and larger snubs customized with docked hammer spurs from time to time.

Then I ask myself the question, is the DAO revolver a form of snake oil? After all, one is voluntarily crippling one of the two trigger modes of the normal double action revolver. So it begs the question of what is gained compared to what is given up.

Some DAO revolvers out there, like CAI imported Ruger GP-100s or NYPD Rugers, appear to be DAO due to a police bureaucracy–can’t have our boys in uniform hammering back on a suspect now can we? I view that as the “chicken manure” reason for DAO revolvers in that the primary intention is the avoidance of civil liability. This aspect is not what I intend to discuss.

Other DAO revolvers, most famously the Centennial J-Frames and their Taurus quasi-clones, are purpose built for external hammer elimination from scratch. These, for lack of a better term, I call “concealment DAO,” the idea being that the hammer is an impediment to really deep concealment.

Some people also tout the hammerless system as capable of being “pocket-fired” while in a coat or a vest. I view this as a dubious advantage if it is not in fact an error in judgement to think that pocket firing a weapon at all is a good idea. First of all, pocket firing is like cowboy point shooting, but worse, because a natural pointing angle is far from assured, the firing position using most coats or vests is going to be unnatural, your hollow point might become pre-clogged or prematurely expand--degrading its terminal effectiveness, and finally if the revolver is not removed from the pocket, you have effectively half-hand-cuffed yourself if the bad guy or an accomplice bowls you over or something. All in all, I’d rather have my piece out before firing than rely on the crappy shooting characteristics afforded by remaining totally discreet and surprising via lighting off my revolver in my pocket.

So maybe the fire in the hole aspect is overblow Hollywood fantasy? Then the hammerless certainly makes more sense a “concealment DAO” in that it can’t help but outperform fully exposed hammer snubbies and even shrouded traditionally operating revolvers in that role--does it not? Again, I wonder. Perhaps for naked pocket carry, the concealment DAO is better, but I tend to think that again that advantage is overblown and at the cost of the option of going to SA if required.

Some snubbies, like the S&W Bodyguard style, are permanently shrouded. Many snubbies are not shrouded at all but can be with some frame modification. As far as the hammer printing through a pocket, that can be mitigated by a good pocket holster. As far as presentation is concerned, technique can prevent snagging. The modus operandi of the pocket concealed revolver is that one can be discreetly gripping it as things are getting tactically dicey, but not cross the line into brandishing until the last possible moment if desired. What is to prevent one from shrouding the exposed hammer of just such a snub with one’s thumb? My thumb doesn’t snag when presenting my Det. Special so I tend to think that snagging upon presentation is also an overblown problem.

Now I come to the cons of DAO. It is limiting one’s choices for the sake of dubious convenience. The flip side of the “I can fire from my pocket” argument, is the traditional hammered snubbie user’s argument, that, “I can hammer back for a precision shot if required.” I have yet to meet a revolver shooter who thinks a shot at any distance that would reasonably be made using the sights would be easier to execute in DA as opposed to SA if given the choice. Does that mean that hammering back to SA while drawing is a great idea? No, not necessarily, though people are encountered who do just that. What I am talking about is the scenario where one might be called upon to do something that requires accuracy, such as hit a person holding a human shield or who is crouching and reloading behind cover, but still partially exposed to your shot if you can make it. Those two scenarios are no more unlikely than having to shoot someone from the inside of one’s pocket, but a DAO would be a decided disadvantage on such a shot, just as surely as a traditionally spurred hammer would be disadvantaged firing from one’s pocket.

Many people think a snub is of limited accuracy, but it just isn't so. It's two real ballistic limitations are its short sight radius and how much trigger control one has. A properly calibrated laser grip can somewhat mitigate problem one, but only going to SA can really mitigate problem two.

Given that I am of the mind that I would always present before I fired any snubbie, I had no problem passing up the DAO ones I encountered in the case at my dealer’s place or on the tables on the gun show. If I ever get a snubbie smaller than my Detective Special, I am thinking I will be contrarian and go for a Bodyguard. I could still be persuaded about DAO however, because maybe I am missing something?
 
I've always believed the Bodyguard was the thinking man's Centennial--the best of both worlds. By the same token, I think appeal of the Centennial (versus the Bodyguard) has been that of looks over function.

A couple of things you might have overlooked is that a full hammer (including hammer spur) gives a little extra weight to the hammer--with a hard primer, that might make the difference between a shot and a misfire. Something that should be considered in a LE/defence weapon. The other thing about firing from the pocket (besides being useless) is that you had better be prepared to come out of what you're wearing pretty fast because chances are pretty good it will be burning.
 
I've never been fond of the idea of the DAO revolver personally, but I don't see anything wrong with someone else liking them. I'd think about getting a Waller shroud for a J-Frame or a Detective Special if I were going to use pocket carry, but that would be as close as I would get. With a shroud, you can still hammer-cock if that is wanted.
 
The only DAO revolver I have a use for is a Centennial or any other exclusively pocket carried revolver of similar stature. Everything else should have an exposed hammer IMO.

Greg
 
On a snubnosed defensive revolver, I really see very little use for a hammer that can be thumbcocked.

We're talking a gun that's intended for use at primarily kissing distances, where thumbcocking is a dubious advantage, if one at all. Unlike many others, I really don't conceive of a situation in which I'd have to thumbcock a snubnose, aim carefully, and take a 30 yard shot to save the town sheriff from a John Caradine-type bad guy who's using the sheriff's wife as a shield.

I have 3 snubs, a Charter Arms, a Smith 36, and a Smith 042. The 042 is hammerless, the other two have hammers. I carried the Charter regularly for a number of years, mainly in ankle and IWB holsters. I can't, for the life of me, think of a time when I fired more than half a dozen rounds single action with either the Charter or the 36; I concentrated on firing them as I would were I in a confrontation.

I carry the 042 primarily in a pocket holster in my front left pocket. In that application, the hammer on either the Charter or the 36 would only get in the way of the draw. How do I know? I've tried carrying the Charter in a pocket holster -- snag city. Would I fire any of them from inside a pocket? Very doubtful, given that I carry in my pants pocket. I suppose if I wanted to shoot my thigh or foot I could, but that's not high on my list of things to do in this lifetime.

If you want a single action trigger pull, you can, with many J-frame Smiths, get something that very closely approximates it by staging the trigger. That takes some practice, but once you get used to it you can be VERY precise in your shot placement. Even better, with judicious action work, you can get a very smooth, very even trigger pull that will, with adequate practice, allow you to rival single action shot placement.

Nope, I simply don't see much application for the ability to thumbcock a hammer on snubnosed revolver.
 
Mostly snake oil probably. The old centennial was hiped as being child-safe because, with the grip safety and long stiff trigger pull, it was harder for an offspring to set it off. Most offspring could manage to tip over Gibraltar if they set their minds to it.

Sometimes hammers come in handy- like when you have a holster with a retaining strap of some sort.

Come right down to it though, a high quality concealed hammer revolver can be pretty neat and you can shoot them very well out beyond ordinary hide-out gun ranges.
 
"I've always believed the Bodyguard was the thinking man's Centennial--the best of both worlds."

Or are they more like how bastard children come into the world - half compromise and half improvise? (thank you Ben Franklin!) :)
 
Mike Irwin pretty much said what I would have said: really, what use is there of thumbcocking a defensive revolver?

Over the past six weeks I made a conscious decision to get away from thumbcocking my GP100 and 625JM, instead opting to teach myself how to accurately and quickly handle double action shooting. Strange as it is, after some 1200 rounds of practice and an equal number of dryfire tests I have reached a point where I am becoming more comfortable with double action shooting over SA shooting.

This, I assure you, came as complete surprise to me.

Slow-Fire DA shooting is now very nearly as accurate as SA shooting out to 45 feet (3-4", two hand hold, unsupported, 6-shot groups). Close range semi-rapid fire 21 feet shooting results in 2-3" 6-shot groups (6 shots, 8-10 seconds). Burning the cylinder as quick as possible certainly opens up to around 12", but is quite doable.

Once the decision is made (for any variety of reasons) that one prefers to shoot a revolver over a bottom-feeder, then the real question is: What does one have to do to become proficient in shooting a wheelgun effectively?

What is it? IDPA-whatever have shown that wheelguns in the hands of an expert are still remarkably fast handling and lag behind auto's only by a small margin. I certainly don't think these super-gunners aren't thumbcocking each shot...

DAO? SA? It's all a matter of practice. I have come to very much enjoy working my revo's in DA mode...
 
To each his own

I would not essay to change the mind of someone comfortable in his thought-out decision. But since this is all about personal opinions, here's mine - -

I worked long and hard to attain a measure of proficiency at DA revolver shooting. I like to think I can adequately defend myself out to, say, 20 yards, and can make a pretty good try a lot farther than that.

I currently only own two .38 snubs, a Colt Agent and an S&W M37, and both of them have had their hammer spurs removed. I carry them mostly in a pocket holster, but occasionally in an ankle rig. No spur means they come out cleanly, without having to guard the spur with my thumb. All my larger revolvers still wear their spurs, save one British Enfield which was produced that way.

Both my snubs still have a functional single action. I like having the option of making a careful shot at a small or distant target in the unlikely event one is demanded. I can (just barely) picture needing to keep a bad guy down behind his car until the local constabulary arrives. If I can do it by striking his car from a hundred yards out, we both have a better chance of meeting in a courtroom later.

Perhaps more likely is the need to turn 90 degrees while seated and make a pretty precise shot at 50 or 60 feet. I practice this drill at the range occasionally, and it is entirely doable. I abhor the thought of such an ambush, but it is preferable to allowing a goblin to shoot up my church or coffee shop.

For more conventional self defense occasions, my spurless-but-cockable snubbies will serve just fine for short range DA shooting.

Best,
Johnny
 
I have an Sp101 ruger .357 with bobbed hammer, and a 340pd S&W internal hammer. Both guns DAO. Both were bought for defense, and pocket carry at least some of the time. A normal hammer is too easy to snag in my opinion, especially in pants pocket.

Im a cowboy action shooter and shoot a lot of SA revolver. It took me a while to get used to DAO, but now I like shooting that way, and do fine. the sp101 is easy to "stage" and can feel almost like an SA, if I care to shoot it that way. The 340pd is a lot faster action, and is hard to stage and hold, (at least for me so far, new gun) but is not hard to shoot well as a DA. As far as shooting inside a coat pocket, the only way I can imagine that is if wrestling a guy or somthing. It would usually be a horrible idea.

I can't see any reason to buy a service size DAO revolver, (do they make any?) but I like the bobbed/shrouded/internal hammers on compact concealed carry guns. The shrouded S*W's are pretty cool btw, and can be shot SA. I looked at them pretty seriously. I think I see a snubie collection in my future, and will probably end up with a shrouded S&W at some point. Fun and challenging little guns!

To address the DAO advantages, the only ones I can think of is it would be impossible for a gun in a pocket, purse, or glove box to be accidentally cocked, unbeknown of the owner. Very small odds, but somthing to think about. Also, much harder to accidentally fire.

Jeff
 
DAO is not a modern innovation. We tend to get hung up in that idea. I have antique S&Ws, H&Rs, IJs and I would lie to own a Merwin-Hulbert DAO. They were designed in an era of pocket watch fob revolvers. Don't sneer, I own one. Vest pocket carry was popular. The idea was to fire first, fastest and produce a volume of fire. There was a real possibility of clothing catching fire. One issue to be considered is that pockets were deeper and larger back when. I reenact in a top coat that can conceal a S&W M1905 5" 38 Special. A pocket hammerless 38 or M38 Bodyguard is easily functional in such a large pocket. Top coats were common up until the 70s. Detectives often carried their snubs in an outside pocket. One of the realistic portrayals of this was seen in Kojak. He often slipped his snub into a coat pocket. This was normal practice. The hammerless DAOs were handy and easy to operate in those old pockets. Modern DAOs are getting back to basics. I used to carry a pair of S&W M36s with their hammers bobbed. 10 rounds as fast as possible without stopping to reload was the goal. Common practice for years. There just weren't JHPs in the old days and expansion wasn't considered. I believe DAO has assured is place as a tool. If you are close enough to smell their breath, fast DAO volume of fire is the proper response. I still carry a S&W M10 38 Special that has a hammer for single action aimed fire. I still see a need for bobbed hammer, wide trigger, DAO, fixed sights, RB and carried in a pocket revolver.
 
Since I never shhot my revolvers in any other mode but DA, I wouldn't care if they were all spurless DAOs. Alas, all my good carry rigs for the K frames have a retention strap that relies on a hammer spur, so I left them as they were.
 
Double action revolvers go back even further, to at least the late 1840s or 1850s with the Adams and Tranter DAO percussion guns from England.
 
DAO came to vogue for police because it was faster than cocking it by single action. The thought was that if you had to shoot to save your life, you didn't want to waste time by cocking it. So, the SA notch was ground off the hammer on many revolvers and virtually all police learned to shoot DAO.
 
After the recent purchase of a Model 10-6, and firing it SA, I can certainly see why a PD might want to prevent their officers from cocking the gun in a fight or apprehension. That trigger is just marvelous for targets, but a mousetrap otherwise.

Another "advantage" of DAO is simplicity. Fewer choices means less thinking and more doing. If the training is adequate, the DA trigger will be enough.


An SA trigger gives you the ability to use the gun in a way that most people aren't capable of under stress - extremely tight shots. Not providing the means to make them saves the officer from the aftermath of failing.

Choices you make for yourself are not the choices you make for a group.
 
If you're too lazy to learn to shoot DA, then buy a SA. There is no reason to cock the hammer on a revolver if you know how to shoot.
 
I can see that one can argue that you don't need single action operation, but so what? What is lost by having that as an option? I like it for target, and can easily cock the hammer while raising the gun in one motion... so it doesn't slow things down on the first shot at all.

Why have all those gears on a transmission? Can drive with one.
 
Let's pose the counter question, then, Caleb.

On a snubnosed defensive revolver, what is GAINED by having the single-action ability?

To my way of thinking, virtually nothing.

What is gained by not having the ability to cock a hammer?

Well, one thing that springs immediately to mind is that in the S&W Centennial series of guns, with no exposed hammer, the entire system is sealed even better against contamination from dust, dirt, and the like.
 
I don't say that there are no advantages to a DAO revolver. There are a lot of other things being said here though.

It is hard for me to accept the idea put forth that single action shooting is for people who don't know how to shoot. Target guns have short stroke, light triggers - kind of like single action shooting. Now if that isn't worth anything, why do target guns have such a trigger stroke? Because the people using don't know what they are doing? Otherwise they'd prefer a long, heavy stroke??? I just cannot buy it.

When you pull the trigger, you want the amplitude of the sights oscillations to be as small as possible. The heavier the pull and the longer the stroke, the harder that will be to achieve. To say that lots of training can reduce a disadvantage in this area sure, but to say that it's just as good or better to have a long heavy pull, no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top