DAO most defensible type of gun for concealed carry?

C

checkmyswag

New member
I have been hearing that DAO guns are the most defensible fore concealed carry if you had to use it.

Is this true?

Why?

Why not a revolver or even 1911 style pistol with the grip and thumb safety?

So long as you believed there was a threat to your life and had to make the threat stop why would action type matter?

Is a striker fired pistol considered a DAO?
 
Last edited:
Why DA only(hammer fired)....

This is a simple but important question to many new handgun owners or entry level armed professionals/sworn LE officers all over.
In plain terms, DA only pistols or revolvers offer a safe, practical way to carry or deploy a sidearm in a lethal force incident(sometimes called a "critical incident"). Author, tactics trainer, sworn LEO, and legal use of force expert Massad Ayoob, www.MassadAyoobgroup.com , has put out may magazine articles & reports about why the DA only type firearms work best for carry/protection.
US law enforcement agencies from the NYPD to the LAPD & federal LE agencies like the US Border Patrol & ICE(Immigration & Customs Enforcement) use or authorize DA only sidearms like the SIG P226/P229R, the HK2000(lem) & the older S&W 5946(9x19mm).
Many law enforcement agencies in Canada issue DA only service pistols too.
DA only pistols or revolvers reduce the chance of false or bogus claims of "cocking" a handgun's hammer or being reckless and firing due to the light trigger pull.
A legal case in Miami Florida in the early 1980s where a uniformed LE officer shot a teen as he played a video game was a big part of the DA only sidearm change in SOP(standard policy). Some lawyers claimed the cop "cocked" his DA/SA Smith & Wesson revolver then fired by "accident". Miami had many riots & civil disorders due to this high profile event.
FWIW; The ATF, www.ATF.gov considers the Glock model a DA only pistol. Glock & Gaston Glock(the designer & "father" of the Glock pistol) call it a "Safe Action". I, myself, lean more towards the duty or concealed use of hammer fired pistols like the Beretta PX4/C, the SIG Sauer P226/229/239 DAK or the HK P2000/HK45/P30 with the LEM(law enforcement modification).
Some handgun shooters or armed professionals prefer the Glock/Kahr/M&P/XDm etc but I'd say it's better for advanced or trained gunners.
I also prefer the spurless or DAO type handguns with no spurs. It conceals better, speeds ignition & won't snag or get hung up on garments.
DA only handguns may not be right for everyone, but they may be right for you. ;)
 
Hitting things with a handgun under ideal conditions is hard enough, so why make it harder by choosing action type based on some consideration other than hitting the target quickly/accurately? If you shoot someone intentionally, the action type won't matter, and if you shoot someone accidentally, the action type won't matter. I could see it coming into play if, after a legit shooting, you were accused of shooting accidentally (apparently a not-unpopular legal tactic), and the "evidence" is the "hair trigger" on your gun.
 
And, once again; AZ v Fish....

For all the "hey, what's the big deal" forum members I say review the Harold Fish incident.
Mr Fish, a retired teacher with no criminal records use a 1911a1 single action type 10mm pistol in his critical incident.
I'm not going to drone on about all the legal issues or details but it shows me why a simple DA only, LE type sidearm can be used to protect you.
Both in a lethal force attack & the legal/civil court aftermath.
 
I carry almost exclusively DAO pistols, but it's more of a practical decision. No need to worry about safeties or decocking either if you haven't used the whole mag, you get a consistent trigger pull (unlike DA/SA), and a good DAO trigger can lend itself to firing that's easily fast and accurate enough. If it's more "legally defensible" I suppose that's all well and good, but I'm not sure it's a factor the comes into play often enough to really worry about.
 
For all the "hey, what's the big deal" forum members I say review the Harold Fish incident.
Mr Fish, a retired teacher with no criminal records use a 1911a1 single action type 10mm pistol in his critical incident.
I'm not going to drone on about all the legal issues or details but it shows me why a simple DA only, LE type sidearm can be used to protect you.
Both in a lethal force attack & the legal/civil court aftermath.
Click to expand...

Even in the goat rodeo that was the Harold Fish case, I've never seen anything about the prosecution bringing up the SA trigger of his handgun. The prosecutor did bring up the caliber (he basically said that 10mm was overkill) and that Fish used JHP ammo (again, overkill argument), but I've seen nothing about the trigger on Fish's pistol.

It also bears mention that Fish got the short end of the stick in many aspects of his trial. First, the prosecutors arguments about Fish's handgun went pretty much unchallenged by Fish's attorney (it could have been pointed out that 10mm has been used by several LE agencies like the FBI and Kentucky State Police and also that nearly every major PD in the U.S. uses JHP ammo). Fish also had his conviction overturned upon appeal due to the fact that the judge in his first trial would not let the past history of erratic behavior of the man Fish shot, a history which matched Fish's story almost exactly, be admitted as evidence.

Many people want to think that it was Fish's choice of gun and ammunition that cooked him, but in reality there were several other factors that contributed just as much, if not more, to his conviction.
 
DAO is overlooked. But is the favorite for those that don't wan't to be concerned with safety levers, and semi-auto action.

The .40 caliber Beretta 96D Centurion or the S&W 4046 are two of the best in their class. And were Law Enforcement Agency issue for many years.

DAO = Simple and Very Effective.
 
There has been only two times in some 25 years that I've reached for my gun while in public. In both cases the hammer was cocked, the safety was off and my finger was not on the trigger. I don't feel that having a SA makes me any more liable for an accidental discharge than having a DAO. What does make someone more liable for an AD is someone who doesn't practice the draw, and someone who shoots their favored weapon only once in a while.
 
I think the name of the game in CCW is to use what you shoot & draw
with the fastest in conjunction with accuracy and confidence under pressure.
Practice practice practice till it becomes muscle memory and comes naturally
and automatically. ie Whatever works for you may not work for another and
of course visa versa.....
 
checkmyswag said:
DAO most defensible type of gun for concealed carry?
I have been hearing that DAO guns are the most defensible fore concealed carry if you had to use it.
Click to expand...
I assume you are asking about defensible in the sense of legality. The law (States' and Cities' laws vary widely, but I am speaking in general) does not consider how you launched a bullet, but only that you did. However, juries are made up of people, who may believe anything. They may believe use of a single shot pistol for self-defense shows a less culpable attitude than a revolver. They may believe a single-action revolver less objectionable than a double action. They may believe what you have engraved on the grips makes your actions more or less defensible (skull and crossbones? or the phrase "Home Defender"). The law makes no such distinctions. People do.
Is this true?

Why?
Click to expand...
The idea is that a long trigger pull is less likely to allow a user to produce an accidental or unintentional discharge. This may be true, but introduces the "moral hazard" of the user imagining that a particular gun may be "safer" than it really is, which may make that particular gun with that particular user actually less safe.

Human nature. Introduces all kinds of variables.
Why not a revolver or even 1911 style pistol with the grip and thumb safety?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are asking. The modern 1911 style pistol has three safeties. Grip safety, manual (thumb) safety and firing pin block. None of them make the single action trigger pull any safer than a cocked revolver, however, the manual safety does allow returning to a safer condition the revolver does.
So long as you believed there was a threat to your life and had to make the threat stop why would action type matter?
Click to expand...
As I said above, the action type does not matter to the law. It MAY matter to a jury. It may also alter the legal tactics of the defense or the prosecution if a claim of accident is made.
Is a striker fired pistol considered a DAO?
Click to expand...
Hammer or striker makes no difference. How the energy is applied to the firing pin/primer is irrelevant. Only the exterior operation of the TRIGGER makes the gun describable as SA/DA, DAO, SA, "Safe Action" (Glock) or whatever other mechanisms might be available now or in the future. The Colt 2000 was a DAO striker fired pistol. The AR-15 is a hammer fired single action.

Thanks for asking our opinions and advice.

Lost Sheep
 
Harold Fish, Caspian 10mm 1911a1, DA only firearms...

And here we are again;
To be clear, a "legal expert"(who I believe was a retired CT state trooper) stated under oath in the Fish trial how no major US law enforcement agency issued or used the 1911a1 series 10mm. I SAW a female juror who convicted Harold Fish say the pistol & ammunition were factors. It was on a NBC news special. The woman also said; "I don't know a lot about guns but I don't know why he needed jacketed hollow points." :(

As for the safety features of the P35 or 1911a1 those do have merit but in a high stress violent attack I'd want a DA only pistol or a snub DAO revolver.
 
To be clear, a "legal expert"(who I believe was a retired CT state trooper) stated under oath in the Fish trial how no major US law enforcement agency issued or used the 1911a1 series 10mm.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not in combination, but both 1911 pistols and the 10mm cartridge have been used by major U.S. LE agencies. Both the FBI HRT and LA County SWAT use 1911 handguns (Springfield Armory and Kimber respectively) currently and the FBI has a history of using 1911's on a limited basis all the way back to the 1930's. Regardless, it was the 10mm cartridge and JHP ammunition rather than the 1911 pistol that the prosecutor chose to attack.

Also, both the FBI and Kentucy state police used S&W 1076 handguns in 10mm Auto (the FBI used them in the early 1990's and KSP used them until 2001 IIRC). For whatever reason, Fish's attorney failed to use the above information to counter the prosecution's arguments.

I SAW a female juror who convicted Harold Fish say the pistol & ammunition were factors. It was on a NBC news special. The woman also said; "I don't know a lot about guns but I don't know why he needed jacketed hollow points."
Click to expand...

The JHP argument should have been farily easy to counter by simply pointing out that nearly every major U.S. LE agency uses JHP ammunition. It could have further been pointed out that the Federal Hydra-Shok ammunition used by Fish is loaded by the manufacturer to the same specifications as that used by the FBI when that was their standard cartridge. As far as the juror who was influenced by Fish's gun and ammo (though I've never heard of a single juror who said that gun/ammo were the deciding factor), the key is in her own statement that she "dosen't know a lot about guns". Fish's lawyer never presented a strong counter-argument to the prosecution so she was swayed. Any gun or ammo could be used to make one look bloodthirsty if your lawyer has no counter argument.

Also, remember that AZ law at the time put the burden of proof on Fish to prove that he had acted in self-defense. It is my understanding that the centerpiece of Fish's defense was the previous history of behavior in the man Fish shot which matched Fish's story almost to the letter. Because the judge in Fish's first trial did not allow such history to be admitted as evidence (his reasoning was that because Fish had never met the individual before, past history was irrelevant), Fish's defense strategy was pretty much dead in the water. Fish's conviction was overturned on these grounds and AZ law has now been changed to put the burden of proof on the state in cases of SD.

Fish's conviction had a lot more to do with inadequate representation and pertinent information being ruled inadmissable than it did with his choice of gun and ammunition.
 
Mas recommended DA revolvers, too, but recommended removing the SA notch from the sear, so nobody could claim you'd cocked the weapon and then accidentally fired it. Experts for civil plaintiffs have apparently made a show of cocking the defendant's revolver, and showing how it could have happened just like the plaintiff claims.

Mas said he was there when one so-called expert tried to cock a revolver that had no SA notch in the sear... shot the case down on the spot, as the gun could not be cocked.

It's more about civil suits - home owner's insurance will pay big sums for accidents, but nothing for deliberate shootings - then it is about criminal prosecutions. Mas does list one case where a cocked D-frame, and subsequent startle-response shooting, turned what should have been a good SD case into a Manslaughter charge.

State of New York v Magliato
 
WORFfacepalm.gif
 
There's enough solid science on NDs and trigger pulls to worry about such a risk if you can't keep your finger off the trigger or some reflex causes you to pull it on a lighter gun. Well researched. Thus, the idea for folks to have a heavier pull. Of course, train, train.

As far as the appearance issue - we've done that many, many times. Boring to do it again. It's become an ideological issue for some. However, rational explanations abound. Our member Fiddletown has nailed it a few times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top