Double Action only guns

D

Doug.38PR

Moderator
I've heard about all the civil and even criminal trouble you "might" get into if you use SA on your gun. I don't doubt that these cases have happened in super bleeding heart liberal areas on rare occasions. BUT, the fact is that the whole thing is absurd. If you are in a case where a criminal is in need of having a gun pulled on him, he is obviously crossed boundaries that he should not have. If he gets himself shot, short of excessive force, it is his own fault whether he is shot DA or SA.

NOW, let's not get into a flame war about "why would you use SA for defense anyway?" "It's too dangerous to use SA, the gun might accidentally go off!"

Let's don't put each other (gun carryers) on the defensive.

For all intents and purposes, DA 90% of the time is all you need. In most situations, using SA is wasting time cocking the hammer that could be used pulling the trigger. BUT, I like to have the option of both. You might need to make a careful shot in some unforseen situation. Being able to cock your gun could come in handy in some situations.

My questions are, how often has this absurd prosecution of using SA occured? Is it really a justifiable fear? Even if it is, why willingly reduce yourself to DA only as long as the gun can already do DA?
 
For me I want a consistant trigger pull , double action only or single action really does not matter to me as long as its consistant. The issue i have with traditional double action autos ( long first pull , short after ) is the transition from one form to another . This may not bother others , but i dont care for it .
 
As rnr said, you go DAO (or SAO) to avoid the DA/SA transition, mainly 'cause the DA is usually loong and heavy, and the SA sloppy. I would think that 99.99% of the time you won't need, or want, to purposely cock a pistol to SA mode in a SD situation, so having a nicer trigger is MUCH more important then being able to shoot SA manually.

Considering DA/SA transition to SA anyway, after the 1st shot its a mute point, but absurd or not, stuff happens, and setting yourself up to be prosecuted by a DA, or sued by the victim, 'cause you felt the need "to negligently point your weapon at him after giving it a hair trigger". In the case(s) I read about (??? Ayoob in CH ???), I think they even tried to prove the victim was shot "accidently" due to the cocked-to-SA trigger and a nervous shooter.
 
I've heard about all the civil and even criminal trouble you "might" get into if you use SA on your gun.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about, Doug?

Can you say it in one sentence without all the assumptions and conditions?
 
I'm still pretty new, but...

Am I confused!!??!!:confused:
Single actions have greater potential of legal issues? So glocks, 1911's, XD's and the lot are not recommended for self defense? Or are we talking revolvers?

"why would you use SA for defense anyway?"
Click to expand...

Sorry if I'm going the wrong direction but I figure there are more single actions than double out there anyway.:rolleyes:

I read these posts over and over. Help me understand if I'm "way off target"
 
To be honest, I'm in the same boat as 06nop. What about the 1911? One of the most sought after carry weapon. Set in condition 1; cocked, locked, ready to rock. As you draw it out, release the safety the moment before the SHTF with your thumb. That helps the accidental premature discharge. Please clarify.
:(
 
Okay, for example, I was told of an incident a few years back in New Jersey, I think, where a police officer held a thug at gunpoint with a cocked revolver, the goon then made a move to overcome the cop. The goon failed and was shot.
The cop was charged with premeditated murder because a witness saw him cocking the gun.
I'm not necessarily advocating putting yourself in said position (certainly not ideal for an armed citizen to approach a criminal).

I've been told that situations like this are at least part of what has caused the move to DA only revolver and semi autos.
 
Darn it - forgot about revolvers again and was thinking semi-autos - though the case you mentioned sounds like it may be the one Ayoob described in CH.
In which case avoiding the possibility of cocking the hammer, or avoiding being accused of cocking the hammer, has its merits legally.
 
Well, standing there with a cocked revolver does present the impression of waiting for the perp to "make a move and I'll plug ya." There is most certainly some doubt, even with this distance from the event, that standing there with a cocked revolver pointed at someone is a "safe" thing to do. It is exactly the same thing as pulling my 1911 out, wiping the safety off from Condition 1 and pointing it at someone I haven't decided to shoot. Bad ju-ju. Unsafe. But "premeditated" I have a problem with. "Negligence" I can support.

That officer had the option of exercising the weapon in DA. It sounds like the problem was training. Whether or not a whole new design evolved from this type of situation, I have no idea. With the number of civilians carrying on the rise, it may have just seemed like a good idea. :confused:
 
I just pulled out Combat Handgunnery by Ayoob, (pgs 28-29) and he goes into the DA vs SA a bit...mentions how a murder conviction [by a DA] requires proving the element of malice, but manslaughter requires only someone did something stupid..."it came into vogue to attack politically incorrect justifiable homicide incidents with a charge of manslaughter."
"It is common knowledge that a light trigger pull - what a lay person would call a hair trigger - is more conductive to accidental discharge then a long heavy trigger pull...". "Cocking a gun, or pointing an already cocked gun at a suspect could therefore be seen as negligence. Now the key ingredient of manslaughter is in place."

"It reached a point where prosecuters would actually manufacture a "negligent hair trigger argument" even in cases where the gun wasn't cocked."

Also mentions Florida vs Officer Luis Alvarez. The dept responded by making service revolvers DAO.

Criminal and civil courts, deep pockets of insurance companies only if a burglar was shot "by accident", etc. etc.
 
I would have caught on a lot sooner if I knew it was a revolver you were talking about, all you said was "gun"

I agree with Bud, mostly. For the cop, it had to be lack of training. I would think of it kind of as a "warning" that you are prepared to shoot, just like in the movies :barf: .
But why would you pull a gun just to point it? If your life is in danger you would be pulling the trigger. If you have time to pull your gun, point it and cock it, stand there and think about it, then you aren't really in that kind of situation. There may be special circumstances, like being a cop. I don't think I'd want to just stand there holding a gun pointing it at someone.

I agree with Ayoob, too - negligent.
 
But "premeditated" I have a problem with. "Negligence" I can support
Click to expand...

Exactly

present the impression of waiting for the perp to "make a move and I'll plug ya."
Click to expand...

Well, like O6nob indicated, that is the general idea in holding a dangerous individual at gunpoint isn't it? If they make a bad move against you they suffer the consequences of being shot.

There is most certainly some doubt, even with this distance from the event, that standing there with a cocked revolver pointed at someone is a "safe" thing to do.
Click to expand...

Ideally, absolutely. In practice, I can see where that wouldn't always be the case. With a revolver if someone grabs it in close range, they can keep the cylinder from rotating. (semi autos if a slight amount of force, a hand, is applied to the muzzle, the gun is disabled.) A revolver in SA on the other hand doesn't have either of these problems. I was told about an old style method of searching prisoners in which you cocked your service gun squeezing the trigger while keeping the hammer held back with your thumb joint. That way if a move is made against you, even if you are shot, all that has to happen is for your thumb to let go of the hammer. Of course, a police supervisor today would freak at an officer doing this today (NOT ADVOCATING THIS MYSELF). HOWEVER, if he is in a certain kind of desperate or extreme situation where he is in close quarters with a goon, I could understand if this something an officer has to do.
It's kind of like pistol whipping, not a generally safe method, not something you want to responsibly advocate as a tactic these days, not generally healthy for the gun, BUT, in practice if someone is in the middle of a scuffle with some thug(s) and the handgun is the first thing you can grab to disable them, then that is what gets the job done. (a retired sheriff deputy a few months back, admiring my S&W M-28, same model he carried, said that it was one sturdy gun that you could be sure wouldn't be bent or damaged if you had whip someone in the side of the head with it in a scuffle. :eek: *horrors above!*)


Just for the record, I may have this NJ story wrong, I am going from a third hand conversation. I tried googling it, but couldn't find anything like it.

Here are a couple of articles and links on DA only.
http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/tactics/double-action-only-versus-double-actionsingle-action/
Speaking of negligence, there is a story of a Miami policeman who shot someone accidentally with a cocked revolver. sounds like the story shield20 relates

http://www.grantcunningham.com/common_services.html
Grant Cunningham I noticed even recommends revolvers being converted to DA only

06nop,
isn't there a a move to DA only semi autos too? Aren't some police departments moving to DA only autos, as opposed to Glocks and 1911s?
 
Points of view

I would say alot depends on your point of view. The two main ones are private citizen vs LEO.

There is a case to be made for DA/DAO for law enforcement. Even Ayoob has mentioned it. SA (1911) vs DA/DAO (Sig). Cocked and locked makes perfect sense for a soldier. When a soldier sees the enemy, he is expected to shoot them. For Cops, who have to hold a suspect at gunpoint, and is only allowed to shoot under certain conditions, DA/DAO makes much better sense.

For police, training is a crucial factor. Deliberatly cocking a DA revolver is viewed today as intent to shoot, because of the "hair trigger". Reality plays only a minor role in courts, perception is what gets more convictions.

Back a few decades ago, when police still generally carried DA revolvers, one major metro dept (Miami, I think) had a rash of accidental shootings of suspects. It seems that street toughs were no longer impressed by a drawn gun, and would not comply with police instructions until the officer "proved he was serious" by cocking the gun. The political solution was to have the SA ability removed from police revolvers, making them DAO. And training.

So, for a LEO, DA/DAO seems to be a good idea. Now for a private individual, I see matters somewhat differently. If you point a gun at someone, it is because they need to be stopped. No other reason is valid. Shooting to stop them (if they don't stop at the sight of the gun) is necessary, and as long as you are using the gun in the manner intended by the manufacturer, if can make no difference whether is was SA, DA, or DAO.

If the shooting is justified, often there is no court to worry about. And even when there is, as a private individual, if asked "why did you cock your gun", what would you answer? With an SA pistol, if it isn't cocked, it won't fire. So the answer would be something like, "it was necessary".

With a DA revolver, it could be considered a matter of public safety. SA fire is widely recognised as more accurate, so the answer might be framed in terms of "to ensure he was stopped", or "so no one else got hurt", or something like that. Or, "the hammer is cocked when loading the chamber"
with a DA auto.

For a justified self defense shooting, I find it difficult to imagine the question to even come up. When they ask, you answer. "I shot him" or "I had to stop him" or something similar, because, it is the truth. Don't give any unneeded info. It just confuses the issue, and gives someone with an agenda something to build a case with.

I see some more details have some out while I was typing, so there you go.
For me, in a salf defense situation, I'll use whatever it is that I have handy, and perform the manual of arms to make it work. What ever that happens to be. The whole argument has NO effect on my choice of what to carry/use.

Also, kind of hard to find fault with designs that have been in daily use for close to 100 years. Rules for cops are different. Rules for combat soldiers are different. As a "civilian" I only have to worry about the rules that pertain to me.
 
present the impression of waiting for the perp to "make a move and I'll plug ya."
Click to expand...
Well, like O6nob indicated, that is the general idea in holding a dangerous individual at gunpoint isn't it? If they make a bad move against you they suffer the consequences of being shot.
Click to expand...

To set the record straight, I wouldn't feel right pointing a gun at an individual. If I felt my life was in danger, I'd have shot the threat, otherwise, the gun is still holstered.
 
well surely there are situations where holding someone at gunpoint would be justifiable and necessary. Even with non-LE. Say you come home one night and catch someone burglarizing your home. They surrender.

Normally, you should hold them at gun point. A guns and ammo article I read last year advised getting their hands over head, down on knees, cross them and sit on them and get on the phone with the police with gun pointed at them (avoiding conversation with bad guy)
 
The problem is in our society an attorney's...job...is to try ANYTHING to get what he is after - whether it is a conviction OR some hard cash. Wasn't a recent SD case made against hollowpoints - something most of us take for granted - trying to show their use proved intent to kill?

When the 1st thing that comes out in most shooting instances is how the poor victim (the guy you shot for robbery - NOT you) was ...a good child;) , ...just getting his life back together after his dad went to prison:eek:, ...left behind a girlfriend with 2 kids :( , ...was possibly a target of racism 'cause he was black/white/latino and you are white/black/latino:confused: ,...was just out at 4am having a good time on his wedding day:rolleyes: , or WHATEVER other brush the media paints with that day:barf: , don't think you wil immediately be regarded as a hero - SOMEONE is going to be pissed that the victim is dead. There may well be LOTS of pressure to show "exactly" (to pacify the masses? to penalize vigilantism? to support the good guy? (hopefully)) what happened and why, whether it really happened or not.

A big issue which gets skirted often but does not seem to be specifically thought about is this...and I am not so sure what the answer is - WHO is going to articulate why you carried, why you did what you did, fired when you fired, fired what you fired, fired as often as you fired, cocked when you cocked, messed with the gun you fired (new springs? lighter trigger pull?), etc etc. Are YOU going to take the stand, and then be subject to cross-examination? [or better a professional witness like Ayoob?]
 
well surely there are situations where holding someone at gunpoint would be justifiable and necessary. Even with non-LE. Say you come home one night and catch someone burglarizing your home. They surrender.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am sure there are some situations, but a judge or jury may have to decide if it was the right decision. There is no "best" answer, just a "do what you must". Hope to come out of it alive and not suffer the consequences.

06nop,
isn't there a a move to DA only semi autos too? Aren't some police departments moving to DA only autos, as opposed to Glocks and 1911s?
Yesterday 09:58 PM
Click to expand...

:confused: You're asking me? - I have no idea.
I'm only trying to become an expert on what I would do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top