Double Action only guns

The "move" has been in place for years - my PD only allowed DA or DA/SA handguns 20 years ago...started wth the wondernines, then included Glocks. The Glock is classified as DAO, so most departments allow it.


There are no doubt times when LE will confront a BG at gun point, but a move should be made SOON to holster and move in to hand cuff etc., hopefully making "holding him at gun-point" a short period. Think of the recent case where the cop was telling the air force vet(?) - whose hands where in plain sight - to stand, and when he went to comply the cop shot him - NOT good! Ya might have to get your hands dirty! (been there done that - wrestling around with an unarmed BG gets the adrenaline up)

As a civilian, (or as a cop), you better have damn good trigger control if you think you will be pointing your cocked (or even DA) pistol at someone without intentionally firing, while you are nervous and he is squirrely and neither of you really wants to be there.
 
I don't understand the criticism/paranoia of SA or even cocked weapons. If you didn't intend to shoot, why did you draw and aim your weapon to begin with? Isn't one of the primary rules for firearms "Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to shoot/destroy"?
 
Someoldguy,
Because WILLING to destory is does not mean ABSOLUTELY GOING TO destroy. If you pull on said target, you are willing to shoot it if it forces you to. When it goes from being a controlled potential threat to a immediate threat.


"do what you must". Hope to come out of it alive and not suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

Amen. My concern is how we tend to start thinking like sleezy trial attorneys and bleeding heart judges and treat these scenarios (which involve threats to our lives) as though they are games, where where you have to give the criminal a certain amount of slack and he has to give you a certain amount of slack (yeah right) otherwise the judge is going to send you to jail.

The question of the post originally was, how often statisticly do these cases degenerate into these absurd legal games in the courts (such as cocking a revolver, or hollowpoints or Black Talon hollowpoints etc.?

Shield20,
How can the Glock be classified as a DAO gun?
 
Seeing as how we seem to be in the realm of the ridiculous, how about charging someone for even having a "pre-loaded" gun? After all, the fact that he had loaded the gun before leaving home would point to the same "intent" as just cocking the gun. Then we can carry it on to having a loaded magazine or speed loader in one’s possession. (and so on...):barf:
If the prosecuter or PI attorney wants to come up with something to charge you with, they'll find something. Getting it to stick will be the problem. Of course you will probably have to spend a fortune defending yourself.:mad:
 
Ask the BATF :) - but probably 'cause pulling the trigger fully cocks and fires the weapon - can't be fully cocked manually, & can't be fired without the striker being partially cocked.

"The BATF has classified the Glock as double-action-only in terms of its trigger mechanism, and as I've said in previous articles, I feel this is somewhat of a misnomer."
"...the Glock pistol design is a striker-fired design. When the trigger mechanism is at a position of rest, the striker is partially precocked. The amount and percentage of this precocked condition is open to interpretation, but let's just say for the sake of argument that it is precocked a little less than a third of its travel length. With action of the trigger pull, the striker is cocked the remaining distance of its travel before the striker is released by action of the sear and allowed to engage the primer on the chamber round"

http://www.handgunsmag.com/featured_handguns/glock38_112805/index1.html


For SD you worry about the things YOU can control - weapon choice, caliber, training, carry method, capacity, ammo, etc. etc. Everything is a compromise based on what we can carry, what is practical, and what is legal. We should also be smart about our choices, and actions, that could/would otherwise leave us open to 'charges' afterward - no matter how unwarranted. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with our right to bear arms, not everyone agrees with our right to self-defense, and not everyone is going to agree that having to send a predator to hell is/was the best option available.

#1 - worry about coming home at the end of the day
#2 - worry about the aftermath of a life & death incident you survived
#3 - don't do anything consciously to unnecessarily make #2 harder, just to make #1 UNNECESSARILY easier .
 
The trouble arose in most discussions when you actually shoot the person and the shoot isn't very clearly warranted.

The debate was whether the lighter pull of a typical SA gun - being revolver or semi made it more likely for you to accidentally pull the trigger when startled, moving, flinching from a contraction of the other hand in a sympathetic movement. Thus, if you had your finger on the trigger and you shouldn't have had it there, then you go and shoot the guy.

That would make a claim of negligence on your part and a claim of inadequate training against the department or agency.

A separate take can be that if you as a civilian have a single action action gun does that:

1. Lead to a negligence claim against you as you used a gun prone to accident and/or you have no sufficient training which such a weapon beyond being from the Internet,

2. That since you chose such a gun under your own free will that you are an Internet commando and that will influence a civil or criminal jury given an added negative to evaluating your negligence. You were primed to shoot and thus more likely to screw up.

So with a bad shoot - the accident - by the law or you, one can see the SA gun being used against you. If it was a bad shoot - too bad, you deserve some penalty.

Are all shoots clearly good or bad - it's easy to say that they are but that's not clear. That's why there are trials and arguments.

If the shoot is ambiguous, then legal research indicates that weapons factors do influence simulated juries. We also see DAs displaying the weapons and sometimes exaggerating characteristics for these purposes. Could they do it with a SA gun - perhaps? Also, it is not something that makes case law for those looking for a case - it is a trial tactic that wouldn't make the books.

If one goes to trial in a shooot, you need a lawyer who is aware of all these issues and can prevent or defuse the presentation of you as a nutball.

So there are human factors issues revolving around the ease of an ND and training plus psycholegal factors at trial.

There is no one answer - most modifications of guns to be harder to accidentally shoot deal with the first. Can you as a civilian run across the second - yes, you probably can. The cliche that gun type doesn't matter if it is a good shoot isn't the best preparation. Be aware that it can be an issue. Also, be prepared to document that you have adequate training for the gun type you use and a rationale for its choice beyond the Internet killer cool factor.
 
I would submit that if you decided to draw your weapon that you have felt that your life was threatened and decided that the use of deadly force was needed to protect yourself.

If you have a SA 1911 you still have to remove the safety and put your finger on the trigger. If things have gone that far then you must really fear for your safety or that of another.

No matter what style pistol or revolver you carry you still have to make the conscious act of putting the finger on the trigger and pulling the trigger.

The main question should be, am I in fear of losing my life or another losing their life.

That was the deciding factor for the Officer who taught the CHL Course that I attended.

Your first protection would be knowing and understanding the laws on the use of force in your state. Learning about and understanding the Continuum of Force and escalation and deescalation of force.
 
People have accidentally pulled the trigger when not intending to, due to various startle situations. Even with the finger correctly off the trigger, the design of the gun has what is known as as an 'affordance' meaning that the finger naturally goes to the trigger. It must be held off consciously.

If something diverts attention through a startle or trip, even the most well trained person can have the finger hit the trigger. Thus, folks have argued that the heavier trigger is safer.

Every one assumes that the situation will be so clear with little movement.

You may claim that you feared for your life but let's say you have the gun trained on the dude who is surrendering at the moment. Do you have your finger on the trigger? You just might (that's another debate). Or even if you have the trigger off but the gun pointed at the surrendering dude. Then you stumble and bang. It wasn't a good shoot at that moment.
Thus, the lawsuit against you and the gun company.
 
Bud Helms Quote: present the impression of waiting for the perp to "make a move and I'll plug ya." End quote

Doug.38PR:
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...

Well, I did not make myself clear. Holding some one at gun point does not require a cocked hammer. Central to your point here is DA vs SA, so let's not forget the difference.
 
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.
Click to expand...
+1. With very few exceptions, the first indication the assailant should have that you are armed is muzzle flash.
 
Most people will have no problem overcoming the DA trigger in a startle or sympathetic squeeze situation

The safety of the harder trigger pull is mostly illusion once you draw the weapon

That is why we keep our fingers off triggers
 
We can what if all day, its one of those you have to be there moments. If you practice the fundamentals that might be what might gets you through that bump or falling.
 
There are some very good comments here (some very funny, too). But before anyone does anything else, everyone go to their gun locker and get out their Nagant revolver and see how the double action feels on that one.

Actually, double action revolvers have been around since the Civil War and were probably beginning to be standard police equipment by the turn of the century. However, much, much later, in the 1950's, there was actually a trend to teach shooting the DA revolver in single action mode. The reason was that it was more accurate, supposedly. I also suspect that formal target shooting of the day may have influenced the idea and that is another case of a shooting sport being a strong influence on combat shooting (if it was), for better or for worse. I don't know when the idea was dropped but eventually double action revolvers only revolvers started to be introduced, just about the time automatics for police use started to catch on.

The original question was a good one and I have no idea what the answer is. There are many defensive shootings and surely the statistics are out there somewhere, assuming that little detail was noted. But especially after reading over the posts I begin to wonder about the idea of "covering" someone with a weapon, at least as a civilian. It is one thing for a policeman who is a government hired gun (pardon me for putting it that way) and a civilian who is not. The police carry around radios and are presumably always in contact these days. They have handcuffs and they presumably are also ready to deal with suspect in other ways that most civilians are not. In any event, I would not count on the bad guy following your instructions just because you point a gun at him, which we have agreed, you aren't supposed to do if you aren't going to shoot him. Of course, you don't actually have to point it at him.
 
Doug.38PR said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well, assuming that you trust the following poster, I think we can assume that it is a justifiable fear and that it has happened at least once.
Doug.38PR said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...


Were I a lawyer, I would be standing and shouting "Objection! Hearsay!"
Charged? How about Convicted? You can be "charged" with most anything. Being found guilty is a whole different story.
 
Exactly right

It is just like when I hear that so and so got convicted because he

Used this ammo
modified his weapon this way
Used this ammo

You know the drill

While those types of things may certainly be brought up in a trial...I am always suspicious that any case hinged on exactly one little item
 
There was much more to the case involving Officer Luis Alvarez (in Florida) then simply a SA/hair trigger, BUT that become a major issue in the manslaughter charges filed, and beaten by Roy Black, a GREAT attorney (and none too cheap I assume). When there are riots in the street 'cause of a "politically incorrect" shooting, you can be sure someone will be asking for your head (and the likes of Janet Reno more then happy to oblige). How much you want to consciously help them cut it off is up to you. Attornies ain't cheap, neither I assume are professional witness(es) you will need to present your case for you, and otherwise support/defend YOUR actions and choices.
 
Were I a lawyer, I would be standing and shouting "Objection! Hearsay!"
Charged? How about Convicted? You can be "charged" with most anything. Being found guilty is a whole different story
Click to expand...

If I remember right, the cop was found guilty and went to jail
 
I was just wondering if you carry a 1911 in condition 1. Pull your carry weapon on someone and wipe the safety. You are just being ready right because if you had the hammer down you wouldn't be. So if you pull the trigger on condition 1 will you be charged with premiditated murder because you carry your gun ready to go with a wipe of the safety?:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top