Second-strikers

JoeSixpack said:
any DAO or DA/SA gun should be 2nd strike.
Click to expand...


For DAO, it is a mixed bag...

There are quite a few DAO guns that need the hammer to be preset before it can fire. Ruger LCP is a big example, Beretta PX4 C guns (D guns are similar to the C, heavier trigger pull, but second strike capable; D is mostly a DA/SA gun, without the sear), and most S&W DAO 3rd Generation guns (xx4x or xx8x models).

Personally, I like DA/SA pistols. Second strike, it is ok... but not necessarily needed. My view, if I do a double tap, and get a failure to fire with the first round, might go off the second pull. If I get nothing, Tap, Rack, Reassess. It isn't like I'm shooting Rimfire, so if it doesn't fire... I have a few conclusions; empty chamber, bad round, gun broke. Two of those will be fixed by Tap, Rack, Reassess... the third won't, but I'd be going for my backup gun if it wasn't resolved.

Most failures I have to go off were on the trap range. Federal target loads were giving me a handful of issues, hit the primer, but no bang. Those, since I'm shooting 25 rounds in the round, kind of can't toss one to the side and finish. Popped the gun open to recock the hammer, called again, and gun went off. Switched to Remington Gun Club... no more issues. If I'm shooting bulk .22, I may grab the round and see if it will go off later on... but may say the hell with it. If it is a defensive firearm, it is a little more pressing to get it running.
 
There are quite a few DAO guns that need the hammer to be preset before it can fire.
Click to expand...

I think the argument some have presented in this thread, with which I would agree, is that those pistols that advertise themselves as DAO but rely on the slide movement to cock the hammer, if only partially, are not true DAO.
 
TunnelRat said:
I think the argument some have presented in this thread, with which I would agree, is that those pistols that advertise themselves as DAO but rely on the slide movement to cock the hammer, if only partially, are not true DAO.
Click to expand...


I do disagree...

Being held at that partially cocked position is not a sear holding the hammer filling back, so your trigger pull is cocking the hammer (partially, as mentioned) and releasing it. That is two actions that the trigger is responsible for.

SA, the hammer is fully cocked, and the trigger just releases the sear... causing the hammer to fall. The trigger pull does nothing related to bringing the hammer back. That is one action that the trigger is responsible for.

Lack of second strike is irrelevant of the action the trigger is having on the hammer. If the pull is being used to draw the hammer back, then release it, those are the two actions; double action.

I used to describe them as traditional DAO and preset DAO, being it explains how much work is being done by the trigger; all or some. Sorry, but just because the hammer partially cocks the hammer doesn't mean the trigger isn't doing any of the work. If that was the case, it would be a SAO pistol.
 
Not much to add other than... Thanks for this great discussion. I always just assumed -without thinking about it - that the second-strike advantage of revolvers also applied to semi-autos w/ DA capability. But in practice, it's not really an advantage. I don't recall if I ever had a misfire with a centerfire semi-auto. If I did, I probably just did tap-rack-bang and moved on - and if it happened, the ejected round was probably in the dirt with a pile of brass & I never found it.

Anyway, this kind of thoughtful discussion is what I like best about TFL. Thanks

Edit: And JoeSixPack probably found my round in the dirt and fired it! LOL
 
But in practice, it's not really an advantage.
Click to expand...

There is no disadvantage to having it as an option (as its just another option).

If you are ever in a situation where you can't clear and your only option is to pull the trigger again at least you have the option to try that.
 
I'm curious, what would be a situation where you can't clear?

One handed - you can learn how to do that.

I think, I'd go for the BUG (of course, I would have to have one, now wouldn't I).

I suppose my view is that of KISS, with a malfunction - know one procedure.

Some say: Tap, rack, bang.

Others, drop the mag, insert new one and rack.

Those two are debatable and get us into the extra mag fight.

I've had to do both in classes and matches.
 
I used to describe them as traditional DAO and preset DAO, being it explains how much work is being done by the trigger; all or some. Sorry, but just because the hammer partially cocks the hammer doesn't mean the trigger isn't doing any of the work. If that was the case, it would be a SAO pistol.
Click to expand...

Right but then you yourself are noting that there is some advantage in distinguishing among them. Manufacturers simply list DAO. I never said the trigger wasn't doing any work.

To me the argument is that just saying SAO and DAO is vague. There is importance in distinguishing the variants of both systems.
 
TunnelRat said:
Right but then you yourself are noting that there is some advantage in distinguishing among them. Manufacturers simply list DAO. I never said the trigger wasn't doing any work.



To me the argument is that just saying SAO and DAO is vague. There is importance in distinguishing the variants of both systems.
Click to expand...


Whatever the case, IT IS DAO. You said it is not true DAO. The hammer is pulled back and released by the trigger, so it is DAO.

If the trigger only releases a sear (which releases a fully cocked hammer), it is SAO. If the trigger moves the hammer rearward and releases it by itself, and there is no sear to lock the hammer fully back on following shots, then it is DAO. If it does both, pulls back the hammer/release and disengages a sear to release the hammer... then it is DA/SA.

Sorry, but saying "oh, there is a slight difference in hammer starting position," does not change the fact there isn't a sear, and the trigger is cocking/releasing the hammer. That is your two actions, and cocking the hammer from full rest or a position slightly past rest is still the second action. The main reason companies have done preset DAO is to slightly reduce trigger pull weights. If you ever pulled the trigger on a LCP, to get second strike, you'd have to increase the weight of the trigger pull by moving the hammer even further rearward on the pull. This is opposed to allowing the slide preset the hammer, which takes some force out of the hammer movement. It differs from SAO because the slide isn't doing all of the work, and locking the hammer against a sear.

In regards to striker fired pistols, if the striker is fully cocked, then I would call it a SAO (just releasing the striker). If the trigger compresses the striker and releases it, then I'd call it DAO.
 
You seem more upset about this than is necessary (but maybe I'm misreading).

The main reason companies have done preset DAO is to slightly reduce trigger pull weights. If you ever pulled the trigger on a LCP, to get second strike, you'd have to increase the weight of the trigger pull by moving the hammer even further rearward on the pull. This is opposed to allowing the slide preset the hammer, which takes some force out of the hammer movement. It differs from SAO because the slide isn't doing all of the work, and locking the hammer against a sear.
Click to expand...

I never argued against this as a design. What I did was state that when companies simply market their designs as DAO when there are often differences with the degree of pre-cock I think it adds to confusion.

I'll admit that certainly some of this is my own working definition of those terms. If your point is that my interpretation goes beyond the technical implications of those terms, okay then.
 
Last edited:
It would be useful if there were a quick yet more descriptive way to quantify different trigger systems.

The term pre-tensioned has become widely used to denote something less than "true double action". It is a good term but leaves a lot of blanks to fill in. Specifically, how much "pre-tensioned" (seems to range from 60% to 99%) and the pull weight would be nice to have handy as well.

I think the tendency of some makers and other pundits to lump all strikers together with DAOs is pure marketing. "DAO" satisfies the safety nazis while nearly fully cocked strikers (aka single action triggers) make a pistol easier to hit with. It's a win/win with no downside. :rolleyes:

I truly don't know how we got here. I was experienced with traditional SAO, DA/SA and then Glock's safe action. Pretty rational so far. Then I did not try any newer designs for a long time. I was...sheltered. Imagine my surprise when I finally tried a truly modern striker pistol. First reaction, "Wow, that's a very nice single action trigger. How does this gun not have a safety? I am supposed to carry this loaded, cocked and unlocked?"

I just came from a gun shop where I handled my next pistol. It has a hammer, decocker and is DA/SA. Had to do some reading first but I'll be collecting it tomorrow.
 
TunnelRat said:
You seem more upset about this than is necessary (but maybe I'm misreading).





I never argued against this as a design. What I did was state that when companies simply market their designs as DAO when there are often differences with the degree of pre-cock I think it adds to confusion.



I'll admit that certainly some of this is my own working definition of those terms. If your point is that my interpretation goes beyond the technical implications of those terms, okay then.
Click to expand...


You are definitely misreading. Trust me... what someone thinks, right or wrong, on the internet is far from a concern of mine. You can call it Heavy-SAO for all I care... but Ruger, S&W, or Glock calling it DAO is actually correct.

What I am pointing out is that you not calling an LCP DAO because the hammer is preset is incorrect. This is what you quoted from my post, and stated that preset DAO is not true DAO. The trigger pull is pulling the hammer back (first action) and releasing it (second action). Doesn't matter if the hammer is at full rest, half cock, or 2% away from full cock... rearward movement on the hammer from the trigger pull means it is double action. Lack of a sear makes it even clearer.

You can feel anyway about this topic as you want. However, "double action" has a very specific definition... even if you look back when the first revolvers were using it; trigger pull draws hammer (or striker, if you want to include them) back and releases it. Different from trigger just releasing the hammer via the sear... after the shooter or slide cocked the hammer back (trigger has a "single action").

If you wanted to have an experiment to show this... get yourself a Beretta 92FS. DA/SA pistol... correct? If you remove the sear from the frame, you now have a homemade 92DS (safety would still work, but it would be a DAO pistol). Each time you pull the trigger, the hammer will be drawn back, and released.

Sorry, but if you can't understand that, there is no more I can say. That isn't being upset, it is pointing out a flaw in your logic.
 
IF the trigger really does perform some cocking function (even a partial cocking function) then it's reasonable to categorize it as some variant of double-action. It's worth noting that not all of the "DAO" type guns have triggers that perform any appreciable cocking function.

However, if such a trigger won't cock the gun by itself, it's just as reasonable to distinguish that from a "true" double action since a true double action gun can be fired with the trigger regardless of the state of the hammer/striker. That was, in point of fact, the entire reason for the invention of double actions--to eliminate the need to cock the gun prior to pulling the trigger.

There are three main categories of "DAO" pistols. These are my names for them.

"True DAO" where the trigger will always fire a chambered round regardless of the state of the striker/hammer at the beginning of the trigger pull. By definition, these guns have second strike capability. The old Colt 2000 had this type of action.

"Hybrid DAO" where the striker/hammer must be preset/partially cocked and the trigger pull completes the cocking and releases the striker/hammer. No second strike capability. Glocks fall into this category.

"False DAO" where the trigger does not perform any appreciable cocking function and only releases a cocked hammer/striker. Such guns do not have second strike capability and are, in reality, single action. The HS2000 pistols use this approach.

There are also combinations of the above. The Walther P99, for example, combines a "True DAO" with one of the other two modes (I don't really know which) allowing the user to "decock" the striker after chambering a round. In that mode the trigger pull is long and fairly heavy. If the gun isn't decocked, trigger pull is much lighter and shorter.
 
I'm curious, what would be a situation where you can't clear?
Click to expand...

A situation where you don't have time. Time can be a large factor and it does take longer to clear a round than it does to pull the trigger, I don't think anyone would argue that and I don't think anyone would argue that time couldn't be a factor in a SD scenario. This is no different than the 'should I have a round in the chamber' argument. Its faster to have a round in a chamber and pull a trigger than it is to rack a slide. Its only seconds, but it is faster. Yes the round might not fire on the 2nd strike but isn't it better to take that chance than to do nothing as you wouldn't of had the time to clear the round? Unfortunately there is no perfect action as each scenario requires a different one. Having a second strike gives you a chance at something you might otherwise not of had time for.
 
Then I go back to : Has this ever happened?

Given the incredibly low probability that the second strike will fire the round, you need more in your skill set than pulling on the trigger.
 
"Given the incredibly low probability that the second strike will fire the round, you need more in your skill set than pulling on the trigger. "

But that's been your exp, mine has been the opposite at least with center fire ammo.

I remember Taurus when they introduced 2nd strike on the striker guns claimed 84% chance of success on 2nd strike I don't know where they got that figure or if it's correct but that's been my exp.. has anyone done any scientific testing?
 
I've been doing a little research in the professional class and there's little enthusiasm for second strike as a major feature. It seems not be taught in classes. The major problem is using crappy ammo - ditch that and little problems are seen.

No one has an example where it has been reported as being used so far. If there is one, I'll report it. A few reports in matches.

It's regarded as basically a gimmick but might be useful if you do have crappy ammo in the real world.

The rate of lighting off on the second strike would depend on the ammo - crappy, handloads, primers?
 
Glenn E. Meyer:
The rate of lighting off on the second strike would depend on the ammo - crappy, handloads, primers?
Click to expand...

Or dirty, dry gun. I had forgotten about another incident I had with a DA revolver failing to fire about 50% of rounds. Came on pretty suddenly. Would always fire the second time around. It wasn't filthy but a good disassembly/lube cured it.

JohnKSa:

There are three main categories of "DAO" pistols. These are my names for them.

"True DAO" where the trigger will always fire a chambered round regardless of the state of the striker/hammer at the beginning of the trigger pull. By definition, these guns have second strike capability. The old Colt 2000 had this type of action.

"Hybrid DAO" where the striker/hammer must be preset/partially cocked and the trigger pull completes the cocking and releases the striker/hammer. No second strike capability. Glocks fall into this category.

"False DAO" where the trigger does not perform any appreciable cocking function and only releases a cocked hammer/striker. Such guns do not have second strike capability and are, in reality, single action. The HS2000 pistols use this approach.
Click to expand...

I especially like "False DAO". That is very descriptive.

I don't know if the terminology is settled that any trigger which performs any degree of cocking action is DA. But if so, the term becomes virtually useless. Most if not all factory triggers cock the hammer/striker to some small degree due the the angles of sear engagement which are necessary for a safe trigger. At some point even before "sear angle DA" you're looking at "technically double action but who are you kidding here?"
 
I don't know if the terminology is settled that any trigger which performs any degree of cocking action is DA.
Click to expand...
People will always argue. But given that DA stands for Double Action and the double actions are cocking and releasing the hammer/striker, it's difficult to argue that a trigger that not only releases the hammer/striker but also performs a cocking action isn't Double Action.
Most if not all factory triggers cock the hammer/striker to some small degree due the the angles of sear engagement which are necessary for a safe trigger.
Click to expand...
If this qualified as cocking the hammer/striker then there's no point in distinguishing between double action and single action since your statement is equally applicable to single action pistols.

Fortunately, it's not difficult to understand or explain the difference between a trigger which performs significant compression of the main spring from one which compresses the main spring an insignificant amount in the process of releasing a hammer/striker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top