To cock or not?

[Buzzcook]

Cocking the hammer?

Are we shooting SAAs? The only reason to cock a hammer is if that is necessary to shoot the gun. Otherwise it is just wasting time.
If pointing a gun doesn't show serious intent, then cocking one to show you're really really serious probably won't register either.

 

[Nnobby45]

You're assuming that these situations happen much more slowly than they actually do. In reality, you'll be lucky if you have time bring the weapon to bear at all.

Good point. Learning one method of pulling the trigger DA in an emergency when time is critical and another when you may or may not have to shoot isn't taught, to my knowledge, by combat firearms instructors. Try cocking your revolver before shooting in Farnum's course. Or at Gunsite. Or.....well, any good course.

Warning shots are ill advised and so is the "pistol cocking warning".

None the less, there are those who will perpetuate the habit of cocking their revolvers between shots and there's nothing we can do about it about it. Ah, Jeez.

Have to admitt, that shooting single action is a great tool for sighting in and then practicing DA until the same sight picture puts rounds in the same place. When you can do that, instead of milking the DA rounds to the right, then you've got it.

OK, lets be honest. How many of you can do that? Wheter DA revolver or first shot DA/SA semi-auto.

 

[Tom Servo]

OK, lets be honest. How many of you can do that? Wheter DA revolver or first shot DA/SA semi-auto

All day, actually. Owning a DA gun is a commitment to shooting it as designed. It's not really that steep of a learning curve if done right.

 

[05Passat]

All really good advice. I appreciate it. It gave me several things to think about. I don't think I'm deterred from the hammer equipped pistol I was considering but I'm definitely not going to think about cocking it the same way again. The point of being "trained by Hollywood" is really true and its really wasn't my best idea to offer that extra time to a perp to back down. A bad situation will more than likely happen very quickly, much more so than I think I was prepared for previously. I'll be practicing a lot more DA next time I shoot and thinking a lot more clearly next time I carry. Thanks for the feedback everyone!

 

[HoraceHogsnort]

So, if you cock the hammer on a DA revolver and shoot the perp you may get charged with neg. hom. or manslaughter. If you shoot the perp with a SA semi-auto that only works in SA mode is the prosecuter going to charge you with the same? Absurd. SA semi-autos are legal to own, how could you be charged with neg. hom. or mnslghtr? If its OK to shoot the perp with a semi-auto SA gun then why would it be bad to shoot him with a cocked DA gun? Its all about what a prosecuter can convince a jury of gun ignorant people to believe.

 

[MLeake]

HoraceHogsnort...

The world is generally neither a fair nor rational place. As noted, some prosecutors are not friendly toward self-defense use of guns in the first place, and may look for vulnerable angles.

Also as noted, lawyers may have better odds of getting a civil win for negligent homicide/manslaughter than they would for a valid, justifiable, SD homicide.

So.... it has been attempted, and at least in one case (according to the Ayoob article) it seems to have been attempted, successfully.

And once again, legal issues aside - the advantage to a DA system is that it makes accidental pulls of the trigger less likely, when under stress. From a practical standpoint, at typical SD ranges, there is no real advantage to cocking a DA hammer, and there are definite disadvantages (legal exposure; possibility of an actual AD/ND; even the split second of time required to cock the hammer).

If you want to use a DA system, learn how to shoot DA. You might be surprised at the results that can be achieved.

Examples: I just picked up this Smith and Wesson 442 for the first time, yesterday. Added CTC J-frame grips. Test fired it using standard pressure, flash-suppressed Buffalo Bore 158gr LSWCHP at an advertised 850fps.

At five yards, bottom group shot using laser, middle and upper groups shot using fixed sights:

Of course, those were fired fairly slowly, to check point of aim. (I'll adjust the laser next time out; gun hits about 4" above the dot at 5yds, and I'd prefer it to be about 1.5" high and .5" left, to minimize parallax over distance.) For defensive purposes, this big group consists of 15 rounds of the 158gr LSWCHP loads, fired as fast as I could bring sights back on target, again at 5 yds:

Note: reduced scale silhouettes; for perspective, on the aimed fire targets, both the bottom and middle groups would fit inside the trigger guard of the 442.

Note2: I mostly shoot SA autos; DA revolvers are secondary for me. Imagine what you could do if you really practiced....

 

[Don P]

As stated by some to a degree, if the firearm presented did NOT defuse the situation ( showing you mean business) what makes one think cocking the hammer will be the deciding action. Like stated no external hammer or DAO making a AD difficult under stress.

 

[BlueTrain]

If cocking the hammer makes it seem premeditated, does not cocking the hammer make it seem unintentional? Really, I don't think you can win.

The official and semi-official (meaning trainers who want to appear official) have flip-flopped on this point over the years. In the 1950s the practice was to cock the revolver. For that reason there was a fad for very wide hammer spurs and triggers (or trigger shoes) to facilitate this practice. Basically I'd say it was an outgrowth of a lot of time on a target range. In any case, the object was the same, to hit the target. But you will remember that the older Colt revolvers were fairly stiff and even now, everyone wants their revolver to have a trigger job because it helps so much in double action shooting.

Does getting a trigger job result in a "gunfighter's gun?"

At one time the practice was even in official government publications. I have a copy of a British Navy manual that describes the official practice of cocking the hammer in the shooting procedures. One handed, too!

 

[MLeake]

BlueTrain...

... the argument isn't about "pre-meditation." If anything, it's about the opposite.

In order to establish self-defense, one has to acknowledge that yes, one did indeed fire the shot(s).

OTOH, if the prosecutor, or a lawsuit happy attorney, can convince a jury that you fired accidentally, due to having armed your hair-trigger SA mode, then self-defense goes out the window. You shot the decedent, but you didn't mean to. It was an accident... which means negligent homicide or manslaughter to a prosecutor, and a big civil payout to a litigator.

In other words, it complicates your defense in criminal or civil court by opening up the avenue of a possible AD/ND.

As a practical matter, it does complicate the scenario where the BG surrenders, and now one is covering him with a cocked revolver. What is your decocking procedure for that scenario? Do you really want to have a 3-5lb trigger while you watch for any further actions from the BG?

 

[BlueTrain]

I understand what you're saying. However, the whole thing is contrary to the principle of not pointing your gun at something you don't intend to shoot. That's probably something bad we get from television and the old movies. But I was also trying to point out that doing anything at all to your handgun could be considered a Bad Thing and to be avoided.

 

[MLeake]

Unfortunately...

... the rule about not pointing the weapon at something we don't want to shoot hits a very big obstacle, when the need to cover somebody arises. We don't want to shoot them out of hand, but we may want to shoot them if they move.

The 4 Rules of handgun safety are great, but they don't address any number of possible scenarios in a SD event.

 

[Idahoser]

The technique is used in TV and movies to make the scene more dramatic.

that's my take, along with racking the slide on a pistol or shotgun. The first thing you're gonna hear from my gun is BANG. 'Cause if I have to pull it out you already used up your last chance.

 

[MLeake]

One handed, single action British method...

... probably was in vogue at the time when most American shooters practiced shooting one-handed, with the other hand tucked in a front pants pocket. Both methods are still viable, but most trainers don't seem to consider them optimal.

Which takes us back to the advantage to mastering DA fire that does not have to do with theoretical legal complications:

It's faster to pull the trigger through than to cock the hammer before pulling, and it doesn't require a shift in grip position by the shooting hand. Speed and a strong grip, when the threat is close, are definite pluses.

 

[azredhawk44]

How about we all just get some decent training, and continue to train ourselves, in proper gunhandling instead?

You don't touch the trigger until you're 100% confident you want a hole in whatever the sights are covering. Until then, finger alongside the frame.

"Keep yer boogerhook off the bang switch."

Police wouldn't carry Glocks if an SA trigger was unacceptable (I contend that Glocks ARE essentially SA since they are 90% cocked on slide actuation and tend to have a ~5lb total trigger pull), since most legal challenges to shootings are mounted against police rather than plain old folks.

In an emergency we don't rise to our potential... we sink to our level of comfort. Make sure you've trained yourself so that you're ONLY comfortable with proper gun handling, including keeping your finger off the trigger until something NEEDS a hole in it.

In order to establish self-defense, one has to acknowledge that yes, one did indeed fire the shot(s).

OTOH, if the prosecutor, or a lawsuit happy attorney, can convince a jury that you fired accidentally, due to having armed your hair-trigger SA mode, then self-defense goes out the window. You shot the decedent, but you didn't mean to. It was an accident... which means negligent homicide or manslaughter to a prosecutor, and a big civil payout to a litigator.

I'm curious how it's possible to have a prosecutor or plaintiff "take away" your claim of intentionally shooting someone.

Plaintiff: What happened?

Defendant: He raised a crowbar and took a step towards me from 15 feet away, so I shot until he stopped coming towards me.

P: Nah-ah... you accidentally shot him!

D: No I didn't. He threatened me in a very meaningful and tangible way, and I deliberately added lead to his torso to increase his weight, until gravity put him on the ground. Took a few hits. I lost count at the time. Coroner tells me it was 8 before he gave up. Then I stopped. On purpose.

P: Nah-ah. It was an accident.

D: Whatever. Retard.

 

[HarrySchell]

Not much to add but if you are using a SA semiauto, you may not want to carry it with the hammer down on a loaded chamber. Older 1911's and clones can fire if dropped properly in that condition. They should be carried with an empty chamber, hammer down (the Israeli custom) or cocked and locked.

And I second the advice against looking at a weapon as a deterrent. In all likelihood, this is not the first time the BG has broken into a place or confronted someone with the intent of doing illegal things. He has experience you don't have. Those are the rules you need to work with, even if it is YOUR first time being confronted by someone who intends illegal things.

Making life safer for criminals produces more criminality. If the BG you face really doesn't want to risk stopping a bullet, confident presentation of a ready-to-use firearm is likely what he is looking for in his decision to flee instead of fight. Any hesitation by you decreases the chance he will act on his flee emotions. That is not good for anyone.

IMO, you want the BG to look into the abyss, and really not want to go there. Those who decide to fight, who don't care, require immediate, direct dissuasion by gunfire.

 

[MLeake]

azredhawk44...

... if I am forced to draw a weapon on somebody, because he is behaving in a threatening manner that would justify deadly force, then my finger will be on the trigger.

If I were moving through a hallway or trying some clearing maneuver, then I might have a low or high ready, with finger on the frame.

If I had drawn preemptively, because something went bang in the night, I would keep finger on the frame.

But if the threat is there, and identified, my finger's on the trigger. Don't know how fast you are go get your finger into the guard, to pad or joint on trigger, but I'll bet it takes more time than if the finger is already there.

Keeping the finger off the trigger while moving makes sense; keeping the finger off the trigger at the range or while hunting makes sense; keeping the finger off the trigger while face to face with the threat makes no sense to me whatsoever.

As far as training goes, more is always better. But again, as far as training goes, name a tactical / defense instructor who trains shooters to cock a DA revolver in a confrontation. There may be some out there, but I don't know of any.

 

[MLeake]

as far as lawsuits and charges go...

... I find it kind of silly, too. Yet I read of just these sorts of things happening, covered in articles by Massad Ayoob.

 

[BlueTrain]

How would they know for sure if your revolver was cocked in the first place? I probably wouldn't remember and the bad guy probably wouldn't know unless you purposely showed him, which has been suggested. It certainly shows what all you are getting into with a shooting.

Now, concerning the cocking thing and so on, the techniques are still being debated today. After all, it was only relatively recently that shooting with two hands (on a one-handed gun) was considered the thing to do. Before that, the argument was between some form of point shooting and what amounted to target style aimed fire but both pretty much one handed. I imagine the only reason that two handed combat shooting took off was the use of very small targets and a scoring system that favored small groups on the target. Proponents of the older (not much older, however) came from a completely different environment and with entirely different real world experiences. None of the above seemed to be especially concerned with a home defense scenario beyond mentioning that a shotgun was very handy.

Apparently in the hypothetical situation, you can't win and I can easily believe it would be an uphill fight. All the same, I still wonder how often it makes a difference. Among other things, it would be a detail that you would never read about in the paper.

 

[MLeake]

Location, location, location....

.... I suspect that also has a lot to do with it.

I'm not too worried about overzealous prosecutors in my neck of the woods. In Atlanta, that might be a bit different, but up here in the foothills, they look a lot more favorably on CCW and SD/HD.

Still haven't seen a good argument in favor of cocking a DA, though. Potential downsides, both theoretical (legal issues) and practical (time to cock, shifting of grip) have been brought up, but the argument against them has been that, well, legally it shouldn't matter... What is the Pro argument for cocking the DA?

And, like I said, I tend to favor SA autos. I might have a K-frame as a nightstand gun, but normally it's a 1911. I'm all for training, but for me that includes training to shoot a DA as a DA.

 

[Nnobby45]

All day, actually. Owning a DA gun is a commitment to shooting it as designed. It's not really that steep of a learning curve if done right.

Ah, true. But a curve that many have not yet learned to negotiate.

And, unfortunately, they seem to be the ones who dominate "Should I cock my revolver because I don't know how to pull the trigger properly and hit the target" type discussions.