Why not single-action only?

[Battler]

Is a single-action trigger not the easiest to shoot? And is not the first shot the most important?

The 1911's single-action trigger is straight back - no compromises coming from tilting around a pivot, nor from having to perform a dual role well (double-action shot through one finger positioning, single-action on a cocked trigger). A single-action only trigger does not have to be compromised.

Safety? Are the safety problems real or perceived? Leaving out operator idiocy, is single-action, particularly with some active safeties just as safe? There is the issue of there being enough energy in the hammer spring to fire the gun (which DA does not have until you apply it) - but could a safety that refused to let the firing pin move (unless deliberately fired) remove this fear of catastrophic mechanical failure? (i.e. it would require a catastrophic mechanical failure for the 1911's hammer to fall even if the sear disintegrated - and it's doubtful that it would fall hard enough to fire).


Am I hyping the 1911 here? I'm hyping the aspects I like that I don't think a shooter should have to do without (potential for incredible uncompromised single-action pull). No, I'm wishing that one of the new gun makers would build some models PURE SA-only, without compromising the design for a DA mode (e.g. H&K).

There was the Colt Mustang but looks like that's going away - and it is too low caliber for what I'm talking about. I look at these skinny little Kahrs (e.g. 9mm) - and wish for something like that in single-action only - not necessarily exposed hammer, they could use some sort of cockable striker that is perpetually cocked.

Dangerous? A firing pin stop (actuated by a good safety lever, not trigger!) could ban even the most improbable misfire. As for "people would shoot themselves accidentally" - people survive the 1911.


Why do I have to go to a 100 year old design for single-action, improvements in materials would allow modern designs, taking advantage of them, to obliterate the 1911 in every way. And we could bypass the lousy long DA triggers on these little guns (hard to use due to small grips) in the process!


Battler.

 

[VictorLouis]

Some contend that such a piece already exists in the Glock, albeit w/o an external safety. The striker is nearly completely cocked as the slide locks into battery. The trigger bar only withdraws it slightly before releasing it. The Kahr works essentially the same way, though the trigger pivots further.

The CZ-75 is a lot more 'modern' than the 1911, though it doesn't seem to exactly meet your criteria. It's designed for either DA/SA or SA carry. Ditto the Taurus, USP and others. What about the P7? It's trigger is only SA? One must squeeze it prior to being able to fire, which is an effort akin to switching off a manual-safety.

 

[Battler]

No, the Glock (although a GREAT gun, the criteria is specific) is nowhere NEAR the spec due to its trigger - no matter how much it's ligtened it has real movement, as it's not fully cocked/not fully single-action. It was not just the transition I was looking to avoid; but having a perfect single-action break.

I know little of the HK P7 (does spotting a copy carrying one once count?), although it certainly looks closer to the spec I mentioned in that at least it was designed to be fired sa-only (I assume).

But again, why the squeeze cocking? It takes further a gripe that I have about the 1911 - nonuniform grip (backstrap safety) - This HK must take SOME effort to squeeze-cock, and it clearly moves, which means the grip will change after draw, and you have to expend some physical effort before firing.


However, this strays from what I was talking about as it pays homage to the belief that I originally questioned: "It is unsafe/scary to carry a cocked gun", as it's not REALLY carried cocked; but rather facilitates cocking (since I've never seen one I don't know if it makes this easy enough to be a non-issue) and fires single-action only.


I will CERTAINLY keep the P7 in mind if/when looking for a small handy 9mm (need to try one out somehow though).


However, I guess I'll restate my original question:

Why not a single-action-only gun that is perpetually cocked?

 

[VictorLouis]

Well, a thread search here for the P7 can tell you more than I ever would be able to. If you are really intrigued, you can go to http://www.parkcitiestactical.com They have a dedicated P7 user forum there. The effort needed to squeeze the frontstrap is not needed to 'maintain' it in a cocked mode. It's also accomplished as you grip, so it doesn't actually alter it.

I think you are saying that Condition One pistols are currently politically incorrect. Amongst LE administrators, and 'non-gun' people, that would be correct. I don't see that pendulum swinging the other way anytime soon.

 

[Christopher II]

Battler, I'm with you big time on this one. I refuse to use a pistol that isn't single-action. Needless to say, that takes a big bite out of my pistol selection. I'm pretty much limited to 1911s, Browning Hi-Powers, CZ-75s, and Heckler & Koch P7s and USPs.

Of all these, my favorite is the CZ-75. Adding the DA function to the trigger doesn't seem to affect the SA trigger action very much. But I still prefer the SA-only models.

Later,
Chris

 

[johnwill]

I don't know that there is an answer to your question. I have a Colt Mustang Pocketlite which is still my favorite pocket gun, and it's of course an SA pistol. My favorite range guns are still my 1911's...

 

[Battler]

Yeah - and even DA/SA pistols that are okay in SA (and can be cocked and locked) - why is the DA there (along with added parts thereof) at all?

Without (real or imagined) fear of cocked and locked, the double-action trigger pull becomes completely redunant.

(I guess there's double-strike; but many DA guns can't double-strike anyway, and if my gun fails to fire under stress I'm going to do tap-rack-bang no matter WHAT it is).

Battler.

 

[Wild Romanian]

I have tried the double action only pistols. The ones small enough to conceal. I tried a very expensive .32 Seecamp and though it was utterly reliable and had the best double action pull i have experienced on a small pocket pistol I could not shoot it well enough to have any confidence in it. I have tried the glock l9 and it is just to big for concealment in hot weather. I am currently evaluating a star starfire 9mm. The pistol is single action, it is very concealable, very reliable, and very accurate, and totally controlable in rapid fire due to its weight. It has decent sights and a beveled mag well and has an ambidextrious saftey. It shoots the 9mm instead of the smaller .32 acp or .380acp. The only drawback for some people will be its weight. Despite its small size it weighs 30 ounces. This contributes to its controlability but may not be everyones cup of tea because of its weight. No weapon is perfect but these little beauties only sell for between $250 to $300. It is a shame that Star is no longer in buisness. W.R.

 

[10CFR]

Battler,

The single actions are, as you say, the easiest to shoot accurately.

Regarding your question, "Safety? Are the safety problems real or perceived? Leaving out operator idiocy, is single-action, particularly with some active safeties just as safe?" As a former firearms instructor, I never leave out operator idiocy. The bottom line is, that, based on my training and experience, I feel the single action semi-automatics are less forgiving of potential operator error, resulting in an increased chance of AD/ND. They are also more likely to discharge if jostled around getting in and out of a vehicle or continually rubbed against clothing or bumped while concealed because the manual safeties on some guns can be inadvertently pushed off safe (this is not an issue with DAO's for example). If this were not the case, the SA's would be much more popular with police departments. Instead, they use DAO's, safe actions, and still some SA/DA's because they feel the likelihood of AD/ND is reduced, thereby reducing their liability.

With all that in mind, I do not normally recommend SA's for beginners because beginners are still in the process of assimilating a lot of skills, and starting with a DA/SA revolver (and shooting it in DA mode) or a DAO or safe action semi-auto pistol cuts down on their chances of having a ND or AD, in my opinion. Learning to shoot accurately with DA mode also builds skill. I feel the same way about SA/DA pistols and beginners as I do about SA's. In fact, SA/DA's have yet one more factor for the newbie to learn than just a plain SA (the decocker), so they might be even more unforgiving.

All that being said, if someone has their heart set on a SA auto for their first gun, or a DA/SA, they CAN learn to use it safely (the military trained beginners on the 1911 for years, with acceptable results). The trainee just need to realize that it is a slightly different piece of equipment which requires, IMO, more discipline in some aspects of handling.

-10CFR

 

[Battler]

10CFR: I hear you.

Beginners? I see your point, someone can be a beginner in shooting, or a beginner in carrying - perhaps everyday handling skill can be unrelated to general shooting skill!


I've done the SA only carry for quite some time, and am comfortable with it. I CERTAINLY don't claim expertise or that I know everything - and I have no less reason for complacency/carelessness than I did on day one. But as for safety being jostled off, I guess the VM2 holster that can't even FIT an off-safety 1911 (has a nice groove for the safety) adds to my peace of mind (only 1911 carry holster I've ever used) - it can't be rubbed off.


I guess beginner choice is a kind of paradox - the easiest to shoot is the least forgiving of poor handling.

However, that aside. The pistol, looking at the pistol as a device for aimed fire, double-action IS an unnecessary burden, even in guns like USPs in configurations that can be carried cocked and locked (as, even with DA disabled, the trigger/core design/parts count is STILL compromised for DA). Whether training, cleaning, storing, carrying, stripping the 1911, the hammer is always back (careful dry-firing checked weapon against a verified backstop excepted).

Back to the safety, how to get rid of the double-action?

How about a safety, that makes it impossible for the gun to go off, and a holster that is integrated with the gun's safety systems somehow (e.g. lever block from a VM2, or TRUE trigger surround on Glock Kydex holsters, etc.) The core of this could be made of kydex etc. perhaps and then sold to holster manufacturers.


Am I mistaken in believing that a holster/SA gun combo can make it impossible for a gun to go off until handled with gross negligence? (At least, proof against anything short of gun/holster being fired out of a cannon/thrown in a trash compactor).

The operator can then assume the responsibility of safety after the draw - which CAN be learned and relied upon by the user.


Then the user need not be hampered by double-action.

Maybe SA-only is not for everyone. But I'll restate that I'd love if these companies came up with ground-up SA-only designs on par with the Kahrs etc - for those who can handle SA's shortcomings.


Battler.

 

[PreserveFreedom]

There are a few reasons that I can see most pistol manufacturers going with DA.

1) Many people are not comfortable with carrying C&L

2) Many people are not comfortable with other people carrying C&L

3) To the people that do not understand the design, a C&L pistol on a cop makes him look like he is a killing machine

4) An uncocked hammer offers more comfortable concealment options in most cases

I am not flaming SA. I shoot both SA and DA. I shoot wheelguns and autos. I shoot Glock and 1911 and everything inbetween. Just calling it how I see it.

 

[jar]

I happen to love my HPs and have no problem with cocked and locked. But I also love my Sigs. True, the first shot requires a long DA trigger pull but it's smooth and resonably light. I feel that it gives me that extra "Do I shoot?" time before I commit.

When It comes down to picking something up to carry though, I usually end up with one of the DA/SAs.

 

[MRW]

Battler,

It's nice to see someone thinking creatively about how existing designs might be improved rather than merely arguing about the respective merits of current pistols.

After all, there's nothing intrinsic in SA that requires an external hammer, and that hammer, rather than the SA design itself, is what seems to turn people off to single action.

It would be great to see a next generation SA 1911, striker-fired, with some sort of innovative cocking safety device.

 

[Hard Ball]

You have to take the time to learn the system, but once you have a 1911A1 or A Browning Highpower wil do anything you can do with an automatic pistol and do it extremely well.

 

[Watch-Six]

So if we take a basic 1911 design, but hide the hammer like on a Ruger 22 auto pistol and put it on a polymer frame does this meet your idea as a better more modern pistol? Modern components and no "scarey" visible cocked hammer. Sounds more and more like a Glock with a real single action trigger and a external safety. Better? If you say so. We just keep reinventing the "wheel" (1911) don't we.

 

[MRW]

Watch-Six:

I presume you're talking to me? I kinda like 1911's as they are, and the design is both time proven and functional; but I've never heard anyone argue that the external hammers on 1911's was one of the reasons these pistols work so well. A striker-fired 1911 would potentially offer both functional and marketing benefits. As to a polymer frame, well, that seems a bit too heretical.

 

[ddt4free]

There is a CZ75B SA now!

I think the DA has one big benefit that is rarely applicable be it revolver or Auto. That is, when hell breaks loose you can stick a DA in the hand of your grandmother who has never shot a gun in her life and say "point this end toward enemy" and pull the trigger till it stops going bang".

As for a striker fired 1911, well, I like exposed hammers. I just feel comfortable seeing it. You also eliminate the half cock safety with a striker design. That is not a major issue.

I will probably always be a cocked and locked fella. I don't like decockers. If there ever was a waste of technology that is it. I've owned em but not anymore and probably not ever again.

DAO is for the birds man. Whomever came up with that crap really must not want to enjoy any real marksmanship. I know I'll hear from those that say you can do just as good with dao but I ain't seen it yet. -ddt

 

[Battler]

amprecon :
Sorry; but empty chamber obliterates the ability of the pistol to be deployed quickly - that first (good) shot is the most important and when you need it a tenth of a second is a long time (let alone that which it would take to rack slide - assuming two hands free). A 1911 can be carried condition 1 in a VM2/other good holster in complete safety, and deployed pretty quickly.


Hard Ball:
I hear you; but where I was going was that I hoped the design advantages could be shifted to other manufacturers as well, e.g. get a Karh-type gun (smaller than hipower) designed fully around single-action) - and more diverse range of weights/calibers/ergonomics.


(IMHO) Striker design could do the job just as well as hammers, design/space in pistol/ergonomics that result permitting. My 1911's hammer is always back, whether stripping, shooting, carrying or storing - visible hammer has pros/cons; but it would, in practice, be no different to an always-cocked striker.

Is there anything about a striker design that prevents the equivalent of half-cock? If glock-type (striker is hammer too) forget half-cock, FP safety is an infallible half-cock!


As for reinventing the wheel, there are many DA/SA guns, yet some work better for some people than others, some are big, small, etc. . . . The 1911 is good; but I'd prefer its advantages in a more diverse range of guns to choose from (although with current choices I take the 1911).