To cock or not?

[05Passat]

I'm not new to firearms but I am new to carrying. Its perfectly legal for me to carry concealed on my own premises but I went the extra mile and got my license to carry concealed. I'm a home owner and a business owner. I feel justified in owning a firearm to defend my life, my family and employees lives, and my property. I'm currently deciding what I'm going to carry on a daily basis.

My question is this: a friend claims that in a justified self defense shooting, the investigating DA can use whether you cocked the hammer or not against you. The DA can claim premeditation if you cocked the hammer first. Obviously that can change the circumstances of the shooting from justified self defense to murder. Therefore my friend strongly recommends against carrying anything with an external hammer.

My position is that showing the pistol is the warning, cocking the hammer is the very stern warning and the rest is what it is whether the hammer is internal or not. To me the decision to cock the hammer in front of the would-be-assailant gives him another opportunity to walk away before something bad happens. It lets him know I'm really serious about this and yes this could happen.

I like the look and feel of an external hammer and would prefer to carry one. Anyone have any advice? Any words of wisdom? Something your crazy Uncle Rob told you? Preferably something your cousin who is a DA told you. I don't need any problems and I prefer to stay out of trouble.

[Wag]

There is a lot of conflicting "information" about such things out there so I won't comment one way or the other about what the DA is going to say in the aftermath of a shoot.

What I will say, though, and this is just my opinion, is that the only warning you should give is a verbal shout, "STOP! I HAVE A GUN! DON'T MAKE ME SHOOT YOU!" It's a phrase which has allegedly been proven in court because it warns the guy about your gun and puts the responsibility for the shoot on him.

Obviously, ever situation is going to be different, however, showing a gun or cocking it is not going to be an effective warning, in my never-to-be-humble opinion.

--Wag--

[05Passat]

I should also mention that I'm fully aware of the "I have a gun, don't make me shoot you" line. I guess I should have mentioned that the complete order would start with the verbal warning.

To my mind cocking the hammer just shows the assailant how serious I am. I've heard people say "I have a gun" before and I know damn well they don't.

What I'm really talking about I guess is an escalation of force or an escalation of warnings as it were. I think its appropriate to give that one last chance to walk. There's nothing like the sound and sight of a hammer cock to really hit home that this is about to get serious. Its like the sound of a pump shotgun action or a rattlesnake's rattle. Its unmistakable that this just escalated from what might have been just jaw-jacking up to the realm of what could be a very serious matter.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

My question is this: a friend claims that in a justified self defense shooting, the investigating DA can use whether you cocked the hammer or not against you. The DA can claim premeditation if you cocked the hammer first. Obviously that can change the circumstances of the shooting from justified self defense to murder. Therefore my friend strongly recommends against carrying anything with an external hammer.

Normally, in order to prove homicide, the prosecutor has to prove that you were there, that you intentionally shot the person, etc. In a self-defense case, the prosecutor does not have to prove these elements because you admit to them in order to claim self-defense.

So obviously, there is going to be a certain degree of premeditation in shooting someone if you claim self-defense. In addition, single-action firearms can only be fired if the external hammer is cocked. So, I am having a hard time seeing how just cocking the firearm would show premeditation to commit murder absent other incriminating facts.

I would recommend giving Cornered Cat's Legal Section (http://corneredcat.com/TOC.aspx#Legal) a read. It covers many common aspects of self defense use of firearms and the legal system and it sounds like you and your friend would benefit from it.

My position is that showing the pistol is the warning, cocking the hammer is the very stern warning and the rest is what it is whether the hammer is internal or not. To me the decision to cock the hammer in front of the would-be-assailant gives him another opportunity to walk away before something bad happens. It lets him know I'm really serious about this and yes this could happen.

Putting aside the legal issues, as a warning, it may not be very effective. Many self-defense shootings take place in low-light, it is quite possible the person you are trying to intimidate will not see or hear your "warning" especially given the effects of fight-or-flight stress on the human body (tunnel vision and auditory exclusion are two common side effects).

Second, I'd give some thought to the type of firearm you are using and training. For a lot of people, trying to thumb cock a hammer on a modern pistol under stress is probably not a good idea.

[MLeake]

.... recommended against cocking a DA weapon in one of his articles.

He cited a case where a guy shot an assailant, after cocking the gun. The prosecutor basically claimed the BG had stopped the threatening behavior, but the shooter flinched and ended up firing the gun because it was cocked, and had a light, short trigger.

IE, instead of justifiable homicide, self-defense, it was either manslaughter or negligent homicide, due to mishandling a cocked revolver.

Legal issues aside, cocking a DA weapon does make it easier to flinch-fire the weapon, and undoes the safety advantage of the DA weapon, IE the longer, heavier pull.

[johnwilliamson062]

I believe in some states it is not legal to draw your gun unless your life is under imminent threat and that is where this argument comes from.
If you draw your gun and take the time to cock it, how imminent was that threat?

Further, cocking a DA revolver offers very little advantage in most self-defense shoots. I only cock the hammer on a DA to take a longer more precise shot. This is rarely the case in a SD shoot, although there certainly have been cases where people would be smart to take that aimed shot and justified in relatively long pistol shots.
If you are taking a longer, slower shot it isn't going to benefit you.

Even a well worn in Ruger has a pretty short light SA trigger, so I can see the flinch-fire potential.

If you are firing SA and your first shot is slow fire, how many ungrateful witnesses do you expect to be around? Trick question, there is always a camera.

[AH.74]

In truth, and this is my experience only, it's unlikely that if you find yourself in the given situation you will be thinking about cocking your hammer. Having the gun at the ready and being prepared to use it, as well as trying to deal with the situation on the whole, will be occupying all your thoughts.

It is probably best to not think about that as being part of your readiness in general, if that makes sense.

That being said- regarding your question about what to carry- if that is the type of weapon you like and prefer and it works for you, that is what you should carry.

[05Passat]

I fear I may have mislead my own thread. For that I apologize.

The real question here is not really whether cocking the pistol is a big deal or not. The real question is whether my buddy is right or not. His claim is that you should avoid the situation entirely by carrying a hammer-less pistol. That takes the entire cocking or not situation completely out of play. Is he right or is the playing field between hammer-less and hammer pistols closer than he claims? Is there a legality issue that could be averted simply by carrying a hammer-less pistol?

[AH.74]

If that were the case, guns with hammers would be a much larger issue.

Carry what works best for you.

[MLeake]

... and what you shoot best.

Hammerless advantages usually fall more on the "snag-free" side. IE, easier to draw without fouling on clothing, etc. Also, one less exposed part that can get gummed up with crud from the environment.

I have DA weapons, but I also have SA weapons which I use from cocked and locked. I don't worry about the legal implications of either mode, but I am very much aware of the lighter, shorter pulls on my SA weapons.

Advantage - accuracy and speed potential; disadvantage - easier to fire when one might not have really meant to fire. Mitigation - training and practice.

For the John Q Public type shooter, who probably doesn't practice all that often nor take many training courses, a DA or DAO gun is probably the safer bet, but YMMV.

[Musketeer]

Before double action revolvers died out in LEO use it had become a very common precaution to render the officer carried weapon DA only. It was not to counter the idea of "premeditation" but to avoid negligent discharges. Once cocked a revolver has no trigger travel and minimal force required to discharge. There were many instances of negligent discharge due to fingers on the trigger and the pull reduced to the minimum due to being cocked. I had a relation on a major city PD put a bullet crease in her own shoe while holding her DA revolver between her legs as a rookie in the car as they chased someone down an alley. It was 30 years ago and yes stupidity and poor training contributed but couple that with nerves and a cocked hammer and she was lucky just her she was shot.

If you shoot someone intentionally in a justifiable self defense situation you shouldn't have a problem but if your weapon was cocked they may try to make the case that you shot accidentally and therefore may be eligible for a charge of homicide.

[Al Norris]

I can't quite decide if this thread belongs in Legal or Tactical... It has equal elements of both.

That said, I'll leave it here and see how it goes.

I think a couple of considerations are necessary, in order to state what might or might not be "more" legal than not.

Regardless of your State laws, do you live in an area that has an anti-gun Sheriff/Police Chief/Prosecutor? If so, then more caution on what you choose to carry and not just how you carry is warranted.

If not, then are you completely comfortable carrying your particular firearm cocked or not?

Do you train (and practice what you have trained) how you carry?

[mete]

NEVER cock the gun to show the BG you're serious !! If you just want to scare him you shouldn't have a gun in the first place.Don't engage in conversation .If your life or safety is in immediate danger don't talk just shoot. Don't try to be nice to someone who's there to harm you.
After all he may be mentally ill, sociopath, psychopath, high on drugs or alcohol , they're all unpredictable and dangerous.

[Nnobby45]

I like the look and feel of an external hammer and would prefer to carry one. Anyone have any advice?

Advice? Sure. Quit talking about the amateurish, dangerous, improper habit associated with cocking your double action revolver. Learn to use it properly.

Not talking about those semi-autos of SA design that are supposed to be carried that way.

The biggest problem you might have in the court system is being accused of cocking your revolver and thereby shooting Bubba accidentally as a result of the hair trigger you created.

If you shot Bubba accidentally, or his lawyer convinces the jury you did, you're home owners' insurance company is on the hook for the "accident". Shooting Bubba on purpose because you were defending yourself isn't covered. What do you think the civil suit is about?

Enough people get accused who didn't cock their revolver in a shooting, without compounding the problem by actually cocking it. Some Police Depts. removed the hammers from their DA revolvers for that reason.

Oh, one more thing. Accidentally shooting someone is never justified. In criminal court, it's called manslaughter.

Just my thoughts on the matter.:cool:

[44 AMP]

Your friend's opinion is correct, for him. For the rest of the world, it's just an opinion.

It has been shown that while in a stand off situation, cocking the gun might just convince the bad guy to back down. BUT, it is also shown that cocked DA gun can get you in trouble in court. And that is a dilemma, now isn't it?

Every situation is different, but consider that if you have a single action revolver, or auto, the issue never seems to come up afterwards.

To me, the situation is simple. If you have a DA gun when the need arises, shoot it DA. IF its not DA, then you need to cock it in order to shoot anyway. If you think you might be tempted to cock your DA gun, then its possible you might be better off with a gun without a hammer. If not, then to me, its a non issue.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Unless someone demonstrates that the sound effect is more efficacious as a warning then pointed the gun and strong verbalization, I agree that it is a nonissue at best and worst an accident waiting to happen.

Carry a Glock (ducking for cover :D).

[Jimmy10mm]

I've been in a situation where, confronting a burglar, I assumed that brandishing a S&W model 66 2&1/2" bbl revolver would intimidate him. I was sadly mistaken since they made more than one gun and he had one too. :eek:

The old admonition to only present a gun when you are absolutely prepared to use it, without reservation, is my policy now. In my case he and I were both fortunate that we were not on target that day. :o

One lesson I learned from that experience is that, for me anyway, pointing a loaded firearm at an individual had me doing a lot of thinking about the possible ramifications of using it. I doubt if he had any of the same constraints.

On the other topic, I have practiced double action shooting with revolver and semi to the point where I am very proficient and prefer that for any close and personal confrontation to avoid the possibility of hearing a loud noise that wasn't intended. :)

[Tom Servo]

My position is that showing the pistol is the warning, cocking the hammer is the very stern warning and the rest is what it is whether the hammer is internal or not. To me the decision to cock the hammer in front of the would-be-assailant gives him another opportunity to walk away before something bad happens.
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.

Then there's the question of fine-motor skills under stress. Again, the situation will present itself with little or no warning, and your body will be quite keyed-up. Thumbing back a hammer with sweaty, shaky hands under stress is a recipe for a negligent discharge. Same goes for racking a slide.

If you have to present the weapon at all, assume you're going to have to fire it. Most jurisdictions I know of have laws against brandishing, so it's best not to get into the practice of doing so.

The gun should be thought of as a weapon, not a deterrent. If you do have to draw, and if it happens to scare off an aggressor, great. However, I wouldn't want to get into the habit of pausing to see if it works. That split-second could be very important.

[Ronbert]

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

If I were on the jury hearing your self-defense case and heard that you'd cocked the hammer as a warning I'd downgrade my thoughts about your good sense because you were trained by Hollywood and not somebody sensible.

[Edward429451]

Your buddy makes a good point but is not entirely correct. You do not have to go hammerless but on the other hand I would never cock my defensive revolver on a perp for the potential he stated.

Let your demeanor show the perp you're 'cocked' and ready to shoot him.

[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.:D Or at Gunsite. :eek: Or.....well, any good course.:cool:

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.:cool:

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.:D

[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. :mad:

[MLeake]

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:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_IrB1SNGeqKE/TOPB4aa4LII/AAAAAAAAADg/USPmyqnHqbs/s512/15%20aimed%20DA%20shots%20S%26W%20442.JPG

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:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_IrB1SNGeqKE/TOPB4eGNA1I/AAAAAAAAADk/G3hDhZeUT90/s512/15%20rapid%20fire%20DA%20shots%20S%26W%20442.JPG

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]

... 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]

... 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]

... 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.:rolleyes:

[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]

... 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]

... 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]

.... 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.:D

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.:cool:

[Erik]

A good shoot is a good shoot,and a bad a bad. And whether the hammer was cocked or not, in and of itself, has nothing to do with making the determination.

Note: The example given was of the DA claiming the shoot was bad by painting the discharge as negligent. That's not a hammer up or down based argument, but one of accidental/negligent discharge.

[Musketeer]

Its all about what a prosecuter can convince a jury of gun ignorant people to believe.

Exactly, so do not needlessly provide him with ammunition.

[BlueTrain]

Well, a double-action revolver (and some automatics) are designed to be fired in two different ways. That's why they're called double action. Then there's "double action only," which is a bad name for how it works.

[Jim Watson]

I believe it was M. Ayoob who once described the city PD that had its officers' revolvers set up DAO (OK, Jeff Cooper disciples, "trigger cocking") because the mere display of a gun had quit intimidating suspects. So the troops had gone to cocking their guns to show their determination, with the attendant risk of AD. It may have been pre-autoloader Los Angeles or other large jurisdiction.

I know of a couple of cases arising from a different direction, the practice of arming poor dumb weak females with revolvers because they are not strong enough to rack a slide or smart enough to learn what all the buttons and levers do. Well, these two women were not so dumb that they could not figure out that pulling a 12 lb DA with one finger was not much easier than hauling back on a 16 lb recoil spring with both hands. They soon realized that cocking the hammer for a 3 lb trigger pull made it much easier to get hits. That worked fine on the range but when it came time to check out a bump in the night, they habitually eared back their hammers first and then went through the house. One made it all the way through and slipped when decocking; leaving a hole in the floor. One started at a shadow and wounded a water bed, fortunately missing the membrane and just chewing up the rail padding. No doubt if they had taken the Thunder Ranch SAA class, they would have had better technique.

[OldMarksman]

How would they know for sure if your revolver was cocked in the first place? That misses the point.

The question will be, was the shooting justified, or not?

Should one happen to fire when it was not justifiable, the result will be catastrophic.

One way that that might happen is an inintentional pull of the trigger.

Here's a good read on the subject, with a couple of relevant excerpts.

...people who carry a revolver for self defense should practice almost exclusively for double action fire, ... there are almost no situations in which single action fire is appropriate in self defense. ... A cocked revolver is dangerous in the adrenaline dump of a lethal force encounter. ... Its too easy to fire when you don't mean to.

In a nervous situation, a cocked revolver is dangerous. When you're really nervous or scared, the heavy double action trigger pull is an asset rather than a liability. I can hear you say, Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire, and that's true, but ... people don't always do what they're supposed to do in the stress of a deadly encounter.


http://www.snubnose.info/docs/daovdasa.htm

[Don P]

Then there's "double action only," which is a bad name for how it works.

Why is this a bad name for a handgun that does 2 functions when the trigger is pulled? Guess a single action is a bad term also cause you gotta cock da hammer and den pull da trigger??? Dat waz 2 actions(double):confused:

[BlueTrain]

No, a double-action only revolver (or automatic) cannot be cocked, even if there is an exposed hammer. The term is contradictory in that it means "it has two actions but only one way works." But I assume everyone knows the difference. Pulling the trigger on any revolver fires the gun, no matter what else it does.

Do you dig what I mean?

[Aguila Blanca]

I was trying to think of an erudite way to express just how silly I think the premise in the original post is, but I can't.

I'll let the fact that I carry a single-action 1911 cocked & locked speak for itself.

[silvercorvette]

I was trying to think of an erudite way to express just how silly I think the premise in the original post is, but I can't.

I'll let the fact that I carry a single-action 1911 cocked & locked speak for itself.

The original post is one big pile of ain't right

I haven't read the replies yet so I don't know if I am repeating what was said already. I will read the entire thread when I finish posting.

My question is this: a friend claims that in a justified self defense shooting, the investigating DA can use whether you cocked the hammer or not against you

I also carry a 1911 which is cocked and locked and is designed to be carried that way, but assuming you carry a revolver which is not designed to be carried cocked how would anyone known EDIT I strongly advise you to never carry a cocked revolver, and to use the revolver double action. Cocking a revolver is for shooting log distance accurately, if you are far away there usually is an opportunity to retreat

Therefore my friend strongly recommends against carrying anything with an external hammer.
pure nonsense police have carried revolvers with exposed hammers for more years than most of us have been alive. I carried one (S&W .38 revolver) for 20 years when I was a cop.

My position is that showing the pistol is the warning, cocking the hammer is the very stern warning and the rest is what it is whether the hammer is internal or not

This is so wrong for so many reason. What happens if your thumb slips on the hammer as you cock it and the gun fires how do you explain the dead body. which leads to reason #2 You NEVER EVER pull out a gun unless you intend on shooting someone. Pulling out a gun to scare someone is called brandishing and it is against the law.

Which leads to #3 one of the rules in fire arms is to never point one at something you don't intend to destroy.

What happens if you take out the gun and you are not legally justified to use DPF (deadly physical force), your bluff fails and you can't legally shoot so now you have a choice of standing there looking silly with a gun in your hand you can't use. Or you get scared and fire the gun and shoot a person that you legally have no right to shoot.

As far as I am concerned if the gun comes out of the holster I am going to shoot immediately. I will not be engaging an any discussion

To me the decision to cock the hammer in front of the would-be-assailant gives him another opportunity to walk away before something bad happens. It lets him know I'm really serious about this and yes this could happen.

The smart thing is for you to walk away if there is trouble about to start, having a gun is a big responsibility but you only use it as your last option. Unless they are in your house walk away if you can unless doing so will mean you or a loved one will loose their life

I should also mention that I'm fully aware of the "I have a gun, don't make me shoot you" line. I guess I should have mentioned that the complete order would start with the verbal warning.
I would not tell anyone I have a gun, I would try to avoid the situation before it got to that point. When you carry you should have a high level of situational awareness and spot trouble before it starts so you can withdraw before the gun becomes necessary.

If you carry a gun you should be prepared to use the gun without a debate if you start a conversation and hesitate the attacker will see it as weakness and probably take away your gun.

make sure you know the law and justification for use of DPF

If you are unprepared to use DPF and pull out a gun thinking it will scare someone away then I suggest you get a gun with a trench sigh like the Colt "New Agent" so it won't hurt as much when it gets shoved up your butt when your bluff fails.

[silvercorvette]

It pretty much echoes what I was getting at, but he/she posted first

NEVER cock the gun to show the BG you're serious !! If you just want to scare him you shouldn't have a gun in the first place.Don't engage in conversation .If your life or safety is in immediate danger don't talk just shoot. Don't try to be nice to someone who's there to harm you.
After all he may be mentally ill, sociopath, psychopath, high on drugs or alcohol , they're all unpredictable and dangerous.

[silvercorvette]

After I posted last night I came up with a question this morning.

If you have taken you gun out of it's holster why are you talking and not shooting?

The second that gun come out of the holster you should be aiming and shooting. it.

Why are you pointing a loaded gun at someone you don't intend to shoot?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

OK, folks we have done the discussion about whether you must shoot if you draw into the dirt.

Many folks draw the gun and challenge. The draw means that you are in a situation where using legal force is justified. It doesn't mean in a given situation that you have to shoot.

Said many times. Thus, we don't need to go down that trail again.

I also don't see anything more to be said on the pros and cons of cocking the gun. Cogent points were made.

Closed.