Handgun status when need for defensive shot might be imminent

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

You’re welcome to keep arguing with me that people should be allowed to question others while saying I shouldn’t question FireForged. I just don’t know where it gets us.

LOL, not trying to argue with you at all good sir. Just wanted URIT to explain his position as to why DA/SA revolvers should never be fired in SA mode. Why not make the revolvers DA only in that case. Also, would the same apply to semi-auto pistols that had DA/SA modes like the Sig Sauer P228/229 or Beretta 92/96. There are plenty of others, but the two guns I just mentioned have decockers. If SA is so inherently dangerous in a high-stress self-defense situation, why have the SA function on those guns. Why do people carry 1911's and Browning Hi-Powers among other single-action guns?

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by stephen426

LOL, not trying to argue with you at all good sir. Just wanted URIT to explain his position as to why DA/SA revolvers should never be fired in SA mode. Why not make the revolvers DA only in that case. Also, would the same apply to semi-auto pistols that had DA/SA modes like the Sig Sauer P228/229 or Beretta 92/96. There are plenty of others, but the two guns I just mentioned have decockers. If SA is so inherently dangerous in a high-stress self-defense situation, why have the SA function on those guns. Why do people carry 1911's and Browning Hi-Powers among other single-action guns?

Well let’s hope he comes back so he can answer you .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

You’re welcome to keep arguing with me that people should be allowed to question others while saying I shouldn’t question FireForged.

Tunnel.. did you ask me a thoughtful question? The only question mark I see in your ongoing commentary is the one that follows "what question am I avoiding".

What question am I avoiding exactly?

You are seemingly "running block" for URITs' post. Your ongoing commentary is rather "deflecting" in my opinion. I don't mind it but that's the way I call it.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by FireForged

Tunnel.. did you ask me a thoughtful question? The only question mark I see in your ongoing commentary is the one that follows "what question am I avoiding".









You are seemingly "running block" for URITs' post. Your ongoing commentary is rather "deflecting" in my opinion. I don't mind it but that's the way I call it.

I don’t remember claiming I asked you a question (“thoughtful” or otherwise). You said I was avoiding the question and I was trying to clarify what exactly I was avoiding.

I actually directly contradict him in post 21, but how you call things is on you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

Just wanted URIT to explain his position as to why DA/SA revolvers should never be fired in SA mode. Why not make the revolvers DA only in that case. Also, would the same apply to semi-auto pistols that had DA/SA modes like the Sig Sauer P228/229 or Beretta 92/96. There are plenty of others, but the two guns I just mentioned have decockers. If SA is so inherently dangerous in a high-stress self-defense situation, why have the SA function on those guns. Why do people carry 1911's and Browning Hi-Powers among other single-action guns?

Well said.. all very reasonable questions.

Countries have fought wars with single action weapons. The west was won with Colt single actions. People have used single action revolvers/pistols for 150 years or more. I carry a Browning HP as my EDC. Revolvers are still made to this day with SA/DA mechanisms.

Pointing a loaded weapon at something, can be dangerous. Pointing a loaded weapon ( with the hammer cocked/no safety engaged), can be more dangerous. That's about as deep as I am willing to go on this subject. As I said previously, I think there can be a time and place for using a revolver in SA mode even in spite of the risks. I certainly wont suggest that someone not train in single action or not utilize the SA option of their revolver while lawfully defending themselves. I consider the suggestion to be rather counter productive

[OldMarksman]

Just wanted URIT to explain his position as to why DA/SA revolvers should never be fired in SA mode.

He specifically referred to personal defense.

There are several reasons, and they have been discussed here ad nauseam over the years.

The are the same reasons that som e of us, myself inluded, carry revolvers with concealed or bobbed hammers--and why many major police departments specified D/A only revolvers.

The reasons have to do with the body's reaction to stress and to vulnerability to clainm of negligence.

[FireForged]

So I surmise based on what has been offered thus far that the meat of the argument which stands in support of AVOIDING the SA mechanism of a revolver rests solely on the potential risk of accidential discharge.

Although I see the wisdom in blanket protectionist regs which are designed to govern large groups of people of varying skills, abilities and judgment.. I do not readily accept the same being applied generically across the board. The same goes for 13 pound triggers on semi auto pistols or carrying weapons without a round in the chamber. People tend to trust themselves much more than several thousand strangers under their command and whos actions they are liable for.

I suspect that since SA/DA weapons are still being produced and purchased is large quantities across the globe. I do not stand alone regarding this sentiment.

[JohnKSa]

I am not going to pretend that I would NEVER cock a revolver as a prelude to firing it in self defense. I would in certain circumstances

I think that's a reasonable stance. I can think of a few (pretty unlikely/unusual) scenarios where cocking the revolver might make sense.

I do think that for the vast majority of self-defense uses, cocking a DA/SA revolver is a bad idea. I believe that back when revolvers were common LE issue sidearms, some LE departments actually prohibited it, and others went to DA only in hardware they felt so strongly about it.

So I surmise based on what has been offered thus far that the meat of the argument which stands in support of AVOIDING the SA mechanism of a revolver rests solely on the potential risk of accidential discharge.

Not at all. I presented two reasons in an earlier post that I felt were important and neither of them had anything to do with unintentional discharge.

But unintentional discharge was, as I understand it, the primary reason that LE eschewed the practice.

I suspect that since SA/DA weapons are still being produced and purchased is large quantities across the globe. I do not stand alone regarding this sentiment.

1. A lot of people buy revolvers for purposes other than self-defense.

2. Those who own them for self-defense likely shoot them for fun at least once in awhile and may like the SA option for plinking/recreational shooting although they never intend to use it for self-defense.

3. Observations of the consumer base demand for a certain feature shouldn't be viewed as equivalent to a reasoned consideration of the use of that feature for one intended application.

4. It's quite easy/inexpensive for a manufacturer to provide the SA option and by doing so they increase the flexibility of the design considerably.

5. There are many revolver offerings (obviously tailored for self-defense) which do not offer the SA option.

6. People who do intend to use a revolver only in DA mode may still find that a DA/SA revolver is the one that meets their purchasing requirements most closely. I know two people who have revolvers that are intended exclusively for self-defense. But they purchased used revolvers to keep the cost down and ended up with DA/SA designs because that's where they found the best deals.

In other words, I don't think the presence of SA in DA/SA revolvers should be seen as tacit endorsement by manufacturers of SA as a general option for self-defense, nor as an affirmation by the general consumer base that they desire the SA feature for self-defense, and especially not as any kind of an expert opinion on the value and prudence of cocking a revolver for self defense.

Could there be possible self-defense scenarios where cocking the revolver makes sense? I think so. I don't see those being common or likely scenarios, but it could certainly happen. But that doesn't really speak to the general advisability of cocking a revolver for self-defense.

[FireForged]

In other words, I don't think the presence of SA in DA/SA revolvers should be seen as tacit endorsement by manufacturers of SA as a general option for self-defense, nor as an affirmation by the general consumer base that they desire the SA feature for self-defense, and especially not as any kind of an expert opinion on the value and prudence of cocking a revolver for self defense.

a fair point of view.

I cannot offer much criticism for what you just said. I could argue about your 1-5 bullet points but it would be more about semantics than anything else. I wont say you are wrong.

[J.G. Terry]

I came in late. The thought of carrying a double action revolver on SA in a threatening situation gives me the willies. This is personal. Yet I have no reservation about carrying a Glock. In my case the is attitude that does not make sense. This original topic gave me pause to think back through the situation. With one exception my revolvers to not have light SA trigger pulls. The concern for startle response has already been shared. Either handgun with me it may be a unintentional discharge. Could it be humans are hard wired for that startle response? It all had to with cave bears and sable toothed tigers. Thanks for your time. Thanks for letting me share.

[tlm225]

Getting back to cjwils original question, no, I do not believe that you should cock the hammer on a DA revolver in a defensive confrontation. My reasoning is very simple. A defensive confrontation is a high stress environment, much different than the safe and sterile environment of a firing range. The 2 1/2 - 3 pound short stroke of a SA trigger is much less forgiving of error than the 8-12 pound 1/2" stroke of a DA trigger pull. This is the reason many agencies during the era of the DA revolver had their revolvers modified to DA only, all to often officers were going SA and then unintentionally shooting someone. And these were people trained for and had experienced stressful situations. I'll offer an experience from my personal background. As a rookie cop I, along with other officers, was search a business that had just been burglarized and we believed the suspects were still inside. My first "hot" building search. Part way in I realized that the hammer on my 686 was starting to rear back from the pressure I was unknowingly placing on the trigger. Had I been in SA mode there would have been a negligent discharge. I modified my technique after that but I assure you, during my years of carrying a revolver on duty I never cocked the hammer SA.

With a modicum of DA practice you will have no problem being sufficiently accurate in DA mode for a defensive confrontation. As far as the comparison with a 1911, you have a valid point but at the same time the safety can remain engaged and swept off in a fraction of a second if the decision to shoot is made.

[J.G. Terry]

Personal Stuff: It would be neat to run a poll to take a sample of what is the mode of choice for DA revolvers. I know, if carrying a double action revolver, when startled that gun will be squeezed until it goes off. That in a sense, the light trigger does not figure in. From my own experience it does not take a world of time and rounds to get proficient with double action. I have seen modified DA revolvers that were not reliable. All this is personal experience and choice. I'd still like to see a poll.

In the day didn't some departments have double action only revolvers. I kinda remember seeing some police type match guns with light DA pull with no hammer spur. Not saying they did.

[FireForged]

A defensive confrontation is a high stress environment, much different than the safe and sterile environment of a firing range.

All this hubbub about single action mode when seemingly every other semi auto handgun in existence is utilized in single action mode after the first shot. Do you guys believe that every one of those people are engaging a safety after each shot and disengaging the safety before they shoot again?

All the trepidation seems to be rather lopsided. Guns are dangerous, we all agree.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by FireForged

All this hubbub about single action mode when seemingly every other semi auto handgun in existence is utilized in single action mode after the first shot. Do you guys believe that every one of those people are engaging a safety after each shot and disengaging the safety before they shoot again?



All the trepidation seems to be rather lopsided. Guns are dangerous, we all agree.

There is a difference between choosing to take a first shot, and making follow up shots when you’ve already fired a shot and are currently engaged in self defense. DA/SA are used by many people(in semi auto pistols) for a reason, with the first shot being heavier to help mitigate the risk of a ND and the follow up shots lighter to facilitate making hits. When a person has already fired a shot then it makes since that he or she is willing to accept a higher risk of negligent discharge. When that person hasn’t made the decision to fire that is a different story.

Of course SAO or striker fired “safe-action” type pistols exist for people not wanting to deal with that heavy first shot (and I’m of the opinion that if a person is concerned about the DA first shot to the point he or she feels the need to thumb cock the handgun then maybe there are other action types that would work better for him or her). With current market trends I’d add that in fact the largest install bases of semi auto pistols generally do not operate differently in subsequent shots as opposed to the first, if talking striker fired pistols.

Even if I agree that there are cases where I would cock the firearm for the first shot and that the OP should have that option, I don’t see how the difference I mention in the first paragraph isn’t obvious. As for the “guns are dangerous” point, that’s bordering on making a straw man argument. No one here that I’ve read has said firearms aren’t dangerous. Some people choosing to mitigate that danger further (in their estimation) is not in conflict with that notion, from my perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

DA/SA exists as a mode for a reason

Perhaps I misunderstand your words but if you are suggesting that revolvers were made DA/SA for safety purposes, I politely disagree. I argue (based on history) that the DA/SA mechanism was designed to increase rate of fire. Its simply was is written in the history books.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by FireForged

Perhaps I misunderstand your words but if you are suggesting that revolvers were made DA for safety purposes, I politely disagree. I argue (based on history) that the DA/SA mechanism was designed to increase rate of fire.

The full quote I respond to mentions semi autos being in SA mode for subsequent shots, hence the comments above about DA/SA in terms of semi auto pistols. As you’re not restricting your comments to revolvers, I figured I was free to do the same (I edited the above for clarity). In terms of DA revolvers only yes I would agree with your point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

The full quote I respond to mentions semi autos being in SA mode for subsequent shots, hence the comments above about DA/SA. As you’re not restricting your comments to revolvers, I figured I was free to do the same. In terms of DA revolvers only yes I would agree with your point.

fine.. I still disagree with your point ( as I understand it)

Semi auto handguns were simply a natural progression from the DA/SA revolver. I disagree that the creation of hammer fired semi-auto ( which utilizes DA first pull and SA subsequent shots) had anything to do with "safety" or "ND". If it does, then where is it written?

Striker fired weapons are seemingly a natural progression in that they incorporate the best of both.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by FireForged

fine.. I still disagree with your point ( as I understand it)

Semi auto handguns were simply a natural progression from the DA/SA revolver. I disagree that the creation of hammer fired semi-auto ( which utilizes DA first pull and SA subsequent shots) had anything to do with "safety" or "ND". If it does, then where is it written?

Striker fired weapons are seemingly a natural progression in that they incorporate the best of both.

What would you accept as sources? The fact that many people carry those pistols specifically for the reason I mentioned I imagine isn’t enough (as has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum). Would you like me to get patent filings, marketing materials, what exactly? Or I can edit the above to reflect usage as opposed to design.

While we’re being particular, when you get a chance to go back and address how your statement about “every other semi auto” functions is misstated, let me know. Or the straw man about how firearms are dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

DA/SA exists as a mode (in semi auto pistols) for a reason, with the first shot being heavier to help mitigate the risk of a ND...

so now you have clarified that some people simply carry those pistols for that reason? Thats a little different

Would you like me to get patent filings, marketing materials, what exactly?

Its mute now that you have seemingly rehabilitated your earlier comment.

[TunnelRat]

I have changed it in the interest of intellectual honesty since I don't currently have the sources you requested at my finger tips.

[FireForged]

This is the way I look at it:

People are entitled to their opinion and when its a personal opinion based on what the individual "thinks".. it should simply be stated as such. If someone wants to seemingly make a proclamation of some fact, I would be glad to accept ANY corroboration which is more substantial than thin air. The more corroboration, the more valid a particular claim may be. It certainly tends to become more accepting as evidence is compounded from reasonable and competent sources.

I apply this same standard in any forum I participate in. It is simply one way to help maintain legit content. What we write here is forever and most people appreciate a frame of reference when trying to decide what to believe and disbelieve.

[TunnelRat]

When someone asks for something that “is written”, that is more than “any corroboration” by my estimate. I could ask you for the MLA style guide citation for the history book where you claim it is written that DA revolvers were developed for additional speed. I don’t because this is a forum and not a peer reviewed and published paper. Is there onus on people to support what they present? Absolutely. I’m still waiting on the corroboration that “every other” pistol “in existence” functions in SA on subsequent shots. And then we can debate what you meant by existence. Did my use of the phrase “exists as a mode” invalidate the points in my post? From my perspective no. One might argue, as you did about me above, that there’s an element of deflection in all of this. But then that really gets us no where.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

Well unless you lived in the 1800s, I am not sure where [you] or anyone else would have discovered this information if its not written.

English is not my first language and perhaps I could have stated it better -but- when I asked "where is it written", I am merely asking "where did this information come from".

[TunnelRat]

Then where is it written? If it is as you say then it should be easy to provide the “history book” you mentioned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

See now you seemingly trying to deflect. I am not the one stating things which seemingly stand in the face of common beliefs. Stand by though.. I will find something for you.

a 30 second cursory search for information regarding the history of revolvers has uncovered a nicely written article which include historical quotes and information compiled from the study of the subject

https://firearmshistory.blogspot.com...-revolver.html

I wont frame the authors point of view but there is information regarding the finer points of SA and DA which seem to be supported by historical references. Again, this is a 30 second search.