Second-strikers

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm curious, what would be a situation where you can't clear?

One handed - you can learn how to do that.

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

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

Some say: Tap, rack, bang.

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

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

I've had to do both in classes and matches.

[TunnelRat]

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

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

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

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

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



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

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

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

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

In regards to striker fired pistols, if the striker is fully cocked, then I would call it a SAO (just releasing the striker). If the trigger compresses the striker and releases it, then I'd call it DAO.

[TunnelRat]

You seem more upset about this than is necessary (but maybe I'm misreading).

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

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

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

[random guy]

It would be useful if there were a quick yet more descriptive way to quantify different trigger systems.

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

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

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

I just came from a gun shop where I handled my next pistol. It has a hammer, decocker and is DA/SA. Had to do some reading first but I'll be collecting it tomorrow.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

You seem more upset about this than is necessary (but maybe I'm misreading).





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



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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but if you can't understand that, there is no more I can say. That isn't being upset, it is pointing out a flaw in your logic.

[TunnelRat]

Okey dokey


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

Agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

✌️

[JohnKSa]

IF the trigger really does perform some cocking function (even a partial cocking function) then it's reasonable to categorize it as some variant of double-action. It's worth noting that not all of the "DAO" type guns have triggers that perform any appreciable cocking function.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[adamBomb]

I'm curious, what would be a situation where you can't clear?

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

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Then I go back to : Has this ever happened?

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

[JoeSixpack]

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

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

I remember Taurus when they introduced 2nd strike on the striker guns claimed 84% chance of success on 2nd strike I don't know where they got that figure or if it's correct but that's been my exp.. has anyone done any scientific testing?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've been doing a little research in the professional class and there's little enthusiasm for second strike as a major feature. It seems not be taught in classes. The major problem is using crappy ammo - ditch that and little problems are seen.

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

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

The rate of lighting off on the second strike would depend on the ammo - crappy, handloads, primers?

[random guy]

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

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

JohnKSa:

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know if the terminology is settled that any trigger which performs any degree of cocking action is DA. But if so, the term becomes virtually useless. Most if not all factory triggers cock the hammer/striker to some small degree due the the angles of sear engagement which are necessary for a safe trigger. At some point even before "sear angle DA" you're looking at "technically double action but who are you kidding here?"

[JohnKSa]

I don't know if the terminology is settled that any trigger which performs any degree of cocking action is DA.

People will always argue. But given that DA stands for Double Action and the double actions are cocking and releasing the hammer/striker, it's difficult to argue that a trigger that not only releases the hammer/striker but also performs a cocking action isn't Double Action.

Most if not all factory triggers cock the hammer/striker to some small degree due the the angles of sear engagement which are necessary for a safe trigger.

If this qualified as cocking the hammer/striker then there's no point in distinguishing between double action and single action since your statement is equally applicable to single action pistols.

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

[random guy]

If this qualified as cocking the hammer/striker then there's no point in distinguishing between double action and single action since your statement is equally applicable to single action pistols.

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

Believe it or not, that is exactly the definition used by at least one gunmaker in order to call their SA striker pistol a DA. Pretty sure this is the official company line and not just gun pundit confusion which also abounds. It's all about marketing to PDs which demand DA triggers to cover their butts.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

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

I have great sympathy for the above definition, but exactly how much compression is significant versus insignificant?

When a definition relies on key words that lack clarity and precision, it is difficult to see how the definition could be consistently understood by multiple readers.

[JohnKSa]

Believe it or not, that is exactly the definition used by at least one gunmaker in order to call their SA striker pistol a DA.

It's not difficult to understand why a gunmaker might twist a definition to try to achieve a goal they perceive as highly desirable. And the fact that they would do so doesn't make it harder to understand the difference between a trigger that performs incidental and insignificant mainspring compression in the process of releasing a hammer/sear and a trigger that compresses a mainspring to store enough energy to allow the gun to fire.

...exactly how much compression is significant versus insignificant...

Significant and insignificant both have definitions already. There's no need to redefine them nor would there be any motive to do so except to attempt to twist easily understood concepts to suit one's agenda.

sig·nif·i·cant: sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.

in·sig·nif·i·cant: too small or unimportant to be worth consideration.

In other words, the difference between a trigger that provides, say, 40% or 50% of the compression of the mainspring and one that provides less than 1% of the total compression is very easy to understand. Trying to define an exact line between the two (e.g. more than 1.119872873879% mainspring compression by length is DA and mainspring compression by that figure or less is SA) wouldn't add anything to anyone's practical understanding, nor would it make any practical difference. In practice the difference is clear in spite of attempts to make it otherwise.

[gc70]

Okay, using the definitions provided:

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Fortunately, it's not difficult to understand or explain the difference between a trigger which performs sufficiently great or important compression of the main spring to be worthy of attention from one which compresses the main spring too small or unimportant an amount to be worth consideration in the process of releasing a hammer/striker.

That still seems somewhat less than clearly and precisely descriptive.

What seems to be missing is some reference to an end result - whether or not the trigger is storing energy in the firing mechanism necessary to fire a round.

In my view, a DA trigger's two functions are: (1) storing some or all of the energy required by the firing mechanism to fire a round, and; (2) releasing the stored energy in the firing mechanism to fire a round. A SA trigger only has one function - to release previously stored energy required by the firing mechanism to fire a round.

[random guy]

Yes, significant/insignificant is mostly subjective till you put a number on it. In this case a percentage. There are other factors in trigger operation but the degree of pre-tension and pull weight must be the most readily quantifiable.

I'd agree that trigger characteristics should be obvious to any experienced user without even knowing the technicalities and barring a mechanical failure, it is incumbent upon that user to handle...or decline to handle...that system in such a way as to result in no undue harm.

The rub is that not all users are experienced and some take their gun handling from whatever the crowd is doing. Others have their gun and gun handling dictated to them via dept. policy. Those who have the freedom to choose their gun and mode of carry also bear the entire responsibility of doing so with reasonable safety.

[JohnKSa]

(1) storing some or all of the energy required by the firing mechanism to fire a round...

This is a rabbit hole with no bottom. Ok, now you need to define how much energy is required by the firing mechanism to actually fire the round. Who does the survey that accurately defines the amount of energy required to fire all of the common primer types on the market? Who catalogs that information for ease of access? What about calibers which can use more than one type of primer? If one primer requires much more energy to fire, that could potentially change the definition of what double action means in a particular firearm depending on what loading is being used.

Does any of that make the definition of double action clearer or more easily understood? Just the reverse, actually.

Then you have to decide if a design which is over-engineered to store, say, 25% more energy than is "required" in order to absolutely insure reliable ignition is still a double action if the trigger does the work of storing 90% of the energy in that safety margin. It's obviously doing a lot of the work of storing energy but since all of the energy it's storing is actually surplus energy, now by this contrived definition of DA, the gun isn't double action.

So who would understand the concept of a DA trigger better after someone were to theoretically hash all that information out? No one.

A SA trigger only has one function - to release previously stored energy required by the firing mechanism to fire a round.

What about the issue brought up by random_guy? He correctly points out that most firearms with a traditional sear require the SA trigger force to cam the hammer back at least some small amount in the process of "releasing" it. This stores energy in the mainspring (albeit a very small amount) but that's still a function other than simply releasing the energy. Using your argument, unless you can define and precisely quantify this amount, no one will understand what an SA trigger is. Of course that's not true at all. We all understand what an SA trigger is even though the trigger action typically does slightly compress the mainspring some small unspecified amount in the process of releasing the hammer.

In this case a percentage.

No, this only obfuscates and complicates what is otherwise a very clear and simple concept. Besides, what percentage would you use? Percentage of energy stored in the mainspring? Percentage of compression by length? Percentage of force applied overall? Percentage of firing pin momentum? Why is one better or more descriptive than the other?

Since the concept is already adequately clear, already very clear without a specifically and precisely defined numerical threshold, the definition of such a threshold provides no value added unless there's some need to meet a predefined legal requirement or contractual specification.

That still seems somewhat less than clearly and precisely descriptive.

It is very clear and very descriptive. The fact that it doesn't provide a numerical threshold doesn't cause any problems in terms being able to attain a clear and practical understanding of when a trigger performs cocking action and when it doesn't.

The bottom line is that it is very easy to understand the concept of a double action trigger vs. a single action trigger. It's even easy to understand that there are variants of what are commonly called 'DAO' triggers and how they work. And all of that understanding in no way requires some artificially defined precise numerical threshold. Trying to be extremely precise by making up some arbitrary threshold provides no value added and actually complicates what is otherwise a pretty straightforward topic.

When a definition relies on key words that lack clarity and precision, it is difficult to see how the definition could be consistently understood by multiple readers.

In some limited circumstances that might be true. In most cases it is not just false, a little thought will reveal it is ludicrous.

Let's take a simple example. I suspect that only 1 person out of 100 could accurately define the wavelength ranges that qualify as red light, as yellow light and as green light. I suspect that the specific thresholds of each wavelength range would vary from one source to another given that the spectrum is continuous. And yet in spite of all that lack of precision and conflicting information, there is no confusion at all when people are taught about how to respond to traffic lights. Can you even imagine anyone in a driver's ed class legitimately asking the teacher what he meant by a red light or demanding accurately defined wavelength thresholds for what constitutes various colors of light and legitimately claiming that without such precise definitions there would be no way to know when to stop, go or be cautious? Of course not.

What about someone claiming that they can't respond to a yellow light properly unless there's a legally defined precise threshold for how much they should slow down or how cautious they should be? It would be ridiculous. People have no problem understanding how to respond to a yellow light even though there's no precisely defined standard of caution to employ.

[random guy]

There is no threshold below 100%. (In practice, 98 or 99% due to "sear angle cocking"). Anything less is actually DA at least to some small degree. It's a continuum with no objective threshold. Only a percentage. The number won't tell you everything about the trigger but 60 % vs 90% vs 99% pre-tensioned will tell you a great deal very quickly.

How to measure? I had thought of percentage of ultimate tension or of "full cock" travel. I'm not even sure which numbers are currently used by makers. Or which would be most easily verified.

As noted above, once sear angle cocking comes to be called DA, the term is virtually useless. It could be applied to not only SA handguns but virtually every trigger made. At that point a percentage (or an experienced trigger finger) will differentiate much better than corrupted labels.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Does any of that make the definition of double action clearer or more easily understood?

Ambiguity does not lead to clarity, although subjective personal opinion is easier to understand than a rigorous scientific process.

Today, many manufacturers produce a wide variety of hybrid triggers that claim to be double-action. And fanboys ferociously defend the unsubstantiated claims of some while bashing the claims of others, all based on nothing more than perception.

The subject of this thread, re-strike capability, was once the clear, easily understood, and readily observable test of a double-action gun. At least that was the case before manufacturers perverted common understanding and hijacked the desirable "double-action" label for financial advantage. We certainly cannot go back to that simpler approach now because too many people are far too heavily invested in the labeling of their guns.

ADDED:

If it is not apparent, I am NOT an advocate of any approach that tries to shoe-horn pre-cocked hammers or pre-tensioned strikers into definitions of double-action or single-action triggers.

People engage in pretzel logic trying to come up with squishy definitions to allow them to put their favorite gun's trigger mechanism into a traditional category in which it simply does not fit. And when other people point out that those contrived definitions (i.e. "the hammer moves") are not logically consistent (i.e. hammer camming), they huff that that type of (consistent) approach is just silly. And that is really the point - that jury-rigged definitions produce silly results.

Just pick a new name for the hybrid trigger mechanisms (at least JohnKSa made an effort to do so in post #34) and quit trying to count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

[TunnelRat]

You boys went to town.

[JohnKSa]

There is no threshold below 100%. (In practice, 98 or 99% due to "sear angle cocking").

So other than allowing some small (insignificant? ) amount of mainspring compression to deal with the practicalities of sear engagement, any mainspring compression means the trigger can be described as DA, to at least some degree. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

If it is not apparent, I am NOT an advocate of any approach that tries to shoe-horn pre-cocked hammers or pre-tensioned strikers into definitions of double-action or single-action triggers.

That seems reasonable too. However, there aren't official names for all the different trigger variants out there. In the absence of official designations, it makes sense to describe the functionality of the varioius variants using a combination of conventional terms--in fact there's really no other alternative. I agree that pretending every trigger can be simply described as DA, DAO, SA or DA/SA will lead to confusion.