double-action: trigger both pulls the hammer back, and releases it to fire the chambered round.
single-action: trigger can only release a hammer which has already been cocked.
DAO revolvers generally just either shroud or “bob” the hammer so the shooter cannot manually cock it.
DAO semi autos are a bit different. generally a DA semi auto will let the first trigger pull be double action (raise and then release the hammer) and subsequent firings will be single-action since the slide action leaves the hammer cocked. a DAO semi auto will not leave the hammer cocked after the slide cycles. some people prefer a DAO setup because the trigger pull will be consistent from shot to shot; on the other hand a typical DA/SA semi auto will have a long heavy trigger pull for the first shot, then very short and light pulls for subsequent ones. Supposedly this has led to people firing more rounds than intended because they weren’t expecting the trigger feel to change.
Double Action Only. One long trigger pull, cannot be manually cocked. Pistols like Glocks are technically single action as the trigger does not cock the hammer/striker and they do not have second strike capability.
Traditional hammer fired pistols start as a double action on the first shot, then the slide cocks the hammer after each shot and the weapon is cocked in single action. DAO pistols stay in the DA mode and do not cock into single action.
Back in the 80’s and 90’s when law enforcement agencies were transitioning from revolvers to semi auto handguns some agencies wanted pistols with long revolver like triggers, thus some pistols were made DAO.
FTR (all to the point about monkey brains, psychological urgency overriding normal dexterity), the Dancing G-Man can be seen to be righty (his fall break, his move with to the right hand to reholster–he must have had a holster at least, right?–but in his panic to reach the gun as fast as possible he basically slapped it with his less dextrous (heh) hand.
[As OP, perhaps I may be permitted a relative personal comment, now made obvious in the thread vis-a-vis safeties and actual usage. I was a briefly trained (non weapon-holder, naturally) volunteer in the IDF during the First Gulf War, and damn if I didn’t learn to pull out, fix, and check the seal of the gas mask as a single fluid thing. During the very first (panicked, for me) SCUD run (literally, from barracks to “sealed room”), for a blinding second I couldn’t breathe, before I remembered to unplug the access-port to the atmosphere which is stoppered during carry. My sympathies in the above discussion are obvious. Perhaps other posters–surely professionally trained (as mentioned above, “repetitions, repetitions” )remember their first lethal or potentially lethal (like all such encounters) reactions with firearms on this.]
Not disputing this explanation at all, but thought I should add something about revolvers that might help people who are not familiar with guns understand what is being discussed. It’s easier to visualize what is going on with revolvers. Old revolvers like you see in western movies are single-action (SA) revolvers. You have to cock the hammer back with your thumb before you can fire. The trigger pull is light, as in 2 to 5 lbs. If you don’t cock the hammer, it won’t fire no matter how hard you pull on the trigger. Single-action revolvers are still being made, and used for Old West (Cowboy Action) recreational sports and hunting.
Many newer revolvers with exposed hammers are double-action (DA) revolvers (don’t confuse this with double-action-only) where you can fire them in two different ways. You can cock the hammer back and shoot it with a short, light trigger pull (as above), or you can leave the hammer down and pull the trigger back through a long, harder pull that cocks the hammer and then releases it. DA revolver pulls are usually 8 to 12 lbs.
Then you have the double-action-only (DAO) revolvers, which have no exposed hammer, so there is nothing to manually cock back. The only way these are fired is by pulling the trigger back through a long, hard pull.
The same nomenclature and general ideas are used for pistols. There are SA, DA and DAO semi-auto pistols. But there are also DA/SA pistols, which shoot the first round with a long, hard pull, and subsequent rounds with short, easy pulls because the slide pushes the hammer back for all shots after the first one.
Striker-fired pistols like Glocks are a bit different than any of these, however. Racking the slide partially cocks the firing pin, but not completely. Pulling the trigger completes the cocking and releases the firing pin. And this operation is the same for the first and all subsequent shots. The trigger pull on most striker-fired pistols is somewhere in between SA and DA, usually around 6 to 8 lbs.
& that was the problem. I bet that had he dropped it in the office, where everyone is used to guns, he would have more casually bent over to pick it up. I’m not defending doing flips with a gun (as clearly the holster wasn’t up to it) even if there was no AOB (alcohol on board) but my guess is that he went to pick it up & put it back in the holster as quickly as possible because GUN!..in public! In his haste to attempt to de-escalate the situation by getting it out of site as quickly as possible he actually made it worse with a reactionary grab that ended up pulling the trigger.
What you call a DA/SA pistol is what used to just be called a DA pistol because with a round in the chamber and the hammer down it could either be fired by just pulling the trigger or by cocking the hammer and pulling the trigger. But I’ve noticed in the last 10 years or so, gun magazine writers now referring to those kind of pistols as “traditional action”. Not sure who got together and came up with that term.
One thing that bugs me is when firearm manufacturers describe their pistol as double action when it isn’t. A double action pistol has second strike capability, meaning if one has a misfire one can try again by simply pulling the trigger and not cycling the slide. Pistols like Glocks, S&W SD9VE, etc, are NOT double action. (But in all fairness Glock doesn’t describe their pistol as such, but a lot of other manufacturers with the same type of action do and it’s dishonest).
Do carrying people avoid getting in a colleague’s car (leaving them with no convenient way to take their carried item home)? If colleague suggests, on the spur-of-the-moment “Let’s just check out this nightclub. We’ll order soft drinks.” does the carrying person reply “Sorry. I’m carrying.” ?
Heaven forfend that the option of uncocking the gun should occur to anyone.
Removing a chambered round is exactly the same as keeping your gun in a bank vault, with the key hidden in your attic. Got it.
I could be wrong but it looks like to me that he had an inside the waist band holster.
I personally don’t care for them only because I find them uncomfortable.
Many of them do not have any form of retention mechanism (thumb break, etc) and are made for concealment and not strictly for retention. I certainly wouldn’t be doing flips if I were using one of those style holsters.
This is the reason I only carry revolvers*. My assumption is that I, being a less-trained civilian, wouldn’t react with the control and coolness of LEOs and need the simplest operation possible. The more I read about law enforcement antics, the more I question that assumption.
Modern composite revolvers are so light, I can actually wear mine with my swimsuit and it doesn’t drag down the elastic band. IIRC, it weighs around 13 oz. so going boating or to the beach isn’t a problem.
*For those who aren’t overly familiar with guns, revolvers are absurdly simple, no safety, no cocking, no nothing. Just pull the trigger and it goes bang.
Revolvers also hold far less ammo than a semi auto, tend to have more recoil, and are a bitch to reload under fire. My first issued weapon was a S&W model 66 and I hated it. But better that you carry what YOU like than not at all.
I’d be careful talking about carrying at the beach on these boards. I’m a LEO and once posted that I carried off duty at the beach and fellow dopers had a caniption. :rolleyes:
Basic gun safety requires that you treat all guns as loaded under all circumstances, no matter how certain you are that it is not loaded. So, if a person is following all the gun safety rules, having a round chambered doesn’t affect the risk of an accident: the person should be treating the gun the same way whether or not a round is chambered. Now, if the person is being negligent, then having a round in the chamber is obviously going to increase the likelihood of accidental injury or death, but only because the person was negligent.
Now, if it matters to you where my argument comes from, I’ll say I’m personally very strongly in favor of strict — very strict — gun laws.
I agree that having a round chambered doesn’t seem strictly necessary, but it also seems to me a matter of discretion. I’m comfortable with a well-trained, responsible gun owner carrying like that. Most people aren’t that ideal, though, and I think most people should not carry with a round chambered. Unfortunately, I’d say only the former group (those who are responsible) can determine who falls into which camp, which is… problematic. A lot of my issues with gun laws stem from a fundamental flaw of human nature: an idiot never knows that they’re an idiot, and we can’t idiot-proof a weapon as simple and easy to use as a handgun.
Still, what it boils down to, in my opinion, is this. If you think the problem was that a round was chambered, you are kind of missing the point. Having a round chambered isn’t great, but it’s not what ultimately caused this incident and it’s not what causes other, similar incidents either. The problem is negligence, or, in layman’s terms, stupidity. Doing backflips with a holstered gun and then pulling the damn trigger is stupid. If there hadn’t been a round chambered then nothing bad would’ve happened, but we can’t call that “smart,” we call that “lucky.” When you’re stupid and it doesn’t get anybody hurt, that’s a better outcome, but you were still stupid. Keeping a gun unloaded is just an additional bulwark against stupidity that shouldn’t be necessary in the first place because the real solution is not to be stupid!
“How easily do dropped handguns fire?”
Almost impossible.
What is required is what this FBI asswipe did:
Carry a loaded weapon in public
AND
Have a round in the chamber
AND
Have the safety off
AND
Pick up the weapon by pulling the trigger
.
.
edit. OH, and yes.
AND
You need to be doing something very acrobatic or very stupid in the first place, to drop the weapon.
Slight drift not on the gun but on the guy and a guess to any real law breaking and or subsequent FBI censure: did he actually walk away from the scene of the accident/not accident where a wounded patron was?
Thing is, all humans are stupid at some times. Thus more protection than necessary makes sense. Everyone thinks they are a responsible gun owner, just like everyone thinks they are a good driver. Different standards for different levels of competence are bad ideas.
Isn’t the “always err on the side of caution” principle why guns are treated as always loaded?
If I ever had a gun, the peace of mind of an external safety is more than worth the extra 1.5 seconds it takes to flip the safety to engage an assailant. YMMV.
Dancing F.B.I. Agent Facing Assault Charge Can Carry Gun Again, Judge Rules Chase Bishop, 30, is facing a felony second-degree assault charge after the authorities said his gun went off while he was off-duty at a Denver club, injuring another patron.
The article has these exact words only, in reference to the main event: “his gun went off” and “his gun discharged after he was seen reaching for it.”
Discuss editorial decisions in another forum, if so desired.
