TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:

Excaliber wrote:The 5 loaded / 1 empty procedure was adopted to prevent ND's with traditional single action revolvers, which had no mechanism to prevent the firing pin from striking the primer if dropped on the hammer. I don't know exactly what guns Steve was working with, but 5 loaded / 1 empty is unnecessary with virtually all modern double action revolvers, which have transfer bars, hammer blocks, or other devices that only allow the gun to fire when the trigger is fully to the rear, and which prevent discharge if dropped.

Steve was talking about shooting "an old S&W" around the time frame of 1964 when he first started shooting revolvers. Even though transfer bars and hammer blocks later became more common, many people still only load five rounds. Five is also a convenient number of cartridges to load for target shooting. The point is, whether neccesary or not, old habits sometimes die hard.

True enough, which is why it's important to train like you want to fight. What you've done the most in training is what you're most likely to default to under stress, as Steve's experience confirms. If what you do most is not optimal for survival, chances are real good you'll do it anyway in a fight because fast analytical thinking is one of the first abilities you lose when the adrenaline gets dumped into the system.

WildBill wrote:

srothstein wrote:What happened is that my father started me shooting when I was 8 years old, with an old S&W revolver. Form then on, until I went to the SAPD academy when I was 30, I always fired single action with my revolvers. I think it is the most accurate way to shoot for target shooting.

My training started similar to Steve's. I just remembered another part of my training that was very common for target shooting and hunting - loading five rounds in a six cylinder revolver. This was taught to prevent an AD if the gun were dropped. Loading five rounds, one-at-a-time, and then indexing the cylinder increased your reload time and reduced your capacity. Obviously, using a speed loader eliminates this problem.

The 5 loaded / 1 empty procedure was adopted to prevent ND's with traditional single action revolvers, which had no mechanism to prevent the firing pin from striking the primer if dropped on the hammer. I don't know exactly what guns Steve was working with, but 5 loaded / 1 empty is unnecessary with virtually all modern double action revolvers, which have transfer bars, hammer blocks, or other devices that only allow the gun to fire when the trigger is fully to the rear, and which prevent discharge if dropped.

srothstein wrote:As an aside, I don't truly believe that double action will prevent accidental shootings as much as some people think. During one of our training scenarios, we were searching a building for a burglary suspect. We were taught to search with the revolver in what we called the third eye position (against the stomach and facing the muzzle at whatever we were looking at). The logic of this position is that the only way we would know [abbreviated profanity deleted] the threat would be watching it come at us and this way the weapon is already pointed at the threat. Anyway, it is good that we take safety seriously and we were searched and checked multiple times for empty weapons and no ammo (on cops or cadets) in the training area. As I came around a corner, the detective playing the suspect steps out at me, throws his arms in the air, and says "Don't shoot, I give up". We both heard the click of the hammer falling (and it was double action that time). Afterwords, he told me he never failed to draw fire by doing that. And I have never put my finger on the trigger until I was ready to fire since then either. Better to learn these lessons in training than in real life.

I can confirm Steve's experience. As our department's training commander, I developed and ran some fairly challenging tactical scenarios. The first year, in almost every class, someone kept his finger in the triggerguard and "fired" when he shouldn't have when surprised by a panicked "victim", "homeowner" or "unarmed suspect". Our observers immediately challenged the "shooter" each time to defend his use of deadly force. In each case, he or she stated the shot was unintentional and they didn't know why they had fired. We explained that it was triggered by the involuntary hand clench phenomenon that accompanies the startle response. Hearing about this in the classroom and seeing it actually happen are two very different things. It was a sobering experience for all present, and validated our heavy emphasis on keeping the finger out of the triggerguard until the decision has been made to fire. It left a strong impression that carried over into the street. During my time as training commander in a department of 200 officers, we had no negligent discharges and no unjustified shootings.

srothstein wrote:One of the interesting proofs that double action was better with revolvers was shown during training and reloading. Way back in the day, we were required to carry spare ammo in belt loops. If you were under pressure and needed to get back into a fight, you could easily fumble the reload of six rounds and it could take too long. We were taught that one of the best ways to get back in was to grab two cartridges and drop them in the cylinder. The gun could then be fired. Close the cylinder and pull the trigger as needed until the rounds came up. This was quicker than trying to index the cylinder so the rounds were next up.

In my agency we taught our folks to load and rotate the cylinder in the opposite direction that the cylinder rotated when the trigger was pulled. On the S&W guns we used, we loaded clockwise for the counterclockwise cylinder rotation. The reason for doing this was that as you placed rounds into the chamber, if you had to get back into the fight before a full reload, you would have live rounds come up right away. The advent of cylindrical style speedloaders made this unnecessary in most cases because full reloads could be done as fast as loading 2 rounds, but the principle still applies if you're replacing only fired cartridges with live ones still in some of the chambers.

Broge5 wrote:I am not aware of any revolvers automatically re-cocking either. I was actually referring to the way srothstein automatically (reflexively) recocked the hammer, and then lowered it again.

OK Excaliber, so the double action firing is more or less "old school" training given the weapons of the time, yet some agencies still adhere to it by issuing DA only weapons. That makes sense. I do see a DA firing being thought of as being necessarily more deliberate, where SA offers more room for AD. (at least for the newbie)

Actually, when choosing my first CHL weapon, I did choose a DA only for that reason, and it gave me as a newbie a little extra comfort. But later, ScubaSigGuy introduced me to the 1911 and I decided to change my attitude.

Thanks for the input.

Double action is not just old school - it's also the fastest and most efficient way to operate a revolver at short to medium ranges (0 - 15 yards). It still works fine beyond that for a skilled shooter, but persons of lesser skill often find it easier to be accurate with single action fire for slow shots at the longer ranges. There's nothing inherently wrong with either technique, but DA is unquestionably faster and much more reliable under stress. A good DA man will give any SA guy a really good run for his money - for the first 5 or 6 rounds, anyway.

SA presents more opportunities for a ND only if the rules of gun safety are not obeyed. Most ND's with SA weapons occur because the finger was inside the trigger guard before the gun was on target and a decision had been made to fire. If the rules are obeyed, SA is just as safe as DA.

The thinking among some police brass has been that the heavier DA pull is safer if the trigger finger goes where it doesn't belong. To some extent this is true, but it's not nearly as true as many think. A person who is surprised (by a loud noise, loss of balance, etc,) will reflexively clench his hands with 25+ pounds of force. This is more than enough to fire any DA weapon commonly in use for law enforcement or self defense (DA pulls on these weapons generally range from around 5 to 12 pounds), and it is reflexive, meaning if the stimulus is present, the clench reaction will occur. This is one of the reasons modern firearms trainers teach students to place the finger alongside the frame above the triggerguard, instead of on the triggerguard itself, to prevent the trigger finger from entering the guard during a hand clench reflex reaction.

Reflexive hand clenching can also occur if the other hand is engaged in struggling with a suspect (parasympathetic response.) If the trigger finger is where it doesn't belong, even with a heavier trigger pull, there's still an excellent chance of an ND. Worse than that, the heavier the DA pull, the harder it is for a shooter to learn to fire multiple rounds accurately under the conditions of a life threatening encounter. This increases the chances of launching a projectile that lands someplace it wasn't intended to go, and that is as much or more of a liability problem than the risk of an ND with an SA weapon.

When I coach new shooters, I encourage them to start with a simple weapon like a Glock, Springfield XD, or a DA revolver until they become proficient and comfortable with weapon handling. In my opinion, an SA gun just presents too much risk because the vast majority of untrained folks will put their trigger finger inside the trigger guard as soon as they pick up a gun. The manual of arms of an SA pistol like a 1911 is also somewhat more complicated than with the guns I cited, and just adds complexity to an already fairly complex set of skills to be learned. That's not to say that no one can or should start out with a 1911 - it can certainly be done, but it just takes more effort and focus.

Broge5 wrote:Maybe I should rephrase my question. I agree totally about shooting the way you a accustomed and that one may not have time to cock the hammer.

My question pertains to the way srothstein cocked the hammer reflexively, but then remembering the training, lowered the hammer to fire double action. He did this not once but twice. It seems he had both the training and the time to go either way.

My curiosity is why the academy teaches or taught to fire double action. I assume that there is a reason for this. I just can't think of it.

In the revolver era, police training emphasized firing double action only to stop officers from using the cocking of the hammer as a threat, and to reduce the number of negligent discharges that happened when this technique was used. Some departments allowed single action fire at the longer ranges (beyond 15 yards) during qualifications. From Steve's account of his incident, I suspect that his training included the use of both techniques.

Some departments prohibited their officers from ever firing single action, with others even going to the extent of modifying their service revolvers so the hammer could not be cocked by hand and the only way to discharge them was by a double action pull of the trigger. In this century, departments with this philosophy issue double action only autos.

Most of the revolver issues were actually caused by inadequate training in firearms basics. When departments transitioned to semiautomatic pistols in the late 80's and 90's, much better training programs were developed and implemented and the problem of negligent discharges from cocked weapons largely went away. Today a sizable number of agencies allow their officers to carry DA/SA or single action only pistols without an unacceptable number of adverse incidents.