Interesting facebook conversation with a friend

[MilitaryArms]

Your friend is a "know it all" dolt. He's wrong, Glocks aren't double action. It's a striker system that allows you to pull the trigger once. If the round doesn't fire, you don't get a second pull. If it were "double action" you could pull the trigger a second time. Alas, you can't. With a Sig P226 you can pull the trigger as many times as you like and it drops the hammer each time. That's a double action.

 

[melensdad]

...Glocks aren't double action...

So you are also calling the BATFE and their ruling that the GLOCK is a DAO design uninformed?

 

[zebov]

The only real conclusion we can draw is that Glocks are just in a league of their own!

 

[MilitaryArms]

So you are also calling the BATFE and their ruling that the GLOCK is a DAO design uninformed?

Yes, I would.

How many double actions can you think of that must be cocked before their double action works? How many double actions can you think of that can only have their trigger actuated one time and can not have their triggers pulled over and over again thereby firing the weapon each time (or potentially firing it)?

A Sig P226, Beretta 92, HK USP, etc. are double action pistols. No other action outside of pulling the trigger is required to fire the weapon. A Glock must be cocked each time before it fires.

If the ATF classifies it as a double action, it's only because they didn't want to create a new class of weapons. If one must group it into one of the two existing groups, most would say it's more of a double action since it partially cocks the weapon when the trigger is pulled. But that doesn't make it a double action, nor does it by default make it a single action. It's somewhere in between.

 

[Z-Glock23]

Wow, I wonder who you had this conversation with Weston....this has me stumped.....

All I can say is he doesn't know !!!! I like how he said "he's never had any problems with them catching on clothes or anything". Well its kind of hard to have any problems when you've never carried any handgun, nor own one since his mommy won't let him have guns in the house.

Ohh, by the way I love !!!!!!!

 

[kingnereli]

Yes, I would.

How many double actions can you think of that must be cocked before their double action works? How many double actions can you think of that can only have their trigger actuated one time and can not have their triggers pulled over and over again thereby firing the weapon each time (or potentially firing it)?

A Sig P226, Beretta 92, HK USP, etc. are double action pistols. No other action outside of pulling the trigger is required to fire the weapon. A Glock must be cocked each time before it fires.

If the ATF classifies it as a double action, it's only because they didn't want to create a new class of weapons. If one must group it into one of the two existing groups, most would say it's more of a double action since it partially cocks the weapon when the trigger is pulled. But that doesn't make it a double action, nor does it by default make it a single action. It's somewhere in between.

The need to be cocked or second strike capability does not define a double action. It is a matter of how many actions the trigger must perform for the gun to fire. Glock triggers cock the striker and release it. That is two actions. The trigger operates this way every time. Two actions all the time = DAO. The fact that the striker starts partially cocked only takes away some of the benefits of a double action system.

 

[MilitaryArms]

The need to be cocked or second strike capability does not define a double action. It is a matter of how many actions the trigger must perform for the gun to fire. Glock triggers cock the striker and release it. That is two actions. The trigger operates this way every time. Two actions all the time = DAO. The fact that the striker starts partially cocked only takes away some of the benefits of a double action system.

Ahh, if things were only so simple.

But the Glock must be cocked each time before being fired. That means the striker must be returned to the ready position by cycling the slide (since you can't manually cock a hammer). Thus, it could be argued it's a single action. Just because the striker is partially retracted during the firing sequence doesn't necessarily make it a true double action. Truth be told, many single actions slightly push the hammer back as the sear comes out of engagement with the hammer. It's ever so slight, but it does happen and that doesn't make it a double action.

The term "double action" came about long before Glocks entered the scene. They were handguns that performed two actions, both cocking and firing the pistol. No other action was required. Obviously this isn't the case with Glock as the user must first cock the weapon before the trigger can be pulled.

You're trying to shoehorn an old term to fit a modern design. If you were even remotely objective, you would admit that the striker system doesn't fit comfortably into either group, single action or double action.

 

[Gpfury86]

Well new generation kimbers perform two actions to fire. The trigger moves a safety out of the way and releases the hammer......that doesn't make them double action.....

I think full auto is pretty much hitting on the head instead of make a new category to fit a new design they are just categorizing as DA action, but I agree if u can't dry fire the pistol every time by pulling the trigger only how can you set there and honestly say it's DA?

 

[kingnereli]

Ahh, if things were only so simple.

But the Glock must be cocked each time before being fired. That means the striker must be returned to the ready position by cycling the slide (since you can't manually cock a hammer). Thus, it could be argued it's a single action. Just because the striker is partially retracted during the firing sequence doesn't necessarily make it a true double action. Truth be told, many single actions slightly push the hammer back as the sear comes out of engagement with the hammer. It's ever so slight, but it does happen and that doesn't make it a double action.

The term "double action" came about long before Glocks entered the scene. They were handguns that performed two actions, both cocking and firing the pistol. No other action was required. Obviously this isn't the case with Glock as the user must first cock the weapon before the trigger can be pulled.

You're trying to shoehorn an old term to fit a modern design. If you were even remotely objective, you would admit that the striker system doesn't fit comfortably into either group, single action or double action.

Me? Not objective? How dare you? I get what you are saying. Glocks don't fit either definition perfectly. However, again, the number of actions the trigger performs is all that defines the system. A glock trigger cocks and releases the striker. It very closely (such that the shoehorn works) fits the definition of double action only. you would, at least, likely agree that it is very different from the trigger system on a 1911, Xd or peacemaker, correct?

 

[MilitaryArms]

Me? Not objective? How dare you? I get what you are saying. Glocks don't fit either definition perfectly. However, again, the number of actions the trigger performs is all that defines the system. A glock trigger cocks and releases the striker. It very closely (such that the shoehorn works) fits the definition of double action only. you would, at least, likely agree that it is very different from the trigger system on a 1911, Xd or peacemaker, correct?

It's different than a 1911, about the same as an XD, and clearly different from a Colt Peacemaker. But it's also clearly different than a S&W 686 or Model 19 too.

Since it must be cocked to be fired, it can also be argued it's a single action. Why ignore this fact? It's like ignoring the white side of Obama's ethnicity on the Census (he put that he was black and left out his momma - and you can select more than one option!) .

If we count the fact the trigger performs two functions, partially drawing the striker back from the already pre-cocked position and releasing it, we must also consider the fact the weapon must first be cocked before it can be fired, just like a single action. It performs as both, hence the fact it fits neither definition to the letter, but meets the requirements for both.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

about the same as an XD, .

Not really. The XD striker is fully cocked, making it a straight up single action.

 

[kingnereli]

It's different than a 1911, about the same as an XD, and clearly different from a Colt Peacemaker. But it's also clearly different than a S&W 686 or Model 19 too.

Since it must be cocked to be fired, it can also be argued it's a single action. Why ignore this fact? It's like ignoring the white side of Obama's ethnicity on the Census (he put that he was black and left out his momma - and you can select more than one option!) .

If we count the fact the trigger performs two functions, partially drawing the striker back from the already pre-cocked position and releasing it, we must also consider the fact the weapon must first be cocked before it can be fired, just like a single action. It performs as both, hence the fact it fits neither definition to the letter, but meets the requirements for both.

I ignore the need to be partially cocked because it has no bearing on the definition. If the trigger performs one action it is a single action. If the trigger performs two actions each time without the option of a single action mode it is double action only.

P.S. How dare you compare me to Obama. I thought this was a friendly conversation.

Edit: Joe's right about the XD.