I got one of the police trade ins a few years ago, stupidly sold it (already have a '94ish 229 357). Had one of the best triggers I've had on a gun. I carry my P-220 DAK most of the time.

quote:

Originally posted by USAFA71:
Does anyone know if the DAK parts are usable across the P-series, ie will the 220 take the same DAK parts as the 229?

According to an old parts list I have re DAK parts:

trigger bar, not the same in 220 and 229
sear, not the same*
safety lever, the same in 220 and 229
hammer, the same
sear spring, the same

* Depending upon the age of the pistol, its sear may already be DAK compatible. It is if it has the scalloped cut shown below. But if the frame is DAK compatible, it probably has a compatible sear.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by roym:
The one is only there to have a catch point for second strike capability.

Umm ..., no, that’s not true and demonstrates total ignorance of one of the most obvious characteristics of the DAK trigger.
I can only ask: Do you have any personal experience with the DAK trigger that you are advising us about?

If a DAK gun fails to fire due to a bad round or, more likely, an empty chamber, the hammer will go all the way forward and the trigger will reset only at the fully forward position. It can’t be reset at the short reset point unless the slide cycles, and of course that will happen only if the pistol fires (or the slide is cycled manually).

Many shooters of DAK pistols, including me, routinely use the short trigger reset. It’s simply a matter of practice and becoming accustomed to it, just as users of traditional DA/SA pistols transition from the long double action stroke to the short single action.* And saying that shooters shouldn’t use the short DAK reset is like saying that shooters of DA/SA pistols should take their fingers entirely off the trigger and outside the trigger guard after each shot.

Added: In reading your second post, I’m even more mystified about what you’re trying to say. Perhaps you do understand the DAK operation, but I don’t understand your comments.

* In fact, that’s one of the most bizarre things about critics of the “two” trigger pulls of the DAK system. They claim that it’s impossible to learn to use the short reset of the DAK, but blithely assume that no one should have any problem with the true two distinctly different trigger actions of a DA/SA gun.

Feeling some lack of love here so I'll give it one more try

My point wasn't that you can't learn to use the first reset. It is based on the design parameter for second strike capability. Not sure what was the exact reason for this in the design parameter {experience with faulty ammo or if it was just a design wish}

Anyway when the DAK is fired but doesn't go off, the hammer doesn't sit positioned to take advantage of the leverage system {design } The hammer has traveled beyond that point and in order to be able to bring it back to the semi-cocked position where the leverage is designed for trigger ease. There are only 2 ways. One is to run the slide and the other is to pull the trigger slightly to move the hammer back and then the gun resets to the position as tho it had been fired. And now the leverage design will also work. I doubt that the second was a part of the design other than it just happens to work this way. {in order to achieve second strike capability} I believe that the position of having the hammer down all the way and wanting {for whatever reason} a second strike capability is the reason for this reset.

I hope I have explained somewhat....I believe that second strike capability was in the design parameter. Just so happens it also allows another reset position.

I had an early P229 DAK (i.e., with the rounded triggerguard and lighter triggerpull, before the factory made it heavier, ostensibly to eliminate a break-in period with the lighter pull weight triggers). I had both .357 SIG and .40 barrels for it.

At the end of the day (which encompassed several years of ownership, carry and use). I ended up divesting myself of it, with little regrets. I did not like the wierd 2-option trigger reset positioning, and considered the gun itself to be fairly bulky and heavy.

I much prefer HK's LEM (I use a "Variant 1.5," i.e., with the medium-weight trigger return spring, which HK installed for me, which provides a slightly heavier triggerpull, but more importantly gives me more continuous tactile feel throughout the triggerpull, and seques more smoothly into the break wall in use). My LEM is on a P30L, which I've found to be an excellent duty and conceiled carry pistol.

A major advantage of LEM or DAK is as a threat-management trigger-due to their longer (but easy to use, due to the relative lightness of the triggerpull) triggerpull distance, they give you more time to get off the trigger and avoid firing if a tactical situation changes, and shooting is no longer advisable. They're both self-decocking, which is a nice advantage when re-holstering after an adrenelin-fueled tactical encounter.

For a pistol with a true revolver-like triggerpull, my Beretta 92D is superb-like a custom-tuned classic Smith & Wesson revolver.

A DAK is certainly a quality pistol, but there's a learning curve, and it really is probably most ideal if it's your "one and only" gun. That way you can get really grooved in in its manual of arms and trigger vicissitudes and really master it, eking out its not inconsiderable advantages. But I still generally recommend an HK LEM over DAK.
Best, Jon