An older friend just gave me a 7 year old P229 DAK 40 caliber. I'm a Police Officer for 23+ years and carry the Glock 22 for the last 14 years. He is retired police officer and said he is just going with 9mm pistols for his golden years. I don't know much about the P229 DAK, or Sig pistols in general. Prior to the Glock I carried a Colt 1911 government model and the Beretta 92fs pistol. My department standardized on Glock. This P229 has been fired very little, any pros or cons on this pistol? Thinking about using as off right carry, as we are not restricted on what we can carry. Thanks

Different than your Glock but still nice. I personally love the DAK Sigs. I only have one right now but had a 220, 226 and a 229 in DAK.
Two different reset points in the trigger. First reset is supposedly a pound or so heavier than original trigger pull. Second reset or sweeping the trigger all the way through is the same pull as the original.
You can experiment a little and find out what you like. This is not a pistol to shoot at speed.
I personally let the trigger go all the way forward so it's the same pull all the time.
My drills with the DAK involve drawing, shooting 2-3 shots, reholster and then go through it again. No need to decock as it's not DA/SA.
It's not for everyone but if you give it a chance, you may like it.

If you work with DAK enough, it can be an excellent trigger system. It is a matter of practice.

I really like the DAK trigger. That's a very nice gift.

Sig is no longer offering new pistols with the DAK. I have a 226 DAK in 357 Sig and the trigger is very smooth and light. Reminds me of a nice colt revolver.

I have a 229 ICE gun DAK trigger a with night sights in 9mm and I like it never a problem

You can learn to shoot the DAK equipped pistols at speed. Learn to stage the trigger. With time you will be as competitive as anyone else using whatever platform they choose.

I have a P226 DAK. I'm a Sig fan so wanted one mostly for the novelty of it.

I'm not sure what Kellerman was going for with the 2 different resets, it's a bit odd.

For serious carry I personally much prefer DA/SA. The DAK is just another version of Double Action Only but as previously explained in this thread it has the 2 different resets with corresponding different trigger pull weights.

I've had a couple other DAO autos over the years and never really liked any of them until I bought a used Sig P250. The P250 DAO is so smooth and light that I do actually carry it at times. I really like it.

Your P229 DAK should be a very good gun but you should practice with it. I believe, if you were to wish, you could convert your P229 to standard DA/SA.

quote:

Originally posted by John3200:
I'm not sure what Kellerman was going for with the 2 different resets, it's a bit odd.

There are two theories:

Mine is that the short reset was to … well, shorten the trigger reset that so many people whined about with other DAO designs. SIG even developed the short reset trigger for DA/SA models and that was the obvious reason: Pretty clear to me.

The other claim is that the short reset option of the DAK was to avoid short-stroking problems. That always struck me as extremely unlikely—not to say odd—but the claim was made.

And of course there’s no reason to use the short DAK reset if one doesn’t want to; it’s completely optional and transparent if one doesn’t use it. It’s like rolling the window down when driving: If you don’t like driving with the window down, don’t roll it down; it’s no more difficult than that.

I do use the DAK short reset all the time and despite being an ancient klutzy guy have never had any problem doing so.

The DAK is smooth if you can get used to it. Shooting side by side with Glocks it is a little slower, but to each their own. I haven't had an issue with the 2 I have.

I like the P229, just don't like DAK...

I got a 220 awhile back, and some may remember me whining about the DAK. I just didn't like it. Very recently I picked up a 226 in 40 and I may have to re evaluate. The long trigger is pretty smooth, and I'm sorta liking it.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by John3200:
I'm not sure what Kellerman was going for with the 2 different resets, it's a bit odd.

There are two theories:

Mine is that the short reset was to … well, shorten the trigger reset that so many people whined about with other DAO designs. SIG even developed the short reset trigger for DA/SA models and that was the obvious reason: Pretty clear to me.

The other claim is that the short reset option of the DAK was to avoid short-stroking problems. That always struck me as extremely unlikely—not to say odd—but the claim was made.

And of course there’s no reason to use the short DAK reset if one doesn’t want to; it’s completely optional and transparent if one doesn’t use it. It’s like rolling the window down when driving: If you don’t like driving with the window down, don’t roll it down; it’s no more difficult than that.

I do use the DAK short reset all the time and despite being an ancient klutzy guy have never had any problem doing so.

I reached the same conclusion as your theory many years ago, after the short stroking theory surfaced. I have yet to come across an article or any marketing material from the time frame that the DAK or SRT was released in which these were described as fixes to short stroking.

In regards to the speed of shooting a DAK system, if I recall correctly, you've achieved some respectable split times, comparable to DA/SA guns, using it. Yes?

Your explanation is reasonable but to me misses the question. I get the short reset, why do you design the short reset to have a heavier pull? It is an unusual design and it was made purposefully. But why?

I have a 229 DAK in .40 that is in my EDC rotation (depending on clothing and weather). For me, in the .40 caliber, the DAK is perfect. I'm probably not going to explain this right but bear with me. The DAK slows me down just enough (in .40 and .357 SIG), that I am back on target for a much more accurate second shot or additional follow up shot. Comparing split times with my SIG 229 DA/SA in .40, I am just a tad slower on the second round with the DAK but have much better shot placement.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Your explanation is reasonable but to me misses the question. I get the short reset, why do you design the short reset to have a heavier pull? It is an unusual design and it was made purposefully. But why?

To answer your question it is first necessary to understand that three of the common complaints about the Classic SIG DA/SA pistols were the length of the DA trigger pull, the weight of the DA trigger pull, and the length of the reset. The first two were also complained about in the DAO versions. Personally, I think these problems were overblown and could be addressed through proper technique and practice, but regardless SIG addressed some of these complaints with the DAK and SRT. In designing the DAK Kellermann achieved the lighter smoother full length trigger pull (compared to the traditional SIG DA & DAO pull), through the mechanical advantage of leverage. To answer the third complaint a shorter (OPTIONAL) reset was added, however this shorter reset point doesn't offer the same mechanical leverage and, therefore, has a slightly heavier trigger pull.

Also, I suspect that the heavier short reset DAK trigger pull reflects a common practice in handgun designs in which both the length and the weight of the trigger pull are engineered to add a measure of safety. This is especially true in handguns that don't have a manual safety/ firing inhibitor. Think of the longer heavier DA trigger pull of a DA revolver or semiautomatic pistol like a SIG or Beretta or the lighter shorter trigger pull of a 1911 with the safeties on it.

I liked DAK well enough, but have retired my P229R DAK, because .40 snappiness, plus the high bore axis characteristic of the classic SIG DA pistols, combined to produce increasingly painful muzzle flip, as I have aged. I had thought I would finish my LE career with the .40 P229R DAK, but after eleven years of it being my duty pistol, 2004-2015, I switched to a 9mm G17, one month after my chief OK'ed 9mm duty pistols, and then a year after that, resumed carrying an all-steel 5"-barreled .45 ACP 1911 on duty, when my chief restored the 1911 to the list of authorized duty pistols.

It was probably the big-bore Magnums I fired in the Eighties that actually caused most of the damage to my right wrist and hand, so I do not blame the .40 S&W, or SIG, but the two, combined, had become a bit much to tolerate. I liked that the DAK, when fired without using the short reset option, mimics the long-stroke DA trigger pulls of my medium/large-frame S&W and Ruger revolvers. Long-stroke DA is, for me, the most resistent to stress, or having a bad day, and is less-perishable, between training/practice sessions, than other trigger systems.

Picked up a 229 SAS DAK in .40 a couple of weeks ago and finally got a chance to shoot it last weekend.
Very happy, didn't seem as snappy as the 229 I had, jeez, probably 20+ years ago now.
Second DAK that I've owned. Sold a P220 SAS DAK years ago that I've always regretted so I saw this one in the used case at the local LGS and bought it on a whim.
Like I said very happy with it, some more range time and it might be the new house gun. Needs a new night sight though.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
In regards to the speed of shooting a DAK system, if I recall correctly, you've achieved some respectable split times, comparable to DA/SA guns, using it. Yes?

I very seldom shoot Classic line DA/SA SIG pistols except in training demonstrations and then not in ways that are comparable to how I use other pistols. I do, however, shoot a P320 a fair amount and its trigger is obviously much closer to the action of a DA/SA in single action mode. To answer the question it’s necessary to consider some specifics.

My most common practice is with a course that includes a stage in which the shooter must fire two shots at modified IDPA targets at 3 and 7 yards.

As can be imagined, most people fire the two shots at the 3 yard target as fast as they can pull the trigger and then transition to the 7 yard target. My split at the 3 yard target with a DAK P226 chambered for 40 S&W runs about 0.33 to 0.35 second; 15 years ago my DAO splits were a little faster, in the 0.33 range, but my hands have slowed down with age. My splits for that stage with a P320 run 0.25-0.28 second, so on average I can shoot the P320 0.05 to 0.10 second faster when operating the trigger as fast as possible. By comparison, a firefighter friend who is just over 30 and is therefore less than half my age, is in good shape and uses a 1911 can shoot splits under 0.20 second on that stage. Another younger (late 50s) friend who shoots 9mm SAO P226s has splits in the low 0.20s.

One thing to emphasize about all this is that it refers to firing shots as fast as mechanically possible at a very close distance target. My and my friends’ splits when shooting at the 7 yard and farther targets are not as fast if we want to get reliable hits. It’s necessary to recover from recoil and ensure that the gun is aimed at the target, and that takes longer than just letting the trigger reset and pulling it again.

So, what does all that mean? I can shoot a P320 a tiny bit faster than a DAK P226. Does that matter? If I encounter an attacker at close enough range that I can deliver accurate fire on while operating the trigger as fast as my hands and mind permit will it matter if it takes an extra 0.1 second to get the second and subsequent shots off? Some people evidently believe that it might; I don’t. I have read the arguments, given the matter much thought and analysis, and there is nothing I know about the dynamics of violent defense and human physiology that makes me believe that such a difference would matter in any practical sense.

But what if it did? What if I became convinced that being able to get a second shot off at 3 yards 0.1 second faster because I was using a P320 rather than a pistol with DAK trigger might conceivably save my life one day? Would I carry a P320 instead? No.

The choices we make pertaining to defensive weapons all involve compromises. If the trigger and being able to deliver fast, accurate fire were the only thing that mattered in such a choice, I’d carry my S&W model 41 22 Long Rifle target pistol: I can’t shoot any handgun faster or more accurately. Why then, don’t I carry the model 41?

Size is one thing, and so are reliability and magazine capacity. Plus, without having to deal with a tiny safety, either a Classic line SIG or a P320 is easier and faster to get into operation. And of course being someone who understands wound ballistics, I’m not one who claims to believe that cartridge choice in a handgun doesn’t matter. That therefore influences my choices as well. Some people are satisfied with lower-powered rounds than I am.

To return to the DAK line of SIG pistols, I also like the fact that they are more forgiving of gun-handling and safety mistakes than other guns. I like to shoot the P320, and I rely on one as a sometimes duty weapon for a couple of reasons, including the fact that I can shoot it fast and accurately while wearing protective gloves. I don’t, however, like the fact that it’s too easy to fire if mishandled. I can be a little less attentive when holstering a DAK P229, for example, and not worry about shooting myself in the process. The long, heavier trigger stroke is part of the reason, and the other is because I can monitor and control what’s happening with the hammer.

To return to the design of the DAK trigger, without being able to see into the minds of the designer and other engineers involved it’s impossible to know the answers to some questions. One thing I’ll remind us of, though, is that the DAK trigger had to be designed to fit into an existing gun design. Part of the designer’s genius was that it was possible to fit the DAK parts into guns that had been in production for years with minimal frame modification. In addition, many of the parts are the same in both DA/SA and DAK pistols.

Fitting the DAK system into an existing gun obviously meant, though, that there were limits on the design. For example, there is only so much room for the parts to move. That required a small change in the DAK sear. It also resulted in less hammer movement and mainspring compression, and that in turn required a stronger mainspring. The shorter trigger reset’s increased pull weight was an inescapable consequence of a design that had to deal with the limits of an existing gun.

Thanks for all the info and advice!