Originally posted by sigfreund:
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.
