SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    Sig Sauer P229 DAK
Page 1 2 

Closed Topic Closed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Sig Sauer P229 DAK Login/Join 
Member
Picture of Deputy 617
posted Hide Post
I absolutely LOVE my P229R DAK. Mine is a German framed pistol in .40 S&W but I keep the factory 357 SIG barrel in it for carry. It also has SigLite night sights, and a factory .22LR conversion top end. It is a very versatile pistol that combines a lot of positive attributes to equal one seriously fine weapon for personal defense.

I have been issued different varieties of the P220 .45 ACP since 2005, and all of them have been in the standard DA/SA version. I like my DAK equipped P229 much better. I find the trigger to be very predictable and smooth. Just enough resistance to make sure that you really want to fire without being heavy. There are a lot of guys who have paid a lot of money to get revolver triggers as nice as the DAK comes right out of the box.

I'm sure you'll enjoy the new pistol. Mine will be with me for life.


SIG SAUER...... Get you some!
 
Posts: 369 | Location: Kansas City | Registered: July 17, 2005Report This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
quote:
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.


I've been busy preparing for a hospital stay and so I apologize for not responding to your post sooner.

Also, I found this post so incredibly comprehensive and interesting that I wanted to take some time to contemplate it.

Once again you've managed to delve much deeper into a topic while providing some very interesting and pertinent facts to support your conclusions. I had arrived at several of the same conclusions and compromises you have, but you framed them in such a comprehensive way that I find myself taking a fresh look at the subject.

I found your split times on the DAK and DAO guns interesting (& impressive), but more so the fact that you were able to show a correlation between age/condition and the operation of a trigger system. And while I knew that the DAK was installed into a proven design I had never considered the difficulties that might present.

Thank you for the time you took in this post and the perspective you added. As usual with your posts you've started me down the path of considering yet even more factors that I hadn't previously...and I particularly thank you for that!
 
Posts: 7324 | Location: the Centennial state | Registered: August 21, 2006Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  

Closed Topic Closed

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    Sig Sauer P229 DAK

© SIGforum 2024