Single Action vs Double Action - Speed

[David E]

In another thread, the merits of carrying a single action revolver for CCW defense was discussed.

Dismissing the reload as a concern, one big concern I had was how fast one could shoot a single action ONE HANDED accurately as opposed to firing a DA revolver one handed.

I was told by a poster, who doesn't own or use a shot timer, that the difference isn't as "big as you might think." Based on my experience, I knew the difference was probably bigger than HE thinks, but I needed to put it to the test and find out what those numbers were.

Distance was 5 yds, target was a paper plate. Start position was gun at low ready, thumb on an uncocked hammer.

The average with the .357 Ruger Anniversary single action for 5 shots on target was 3.91 with a best run of 3.75.

Average split time (time between shots) was .75, with a best average of .71

Using the same loads in a 4" Model 66 averaged 2.36 for 5 shots on target with a best run of 2.09

Average splits were .37 with a best average of .30

The SA was about 40% slower than the DA

Going to the .44, the best SA average was 3.92, with a best run of 3.74

Splits averaged .74 with a best average of .73 (twice)

Using the DA, it was 2.58 with a best run of 2.36

Splits averaged .42 with a best average of .37

Curiously, the SA was only about 35% slower than the DA. The .357 was still faster overall than the .44, but the harder kicking loads seemed to affect the .44 DA gun more than the .357 did.

As you can see, changing calibers added about 2/10ths of a second to each gun. That seems to show pretty good consistency with both action types and both calibers.

Now, I know folks will say "well, that's just YOU, _I_can go faster with a Single Action!"
Can you? How does it compare to your DA shooting? Get a timer and go see. I did.

 

[David E]

Here are a couple more.

 

[jmr40]

40% more than next to nothing still isn't much. While statistically the difference between 3.75 and 2.09 seems like a lot, both are fast.

The way I read this you did more to prove that the difference isn't "as big as you might think" than the other way around. I'd have certainly thought there would have been a much larger difference.

That still doesn't mean I'm going to start carrying a SA revolver, but it does seem to do better than I'd have thought it would.

 

[R.W.Dale]

40% more than next to nothing still isn't much. While statistically the difference between 3.75 and 2.09 seems like a lot, both are fast.



The way I read this you did more to prove that the difference isn't "as big as you might think" than the other way around. I'd have certainly thought there would have been a much larger difference.



That still doesn't mean I'm going to start carrying a SA revolver, but it does seem to do better than I'd have thought it would.

Agreed.

And for that matter I would not be suprised if one of the ever popular micro 380's or 9mm's was actually right in the middle if these numbers if all shots must be kept on the plate.

 

[Kuyong_Chuin]

I was trying to find it so I would have the exact figures but no luck. Many years ago there was an article in a gun magazine, I think it was guns and ammo, that was about this very thing. They used two world champion record holders for the test. One was the world champion record holder for DA and the other Champion was Thell Reed for the SA. In the two shot part of the test Mr Reed actually beat the DA Champion, sorry I can not remember his name but I do remember he was also the NYPD training officer. Time wise with Mr Reed thumb cocking the SA revolver lost on the six shot test but not by much, less than a half a second if my memory is correct, but Mr Reeds spread was smaller that the other guys. When allowed to "fan" the hammer Thell Reed actually was faster on the six shot than the DA guy. He pulled of 6 shots in less than 2 seconds with two shot being less than 5/10th of a second apart. The gist of the story is I think is that with practice and training both can be equally fast in a two shot or even six shots with the right technique. Where the major slowdown comes in is reloading and then the DA wins hands down.

 

[ATLDave]

Seems like a material difference to me.

 

[David E]

And for that matter I would not be suprised if one of the ever popular micro 380's or 9mm's was actually right in the middle if these numbers if all shots must be kept on the plate.

I tested this same thing with pocket .390's awhile back. For ME, the action type was the deciding factor. Better sights also helped.

The KelTec was 1.82, the Sig 238 was 1.51

 

[BSA1]

How much time and experience do you have with shooting a double action vs. single action revolvers?

Why didn't you conduct the drill drawing from a holster which is how it is done in actual street carry?

Sighted or unsighted shooting?

I fail to see how your results apply to anyone else as it is based solely on your skill level?

Send me your timer and I will perform the same drill.

 

[David E]

I was trying to find it so I would have the exact figures but no luck. Many years ago there was an article in a gun magazine, I think it was guns and ammo, that was about this very thing. They used two world champion record holders for the test. One was the world champion record holder for DA and the other Champion was Thell Reed for the SA. In the two shot part of the test Mr Reed actually beat the DA Champion, sorry I can not remember his name but I do remember he was also the NYPD training officer. Time wise with Mr Reed thumb cocking the SA revolver lost on the six shot test but not by much, less than a half a second if my memory is correct, but Mr Reeds spread was smaller that the other guys. When allowed to "fan" the hammer Thell Reed actually was faster on the six shot than the DA guy. He pulled of 6 shots in less than 2 seconds with two shot being less than 5/10th of a second apart. The gist of the story is I think is that with practice and training both can be equally fast in a two shot or even six shots with the right technique. Where the major slowdown comes in is reloading and then the DA wins hands down.

Without the actual times, this is moot. For example, 5/10ths, or 1/2 second, isn't very fast for either party using two hands.

When set up, Bob Munden fired two shots that sounded like one. Jerry Miculek averaged .14 splits for his world record runs.

But I wasn't concerned with the disparity, or lack thereof, using two hands. Carried as a defensive gun, you can easily be required to use ONE hand and this is what I wanted to compare.

In my world, at a match consisting of 12 stages requiring 320 rds and I lost it on the last stage by 2/10ths of a second.....:bang head: Being consistently 35-40% slower is quite a difference to me. On the street, there's much more than a match at stake.

That said, I was pleasantly surprised how well I did with the single actions. One thing worth noting was the harder kicking loads affected the DA gun more, while only minimally affecting the SA.

 

[David E]

How much time and experience do you have with shooting a double action vs. single action revolvers?

Irrelevant to the conversation. I was comparing how _I_ could do with them.

Why didn't you conduct the drill drawing from a holster which is how it is done in actual street carry?

Because I was testing my ability with the guns, not my draw. Plus, if anyone wants to do the same drill, some ranges don't allow drawing.

Sighted or unsighted shooting?

It doesn't matter.....as long as you get your hits.

I fail to see how your results apply to anyone else as it is based solely on your skill level?

As I said, I wanted to compare how _I_ would do with the two action types, so I did. But now there is a time out there for this drill that folks can see if they can beat. When they do, I hope they post pictures.
But they'll have to go out and do it with a timer instead of saying, "well, I can do that faster! Because I'm, yew know, faster n stuff.....cuz it feels fast when I shoot, so I know I'm faster n yew!"

Great! Get a free timer app and put it to the test.

Send me your timer and I will perform the same drill.

No.

I do not present the results of this drill as setting a standard for anyone other than myself. Neither am I "forcing" anyone to give it a try. I said I'd go out and do this drill and report the results, so I did.

I hope others find it at least a little bit interesting.

 

[Ed Ames]

I think this pretty strongly supports the "carry what you shoot" principle.

IMO there are two times that matter:

1) Time from decision to first good hit, and,
2) time from first good hit to incapacitation.

The numbers you gave indicate an average 0.91 seconds to first hit with SA, and 0.88 seconds with DA. A difference of 0.03 seconds. I suspect you could close or reverse that if you (for whatever reason) preferred to shoot (and therefore did more shooting with) the SA. (That is based on total - (average split *4); e.g. 3.91-(.75*4)=0.91)

As for time to incapacitation, that depends on too many factors to accurately estimate by punching paper plates...but I will say that five distinct holes is probably better than 4 holes, one of which saw two bullets. So the SA paper plate is probably showing a faster incapacitation than the DA plate. That's just guesswork though.

I'd call your numbers validation of the SA choice.

 

[tomrkba]

Ed McGivern speaks about this in his book Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting. He spent quite a bit of time discussing why he chose the double action revolver over the single action revolver and 1911. There were quite a few "flame wars" on this topic in the gun periodicals of the time (1920's-mid-1930's).

The following is actually more of a tangent into gun fighting rather than the pure speed measurement between the two guns. I do think the time to first shot is a very important number to look at.

40% more than next to nothing still isn't much. While statistically the difference between 3.75 and 2.09 seems like a lot, both are fast.

People get shot and die in that 1.66 second difference when you consider the total length of a gun fight. It is so huge that in the semi-auto world that a person shooting a semi-auto at a reasonable speed with .25 second splits can get 6.64 shots off. Let's cut it down to .33 splits due to the use of only one hand...that's still five shots and faster than the double action numbers posted by David E. .25 and .33 splits (with hits) are easy to do with a semi-auto pistol. Even a half second between shots yields three shots. That's still two to the chest and one to the head, even if performed very slowly.

The above is predicated upon the current state of handgunnery in the US: semi-automatic pistols are the norm and large percentages of citizens, police and criminals use them. In short, the semi-auto pistol is what you are likely to run into on the street. This does not assume training. A trained man will get much better performance than .25 and .33 splits. So, if we're talking 3.75 seconds to get five shots off, it's quite possible that the shooter will receive quite a few shots for each one fired.

I think this difference may be more heavily weighted if the fight is against two or more armed attackers. For a single attacker, I think the first shot (and hit) in a gun fight is exceptionally important. I am very interested in times to first shot from the concealed holster, unconcealed holster, low ready and Sul. What were the times to first shot with both guns? Was the gun holstered or started in hand? If so, what position was used?

 

[Kuyong_Chuin]

Without the actual times, this is moot. For example, 5/10ths, or 1/2 second, isn't very fast for either party using two hands.

When set up, Bob Munden fired two shots that sounded like one. Jerry Miculek averaged .14 splits for his world record runs.

But I wasn't concerned with the disparity, or lack thereof, using two hands. Carried as a defensive gun, you can easily be required to use ONE hand and this is what I wanted to compare.

In my world, at a match consisting of 12 stages requiring 320 rds and I lost it on the last stage by 2/10ths of a second.....:bang head: Being consistently 35-40% slower is quite a difference to me. On the street, there's much more than a match at stake.

That said, I was pleasantly surprised how well I did with the single actions. One thing worth noting was the harder kicking loads affected the DA gun more, while only minimally affecting the SA.

5/10th was a typo it was supposed to be 5/100th of a second. I have seen him on a TV show shoot two shots so fast that it looked and sounded like he fired one shot but he busted two targets.

 

[David E]

I did a series of "first shots" and found them to be nearly identical, tho the DA edged out the SA slightly.

I'm not debating first shot time, I was only testing how fast the two action types could fire 5 shots on the plate. Keep in mind, I was using viable defense loads ONE HANDED. If you gave an average split of .16-.18 two handed, it's going to be slower than than one handed. At least, if you want to hit the target.

If you were at a match and came in second at 60-65% of the winner, would you think it was pretty close?

 

[David E]

5/10th was a typo it was supposed to be 5/100th of a second. I have seen him on a TV show shoot two shots so fast that it looked and sounded like he fired one shot but he busted two targets.

How fast was he on the 3rd, 4th and 5th shot?

 

[45_auto]

Good drill. Hopefully I'll get a chance to get to the range this weekend and see how I compare.

 

[Ed Ames]

If you were at a match and came in second at 60-65% of the winner, would you think it was pretty close?

That's a red herring. The topic is "single action revolver for CCW defense".

Concealed weapon carrying is not a competitive sport. You don't lose because another concealed carrier could deploy another gun more quickly. Frankly if a situation could come down to tenths or hundredths of a second I think drawing a weapon is probably a very poor choice. (It may be the best available, but it is still poor.)

Concealed carry comes into play in the gap between demonstrated intent and active action. The gap between when a man with a baseball bat says "I am going to smash your skull in," and when they actually swing a blow that could connect. It is easy to describe scenarios where that gap is very short...aggressor with pistol in hand, finger on the trigger, and you caught unaware. Those short-gap scenarios are realistic, but they are not the only scenarios, nor even the most likely scenarios.

My most likely scenario: free-ranging (not necessarily feral) dogs. They have attacked members of my family. They have killed people. They are not IPSC shooters. I flat don't need an extra 0.03 seconds to defend myself against them. I need to have the right tools in hand.

I have semi-auto pistols for carry...but my .45C blackhawk would not leave me noticeably more vunlerable.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I think this pretty strongly supports the "carry what you shoot" principle

^^^^^^ This

Practice most heavily with what you want to use for defense. Undoubtedly someone dedicated to SA defense carry will show greater proficiency than someone who is not dedicated to that platform and results will varry. It's a drill that shows a difference for the OP, but I think the message here is if you believe you are just as fast with a SA as a double action revolver, you should test yourself and see, because you may be surprised by the results.

I think most people do check themselves though to be honest. I mean, isn't that inherantly part of deciding what type of gun to carry?

 

[CraigC]

The other discussions involved starting with a holster gun. Why the change?

Irrelevant to the conversation. I was comparing how _I_ could do with them.

If you're going to reference the other thread, it is 100% relevant. Because the discussion was not about choosing the best platform for self defense, with some arguing the single action was a good choice for all. The argument was that the single action is a good choice, FOR THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY PROFICIENT WITH THEM.

I would reiterate the question, how much time have you spent building skill with the two platforms? If you're unwilling or unable to answer that question, I have nothing more to add.

 

[mavracer]

If you were at a match and came in second at 60-65% of the winner, would you think it was pretty close?

If you're in a gunfight and you still have 40% of the distance before you reach cover when your gun is empty are you still worried about how fast you can empty the gun.
Sometimes when you focus on one aspect too much, you lose sight of many other important factors.

 

[Sav .250]

More a personal choice. Practice makes perfect.

 

[45_auto]

The argument was that the single action is a good choice, FOR THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY PROFICIENT WITH THEM.

So by your standards, is David E proficient with a single action or not?

If he's not, what standards would you propose for him to attain to be considered proficient with his single action?

Seems like a pretty simple question that you keep doing your best to avoid answering.

I think most people do check themselves though to be honest.

That hasn't been my experience. From what I've seen, most people just decide that they ARE "good" with whatever they feel like makes them "good", whether it's a DA/SA semi-auto, single action revolver, double action revolver, SA semi-auto, safe-action (Glock) semi-auto, etc. And in reality they are MUCH worse than they think they are. But unless they have actually compared their performance with different platforms they'll never know.

 

[Ed Ames]

From what I've seen, most people just decide that they ARE "good" with whatever they feel like makes them "good", whether it's a DA/SA semi-auto, single action revolver, double action revolver, SA semi-auto, safe-action (Glock) semi-auto, etc. And in reality they are MUCH worse than they think they are.

From what I've seen, most decide they need to protect their family when they find out they are expecting their first child, hold a few guns in the local shop, ask about the price to rent at a range but shy away at the cost, then ask friends for advice. They follow the advice of whichever of those friends sounds most authoratative.. They go shooting with the "expert" friend who sets up targets at "7 yards" (actually 5), lectures about how his daddy taught him to shoot, spreads lead in a 20" pattern, and probably has a few operator induced malfunctions too. The new gun owner fires something less than 50 rounds, matches the performance of the "expert", and doesn't shoot again until his oldest kid is about 13. There is then a burst where he is the daddy who teaches the next generation of expert, which lasts until the kid becomes intolerable or moves out. It's a great circle....

....Which we aren't really part of, in that most people on THR probably go shooting at least once per year, and fire 50 or more rounds per trip to the range. That puts us on the fringe of gun owners.

 

[David E]

Originally Posted by craigc

The argument was that the single action is a good choice, FOR THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY PROFICIENT WITH THEM...

Why can't someone become proficient with a single action after becoming proficient in other gun types?

What level of proficiency should be attained?

I want to point out that I had fun doing this and learned a few things along the way.
I am not disparaging anyone's choice for defense.

 

[huntsman]

My most likely scenario: free-ranging (not necessarily feral) dogs. They have attacked members of my family. They have killed people. They are not IPSC shooters. I flat don't need an extra 0.03 seconds to defend myself against them. I need to have the right tools in hand.

I agree with the dog threat as I've experienced that myself and I don't feel that urban gun skills necessarily transfer out to the woods so the why would the gun? All of that falls under situational awareness but there seems to be a greater disconnect in these threads and I don't understand why what one carries is such an issue.