Your definition of DAO

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn't directing any of my comments to a specific post/poster. I didn't have any particular poster in mind when writing them.

This perennial topic is one of those that hardly ever arrives at a definitive conclusion that satisfies everyone.

As a firearms instructor of more than 20 years experience (and an armorer who's attended more than a Baker's Dozen classes), I'd not disagree that a respectable number of pistol owners/shooters probably lack a basic understanding of how their pistols technically function (let alone the functioning intricacies). I've listened to folks that didn't know the cycle of operation of a semiauto firearm ... and others who were well versed in it, but disagreed on which "step" should be considered the "first" step in the cycle (wanna start with "feed" or "fire"? :neener: ).

I've certainly encountered at least my fair share of firearms instructors who only had a rudimentary understanding of how different firearms operated ... which is why I've thought it's probably a good thing for LE firearms instructors to also attend an armorer class now and again, if only to gain a better understanding of how most of the commonly used defensive/service type pistols operate. Well, okay, it also helps when it comes to learning how to more accurately recognize & diagnose shooter problems versus actual gun problems. ;)

Some folks seem to get really wrapped up around the axle when it comes to establishing some definitive "standard" of what makes a DAO pistol "truly" DAO. Good luck. Not even all the major pistol manufacturers always seem to be on the same page in that regard.

The original S&W DAO pistols required the slide to be retracted and released so the DAO hammers could be "located" (partially cocked) by the sear nose, and then the trigger could be pressed to fire the gun. No "second strike" capability.

Then we have what has become accepted (as description) as "traditional double action" pistols, which are not double action only.

Then Glock came along and decided to describe their action as "constant double action", since it's partially cocked.

Sig's "Enhanced DAO" (what they call their DAK in their classes) has 2 different DAO trigger strokes, and is different than their original DAO.

Personally, I don't have a specific definition of "DAO" for a semiauto pistol that's required for me to sleep well at night.

I don't have a personal bias toward any particular definition, or even require that there be only ONE definition.

If the BATFE wants to impose one, it doesn't cause me to lose sleep.

If one or another sporting/competitive venue wants to impose a rigid definition within their rules, it doesn't cause me to lose sleep.

If the manufacturers want to stretch "traditional" and generally accepted definitions by coming up with new designs that aren't quite like anything else ... yep, I don't lose sleep over it.

So, I suppose in the strictest sense of answering the original poster's question ... I don't have a rigidly fixed definition of DAO. Sorry.

I'm fine with the respective companies calling their actions whatever they feel is merited ... S&W 3rd gen DAO, the Walther P990/P99 DAO, Glock Safe Action, Sig DAO/DAK and Kahr's ... all DAO's. ;)
 
If the manufacturers want to stretch "traditional" and generally accepted definitions by coming up with new designs that aren't quite like anything else ... yep, I don't lose sleep over it.
But they're not coming up with new designs that aren't quite like anything else. There's no gray area there. What would once be described as SA with a firing pin safety and passive trigger block safety is now called DAO. No one's losing sleep over it. But to look at a sheep and say, fine, it's a pig, that's plain silly. It might be a perfectly drop safe sheep, but it's still a sheep! :)
 
For example, a gun that must be partially cocked before the trigger can have an effect, doesn't fully fit the definition of double action because some of the energy required to fire the gun wasn't stored by the trigger pull.
That definition won't fly either as most mainsprings are pre tensioned on assembly so now everything is once again DA or DAO.
 
Probably these labels for not mean much to the user. Things like second strike ability, trigger pull, trigger pull length .... Are the real issues for the user.

Now, as long as we have import restrictions and silly laws, the official label will continue to be important. Do we really need so much regulation?
 
The terms "DA" and "DAO" are interchangeable. They have the exact same definition.
No, they have different definitions. Double action merely means that the gun has double action capability but says nothing about whether or not it also has other capabilities. A "double action revolver" has, from the very beginning of the existence of such a revolver, most commonly meant a revolver that could be used either double or single action depending on the user's preference.

DAO specifically points out that the gun in question can only be operated double action.
That definition won't fly either as most mainsprings are pre tensioned on assembly so now everything is once again DA or DAO.
Mainsprings installed into the gun with some tension already applied have been around since mainsprings have been around. Since before DA existed, when SA was the only type of gun there was. It's not remotely reasonable to try to go back and redefine the tension in the mainspring as a factor in the process of discriminating between double and single action.
 
In the grand scheme of things, why does it matter? Most people want a DAO due to perceived safety reasons. Is the M&P not safe enough for your desires?
 
Well, there's an industry definition of the terms "fat free," "sugar free," etc. A product can only have so much fat and still be called fat free. Imagine if one day you walked into the store and on the shelf is a tub of Crisco labeled fat free. This is perfectly ok, because the FDA has decided that a product can be called fat free as long as it's less than 99.9% pure fat. Would it matter? No, I guess not. It would just make the term "fat free" meaningless. Who cares if no one knows what they're talking about anymore, since words don't mean anything?

What if they started calling magazines clips? I bet a lot of people would be twisted up over that! :)
 
"In the grand scheme of things, why does it matter? Most people want a DAO due to perceived safety reasons. Is the M&P not safe enough for your desires?"

Safe enough for me but that is not the point. It is all about what people want and S&W lying about the gun in order to sell it to people who do not want a SA gun.

I got no problem with SA guns that have the proper safety features but there are plenty of people and some PD's that simply do not want to carry a SA design no matter what safety features they have.

I have carried cock and locked 1911 pistols and the SA XD for years.

If I had a dollar for everyone who asked me "did you know the hammer is cocked on that gun?" when they saw my 1911 I could take off work for a while.

SA guns just freak some people out. Those people right or wrong carry DAO pistols or carry condition two or empty chamber.

The point is don't lie to these people and tell them the SA pistol they are carrying is DAO.
 
Lets say you wanted a car with anti lock brakes. You feel very strongly about this. Brand X is advertised to have anti lock brakes.

Later on you discover their idea of anti lock brakes is just a very stiff brake pedal so they assume you don't have enough strength in your leg to lock the brakes. Would you still want that car.
 
It's not remotely reasonable to try to go back and redefine the tension in the mainspring as a factor in the process of discriminating between double and single action.
And yet your comfortable doing exacticly that to define guns that are partially cocked.
 
ABS argument doesn't hold water. There are NHTSA standards in place to define ABS.

I don't think there are actual guidelines in how to classify the myriad of firing systems available to today's semi-auto enthusiast. If there were, I have no doubt S&W would be in compliance.
 
And yet your comfortable doing exacticly that to define guns that are partially cocked
The context of the sentence you're responding to was exclusively about tension in the mainspring/striker spring applied during installation.

But maybe it wasn't obvious--so I'll clarify.

Mainsprings installed into the gun with some tension already applied have been around since mainsprings have been around. Since before DA existed, when SA was the only type of gun there was. It's not remotely reasonable to try to go back and redefine the tension in the mainspring put there during the assembly process as a factor in the process of discriminating between double and single action.​

In case it wasn't perfectly clear before, now it is. My initial comments were about cocking tension applied to the mainspring/striker spring either by the slide, by manual cocking or by the trigger. That's because this thread is about the differences between SA/DA/DAO, etc. and cocking tension applied by one of those three methods--specifically how it is applied--is how one discriminates between those types of operation.

Pre-tension applied to the mainspring/striker spring during the assembly process has absolutely nothing to do with those definitions or with this topic, nor is it, in any way, shape or form a discriminant between the various operation methods under discussion. It never has had anything to do with this topic.
 
Last edited:
The case is not closed just because you say it's closed.


S&W is more qualified than anyone on this board to correctly label their guns.
 
S&W is more qualified than anyone on this board to correctly label their guns.
No, I think that's a stretch. Words mean something. If I were to design a revolver that looked externally like a semi-auto and then described it as a semi-auto and sold it as a semi-auto, the fact that I'm the designer/manufacturer/seller wouldn't make that subterfuge and innacuracy any more justifiable.

Being a manufacture/designer/seller doesn't give an entity the right to use commonly defined terms in ways different from the way they're commonly used and defined.
 
"The case is not closed just because you say it's closed.


S&W is more qualified than anyone on this board to correctly label their guns"

OK so you explain to us just exactly how a pistol that is carried about 98% or more "cocked" can be called DAO.

No one has done that. Until you can the case is closed.
 
"Words mean something"

You are correct. The term DAO has meant basically the same thing for over a hundred years.

So now S&W and the gun writers paid by S&W have changed the meaning of the term just so they could sell their gun to those who so not want a DAO.
 
It's not my job to explain anything to you. I simply don't agree with your logic.

I know enough about my weapons to research the actual firing type (regardless of manufacturer title) before buying them *shrugs*.
 
In other words you can't explain to us how the pistol in question is DAO. But we already knew that.
 
"I know enough about my weapons to research the actual firing type (regardless of manufacturer title) before buying them "

So do I but it is obvious many people can't.
 
In other words you can't explain to us how the pistol in question is DAO. But we already knew that.

Not quite. You and I have different definitions. I simply don't care as much as you seem to.

FYI the ATF doesn't appear to have a problem with S&W's definition since they just awarded a contract to S&W for the very pistol we're debating.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top