Glock "Safe Action" or is it realy single action?

[VFORVENDETTA]

Seems like single action to me. I rack the slide its cocked!

 

[ScottNH]

Seems like single action to me. I rack the slide its cocked!

The striker is pre-loaded, but not fully cocked by the slide. When pulled, the trigger fully cocks then releases the striker.

You can see the animation here: http://www.sniperworld.com/content.aspx?ckey=Sniper_World_Glock_Index

 

[SouthernBoy]

Seems like single action to me. I rack the slide its cocked!

The Glock pistol is a DAO (Double Action Only) design. The word "action" always refers to the task(s) the trigger performs to fire a cartridge. In the case of the Glock design, this trigger task requires two steps: completing the cocking of the striker, releasing the cruciform (sear) to fire the pistol. The trigger must always perform these two steps in order for the pistol to be fired.

Compare this to a similar pistol design to the Glock by Smith and Wesson in their M&P series of pistols. While it would appear that the M&P is much like the Glock in its design, there is one major difference. The M&P pistol is a SA (Single Action) design. The trigger only does one thing and that is to release the striker. The striker is held in full **** position with the slide is "racked" so the trigger does not need to complete the cocking of the striker.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I'm just going to say that one shouldn't rely on Wikipedia's definition for what a Double Action Only design is, especially with regard to Glock.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Here's the deal. BOTH the Glock and the M&P are described as being "double action" (and yes, I put that in quotes) because technically, the trigger pulls back the striker before it's released. It doesn't pull it back 100%, more like 2% but it does pull back the striker. To the BATFE that makes it 'double action'.

Both are 98% single-action, but that 2% was enough for the BATFE to allow the "double action" description.


Trigger only releases hammer/striker = single action
Trigger pulls back hammer/striker anywhere between .001% and 100% before releasing = double action
Trigger pulls back hammer/striker first time and then only releases trigger = SA/DA
Trigger pulls back hammer/striker from a fully rested position with no hammer hold back after firing = Double-Action-Only

 

[simmonsjoe]

Fail

Here's the deal. BOTH the Glock and the M&P are described as being "double action" (and yes, I put that in quotes) because technically, the trigger pulls back the striker before it's released. It doesn't pull it back 100%, more like 2% but it does pull back the striker. To the BATFE that makes it 'double action'.

Both are 98% single-action, but that 2% was enough for the BATFE to allow the "double action" description.


Trigger only releases hammer/striker = single action
Trigger pulls back hammer/striker anywhere between .001% and 100% before releasing = double action
Trigger pulls back hammer/striker first time and then only releases trigger = SA/DA
Trigger pulls back hammer/striker from a fully rested position with no hammer hold back after firing = Double-Action-Only

Those numbers for the Glock are fake. The striker is pre-cocked approx. 30% of its travel. The reason the Glock trigger is not super-heavy is because it has a trigger spring that assist you. This counteracts on the weight of the striker spring, lightening trigger pull.

The Glock Safe Action is DAO, but dissimilar to traditional DAO because of its assist spring.

 

[10A]

You can call the action whatever you want, but it acts like a single action: No double strike capability on a primer misfire. Tap-rack-bang drill is required just like a 1911.

If you didn't know the striker internals and it was just a "black box", you would call it single action.

 

[simmonsjoe]

NO.

You can call the action whatever you want, but it acts like a single action: No double strike capability on a primer misfire. Tap-rack-bang drill is required just like a 1911.

If you didn't know the striker internals and it was just a "black box", you would call it single action.

Not by anyone who actually shoots single actions. Having recently switched from shooting 1911s in IDPA to the Glock, I can assure you the triggers are very dissimilar. Frankly your assertion that 1911 and Glock actions are similar is rather laughable.

 

[SouthernBoy]

I'm just going to say that one shouldn't rely on Wikipedia's definition for what a Double Action Only design is, especially with regard to Glock.

I don't... never checked it out on Wiki.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Here's the deal. BOTH the Glock and the M&P are described as being "double action" (and yes, I put that in quotes) because technically, the trigger pulls back the striker before it's released. It doesn't pull it back 100%, more like 2% but it does pull back the striker. To the BATFE that makes it 'double action'.

Both are 98% single-action, but that 2% was enough for the BATFE to allow the "double action" description.


Trigger only releases hammer/striker = single action
Trigger pulls back hammer/striker anywhere between .001% and 100% before releasing = double action
Trigger pulls back hammer/striker first time and then only releases trigger = SA/DA
Trigger pulls back hammer/striker from a fully rested position with no hammer hold back after firing = Double-Action-Only

Well let's see. I just disassemble both my primary carry G23 and my M&P40 to examine them both closely. And I checked the Smith and Wesson website to see what they have to say about the action type for this gun. S&M does say that the M&P is a DAO, but I have to tell you, I don't know how they are coming up with this designation unless they are including the fact that the trigger bar relieves the striker block safety as one of the "actions". I say this because the striker is in full cocked position when in batter and the trigger does not complete or do any more cocking. All the sear does is release the striker to fire. It does not move the striker any more to the rear... it can't, it's on a pivot.

The Glock is a DAO because it does move the striker into full **** when the trigger is pulled and it's a lot more than 2%. The cruciform makes a very short movement to the rear, then as it continues to move to the rear of the gun, it starts its downward movement as the trigger bar encounters the connector. The entire movement is quite a bit more than any 2%.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Those numbers for the Glock are fake. The striker is pre-cocked approx. 30% of its travel. The reason the Glock trigger is not super-heavy is because it has a trigger spring that assist you. This counteracts on the weight of the striker spring, lightening trigger pull.

The Glock Safe Action is DAO, but dissimilar to traditional DAO because of its assist spring.

Yes. And a great way to lighten the pull of the trigger is to go with a heavier trigger spring... which I have done with my primary carry G23. I use a Glock 3.5 connector (part #00135) and a GlockParts.com 6 pound trigger spring. This gives a nice feel with about a 4 1/2 pound trigger and a better break.

 

[SouthernBoy]

You can call the action whatever you want, but it acts like a single action: No double strike capability on a primer misfire. Tap-rack-bang drill is required just like a 1911.

If you didn't know the striker internals and it was just a "black box", you would call it single action.

Point well taken and when viewed against a Kel-Tec DAO, this is one glaring difference. However, action type is strictly associated with the tasks the trigger performs in firing the gun. And in that case, it qualifies as a DAO.

You are certainly correct about the lack of a double strike capability. Perhaps a new designation might be in order for these guns (I am not in favor of this, but it's worth mentioning).

Kel-Tec P11: Double Action Only (DAO) w/multiple strike capability (DAO/MS)
Glock series: Double Action Only (DAO) w/o multiple strike capability (DAO/NMS)

 

[SouthernBoy]

Not by anyone who actually shoots single actions. Having recently switched from shooting 1911s in IDPA to the Glock, I can assure you the triggers are very dissimilar. Frankly your assertion that 1911 and Glock actions are similar is rather laughable.

The 1911 design is the quintessential description of a SA pistol. Hard to argue with that one.

You know, the one term I hate to see, and never use, is DA/SA. This is a relatively new term which actually describes what has always been a DA pistiol. A double action pistol is, by definition, both a double action AND a single action. An excellent example are the DA Sigs and the 92 series Berettas. I'm not exactly why this term started to come into existence to identify something for which there was already a well-understood and well-used term. I suspect we started to see it was more and more new people came into the gun community and didn't full understand the differences in action types - didn't take the time to learn, maybe? I'm clueless on this one.

 

[simmonsjoe]

Wonder why it came on scene?

You know, the one term I hate to see, and never use, is DA/SA.

I agree I don't like to see the DA/SA.
Was it to distinguish between traditional DA/SA and the few pistols out there that are SA/DA?

For instance, the Taurus Millennium Pro is striker fired without a de-cocker. The only time the pistol is ever in DA mode is if you get a misfire.

The CZ and some clones are another series of pistols that can either traditional DA or SA/DA if configured w/o de-cocker. (You could manually lower the hammer if you wanted, unlike the Taurus)

Obviously the difference in DA/SA and SA/DA is not used so If that was the purpose it failed.

To further confuse the DAO w/ or w/o restrike capability, the Kel-Tec P3AT is DAO, without an assist (like safe action, DAK, LEM) but lacks restrike capability.

Perhaps pistol design has outgrown the SA, DA, DAO designations?

 

[10A]

Not by anyone who actually shoots single actions. Having recently switched from shooting 1911s in IDPA to the Glock, I can assure you the triggers are very dissimilar. Frankly your assertion that 1911 and Glock actions are similar is rather laughable.

Hmm, I actually shoot single actions so your statement is absolutely positively wrong. Certainly there is no comparison with with trigger feel between a decently setup 1911 and the best modified Glock, but I still assert the 1911 and Glock actions are similar in functionality where it matters in determining "action type".

 

[10A]

Perhaps pistol design has outgrown the SA, DA, DAO designations?

I think this is true. The traditional designations just don't fit for several models. I don't know what anyone else thinks, but it seems the Glock "Safe Action" is starting to grow roots as a designation all it's own.

 

[SouthernBoy]

I think this is true. The traditional designations just don't fit for several models. I don't know what anyone else thinks, but it seems the Glock "Safe Action" is starting to grow roots as a designation all it's own.

It may seem this way and at first, one might think the hybrids have become the norm. However, if we still think of action type descriptions to be drawn from the tasks performed by the trigger assembly, then we will almost always be Ok. And these once-hybrids will fall into recognized categories.

The point made about second strike capability essentially comes from double action revolvers which appeared during the latter part of the 19th century. But even with DA revolvers, the trigger is still capable of two distinct actions.

These discussions, and at times arguments, will go on as long as there is confusion in the criteria of classifying a handgun's action type. For example, The Glock design, if one were of a mind to be minutely precise, could be called a TAO (Triple Action Only) because technically, it does three things. 1 and 2) It both completes the cocking of the striker AND it moves the firing pin safety up thereby freeing the striker to travel its entire length to hit the primer. 3) It releases the striker. Of course, this would be silly and even more confusing to many people.

One question I do have which I cannot seem to find an answer concerns the M&P Smith and Wesson design. Examination of the action of this pistol appears to clearly show that the trigger does not **** the striker any more when pulled. One can easily see that the sear is cammed downward by the trigger bar to release the striker. My question is how or why was the DAO designation applied to this design?

 

[simmonsjoe]

m&p

Does the trigger perform any other action? I haven't looked, but is the striker moved into position? By that I mean, is the striker unaligned before the trigger is pulled?

 

[SouthernBoy]

Does the trigger perform any other action? I haven't looked, but is the striker moved into position? By that I mean, is the striker unaligned before the trigger is pulled?

It appears to me that the trigger bar only contacts the sear, which is fixed by an axle to allow it to swivel down from holding the striker. Of course, the trigger bar also frees the striker safety as it moves rearward as well. I do not see where the trigger bar continues to **** the striker from its position set during the return movement of the slide.

 

[simmonsjoe]

Does the trigger bar c0ck the striker during recoil?? (S&W)

On 1911, CZ, etc, the trigger bar does not c0ck the mainspring.

Glock, Ruger, etc, Trigger bar does the c0cking!

Maybe this is a point of difference?