No, it’s not a porn video, though some moms may demand it.
Recently I read Col. Cooper on the subject of double action. His thesis is that DA means the gun has two action modes; Single action, wherein you thumb-cock the piece, and trigger cocking, wherein the trigger does the cocking and the releasing. Two modes of fire (thumb cocking and trigger cocking) hence the term double action. Therefore he said that the term “double action only” is nonsensical.
I had never thought of it like that.
I was under the assumption that double action means the trigger is doing two things; cocking and releasing the hammer, while a single action trigger is capable only of releasing the hammer (one thing). Thus a “conventional” double action works in either DA or SA mode, while a DAO works only in the one mode. That makes perfect sense to me, but the Colonel disagreed.
He did not say what an action that is capable of only trigger cocking should be called. “Trigger cocking only” (TCO) maybe?
Anyway, he seemed to have no use for any pistol “that cannot be cocked”, which I take to mean “cannot be cocked with the thumb”. He also expressed great fondness for the M1 Garand rifle, which cannot “be cocked”. The Garand shares this feature with the Ruger Mark I, II, III pistol, for example, and practically all self loading rifles– If there’s a live round in the chamber, the hammer is cocked. You can’t let the hammer down unless you fire the piece, or unload it first, but then we usually can’t see the hammer in those actions and so we rarely talk about it. Maybe there should be another action term; “concealed hammer, single action” (CHSA) (but you can kinda see the Garand hammer through the receiver slot).
I don’t know of a concealed hammer, double action, but the Stryker shotgun, along with some revolvers, is concealed hammer, DAO. Now maybe I’m confused and don’t know it.
If the Garand and other self loading, fighting rifles had an exposed hammer, they “could be cocked” by which, if I understand it right, we mean they could, like a 1911 pistol, be de-cocked and then cocked again. Would that be a good thing? You could run them like a 1911 pistol, and we all know that the 1911 is the ultimate in hand-held fighting firearm technology.
So should your pistol work like your rifle, or should your rifle work like your 1911? Why? My Glock doesn’t work like anything, so maybe I’m screwed, but then it’s been my assumption that if you could put lead on target in a reasonable amount of time you were doing OK, and having a minimum of required manipulations along the way would seem to be an advantage.
There are some things I do not understand at the moment, but then I’ve only been to two or three gun schools and I’ve never shot anything that was trying to shoot me back (unless we can count snowball or dirt clod fights, of which I’ve been in many).
Now why did I chose an AR in CHSA when my pistol is a Glock “safe action”? Maybe I should carry the Mark II, but then I’d need it to have a rotary safety like the AR. Maybe in the end it’s a good idea to know how to work with what you have.