Quantcast
Channel: training – Firearm User Network
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 48

Double/Single Action Service Pistols

$
0
0

I’ve NEVER liked the double-single design of a semi-auto. (I didn’t like the 3-shot burst design either … as there were/are subtle differences in the trigger on single shot mode.)

So, my question is, after reading this article – what do you think. BS? Poor training? Or a legit issue.

The Armed Forces have been using the double-single Beretta for years. What do you think?

Double-single doesn’t make a pistol easier to shoot and is probably a solution in search of a problem. Modern striker-fired pistols (Glock, S&W M&P, etc.) are probably the best compromise of shootability, mechanical safety, reliability, and price currently and commonly available.

Still, there isn’t anything wrong with DA semi-autos. Issues with the heavy first shot and transition from heavy-light exist but they’re grossly overstated. Certainly nothing proper training won’t fix. I have not yet met a genuinely good handgun shooter incapable of shooting double-single semi-autos well. They may not prefer it, might even shoot measurably better with something else, but a good marksman shoots them well. Shooters that can’t overcome this “problem” probably aren’t good handgun shooters to begin with.

I went from tuned 1911s in practical competition to rack grade M9s for military Service Conditions matches and now mix that with NRA Conventional don’t find the transition difficult. Every platform, even individual samples of the same design, exhibit unique idiosyncrasies that have to be trained/practiced around. Nothing a bit of dry practice won’t fix. Oh, I have plenty of issues in becoming a better marksman. So does nearly every human if they’re honest and knowledgeable. None of that is fixed by blaming the equipment.

I’ve shot the new M9A3 and was favorably impressed. To date, it is the most accurate factory service pistol I’ve ever shot, very ergonomic, and a great update. Given that Beretta is willing to offer these as an update on the existing contract and that they are parts compatible with no New Equipment Training needed, the DoD would be foolish to bother with anything else.

The only troops I’ve met complaining about the M9 were Americans. Every foreign military shooter we’ve had try the M9 liked it. Definitely a “grass is greener on the other side” bias.



Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 48

Trending Articles