DA vs. SA

[pontiacpratt]

If I get a Single action (i.e SA XD-40sc) for CCW would I be at a disadvantage legally over a double action if I take out the BG? Some have recommended that it be a DA for the sake of not having a "Killers" hair trigger. Is this a legitimate concern? Thanks for any input.

[Librarian]

I doubt it matters much at a criminal level. Was it a good shoot or a bad one is the whole of that concern.

The following civil suit? Better hire a good lawyer in any case.

[pontiacpratt]

Thanks for the quick response. I figured as long as it wasn't modified as such it was a non-issue. Because of hearing "NO SA" that I was shying away from the XD-40sc, which I really like. I shoot it well, accurately and with the extended mag grip it is a comfortable range gun as well. I might put this back on my short list.

[wellerjohn]

I carry mine, they are great guns and most importantly there reliable.... go bang every time. Should I use it then there was a direct threat to my or my families life, then I'll deal with the consequences. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

[Zak]

I always carry DAO for this reason. Sure, in most cases you should be fine, but there's that 10% where it might just screw you over.

[Knauga]

I have a 1911 on my CCW and carried it for years, I don't see what the big deal is...

Carry a mechanically unmodified pistol and really is irrelevant as long as it is a good shoot.

[Matt P]

Soooo.........
If I put a laser on my handgun, does this demonstrate I want to stop a BG more so then without a laser?
What about night sights?
What about the evil and dreaded combo of laser and light?
Why not a modified handgun? If I extend the magazine release, polish my feed ramp, and more to my defensive carry handgun, I now am demonstrating more of my intent to be as effective as I could be if I were to use this firearm in lawful defense of myself or others? There will be liability in doing so?
How about if I could lawfully use my car to run over a BG, if I did this with a modified car, or high performance car, I would have more risk then a pinto?
If you can use force which is enough to be seen as deadly, and the situation allows for your use of it, does it really matter how you apply it and with what?
Everything will more come down to did the situation truly allow for it, could you have done other things or avoided it.
Liability with your gun mods may come more for you if you do not observe the 4 basic firearm safety rules, you have little to NO formal instruction. The only time you spend shooting your CCW weapon is the re-cert every 2 years.
I have a light and laser combo on my defensive weapon. Why wouldn't I make the effort to have better equipment then the BG for that one time I hope never comes.
Additionally, it is TWO additional projections of force I can use in place of only one.. The handgun alone pointed in. If I can keep from having to fire a shot in my defense, I will always be better off. Its the same reason I carry the handgun in a strong side outside pants paddle holster I made myself out of kydex. This form of carry allows for me to be as quick as I can be with presentation.

Your original question on trigger type will be much more of an issue in what level of training have you had, or will get. Single actions like in the 1911 series offer incredible levels of accuracy due to an excellent grip (thin, easy to hold) and a relative short trigger travel compared to double actions.
Liability will play a role much, much more so in did your use of your lethal force be reasonable. As in, was the situation avoidable.
I see students struggle more so with double action triggers. Students who when pressure applied, have tremendous difficulty in control with long and sometimes heavy double action triggers.
I feel there could be more liability with a DA trigger type then SA. This from the standpoint that when I have that student shoot a SA, they demonstrate much better control and accuracy. This in turn breeds confidence for them.
All the above Matts opinion.

[9mmepiphany]

would I be at a disadvantage legally over a double action

As already said, if it was a good shoot, the answer would be NO...you could have used an Olympic target pistol with a trigger that you could set off by just breathing on it and it wouldn't make a legal difference in a good shoot.

It would make no difference in a bad shoot either. You could have a trigger it would take a body builder to yank, but if you weren't justified, it won't save you.

The area you should be concerned with are questionable shoots, where your intention or actions might be less than obvious or deliberate. A longer DA trigger pull gives the shooter a lot of tactile feedback and lends some increased assurance against a negligent discharge. It does take an interest in being a better shooter and a willingness to acquire the skill and practice it...but shouldn't you want to be a better shooter anyway?

My two most common carry guns are a Kahr CW9 (much longer trigger stroke than most) and a Springfield EMP (a lot shorter than the XD you are thinking about). It is all about your comfort level and the amount of time you are willing to take to learn to be responsible with a gun you choose to carry for defense.

[tacticalcity]

This is a ridiculous concern. Honestly, this is one of the recuring myths that drive me nuts. It is something the untrained and uneducated buy into hook line and sinker. Makes me want to sell them some beach front property in Arizona.

The DA is not going to care if your gun is a Glock, Sig or a BB Gun. If the gun is legal then it is legal. He is going to care if you did something wrong. So long as the shooting is justified you will be fine. You only need to worry if you broke the law, and if you did the type of gun you were carrying is the least of your concerns.

If you do something wrong and he does decide to prosecute you he will for the sake of the jury take whatever you have and whatever you did and paint it in the worst possible light. If you used a Red Rider BB Gun he is going to try and convince the jury that only a monster would do such a thing.

This myth stems from people observing a prosecutors trick and completely missing the point. They boought into the pitch because they themselves are completely uneducated about firearms.

Even worse...your premise is saying that in order to not look so bad to a jury you would be will to carry a less effective firearm. Translation...you would rather be dead than go to jail. Ever heard the saying better to be tried by twelve than carried by six? Obey the law, don't worry about the ignorant percepts of the uninformed.

Sorry if any of that sounded harsh. But the line of reasoning and the mindset involved with the question drives me nuts. It is all bass akwards.

[AirtechJr]

Having gone over quite a few Self Defense trial records, I have come to some conclusions.

1) Keep your firearm mechanically stock.

If it is reasonable, use the same Make and Model as the issuing department.

2) If it is reasonable, use the same ammunition as the issuing department.

Many slam dunk good shoot self defense trials seem to go sideways with:

"High Power Cop Killer Rounds" when they were just your normal reloads. Reloads have no admissible published historical data to help you. Good ammunition for the prosecutor.

But I understand TacticalCity completely. It should not matter.

As for the firearm. "You carry a gun with no safety?" Like a Glock. Obviously we all know this is bunk, but a jury can get the wrong impression.

Any good self defense attorney will put these to rest quickly by asking the arresting officer what type of ammunition he carries, and what kind of gun. In my part of the world they are Glocks with Corbon or Hydra-shok.

If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

I play with my Comp gun, my carry is stock.

I am not an attorney, this is NOT legal advise, just my opinion.

[Matt P]

In my efforts to be as well educated as I can be as it relates to various topics,
you typed "many slam dunk good shoot self defense trials went sideways"
Possibly, you have direct links to examples of a individual who was convicted based only on the weapon he used, and or ammunition in lawful defense of himself or others.

Quite a few self defense records.
I formed my opinion simply on my ability to articulate why I carry a modified pistol. If there are actual cases that demonstrate why this is foolish on my part, then please do me and others on here the large service of sharing those, or possibly a suggestion on how to search for them Airtech.

[tacticalcity]

Having gone over quite a few Self Defense trial records, I have come to some conclusions.

1) Keep your firearm mechanically stock.

If it is reasonable, use the same Make and Model as the issuing department.

2) If it is reasonable, use the same ammunition as the issuing department.

Many slam dunk good shoot self defense trials seem to go sideways with:

"High Power Cop Killer Rounds" when they were just your normal reloads. Reloads have no admissible published historical data to help you. Good ammunition for the prosecutor.

But I understand TacticalCity completely. It should not matter.

As for the firearm. "You carry a gun with no safety?" Like a Glock. Obviously we all know this is bunk, but a jury can get the wrong impression.

Any good self defense attorney will put these to rest quickly by asking the arresting officer what type of ammunition he carries, and what kind of gun. In my part of the world they are Glocks with Corbon or Hydra-shok.

If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

I play with my Comp gun, my carry is stock.

I am not an attorney, this is NOT legal advise, just my opinion.

YOUR BEST DEFENSE IS PROFESSIONAL TRAINING FROM A REPUTABLE SCHOOL:

The recent supreme court decision stating that self defense is a perfectly acceptable reason to own a firearm is going to change a lot of this. Before that decision, the courts had a very ambiguous outlook on firearms designed strictly for self defense. It is a lot harder to make that case today.

However, a DA trying to play on the ignorance of a jury could just as easily use the fact that the local police department uses the same weapon you did as evidence that is a "law enforcement" and "paramilitary" weapon designed solely for killing.

So you are really kidding yourself if you think there is something you can do to help yourself with regards to weapon choice. There isn't. The DA is going to make those same kind of arguments no matter you use if he thinks it will help him win.

The absolute best thing you can do to help protect yourself from a DA is to get professional training at a top rated school. When and if the time comes, that school will send experts to your trial to testify about the training you received and can and will be used as experts to refute any of those wild claims the DA tries to make. They don't do it just because they are nice guys. They do it because your defense attorney is going to subpoena then. These schools have gotten a lot of practice and are very good at shutting down bogus claims by anti-gun DAs.

Choose the best gun for the fight. Get professional training on it. Photocopy any paperwork and documents you received during that course and mail the original to yourself via certified mail and leave it sealed. Stick it in your gun safe. That documentation on your training is now submissible as evidence that you were professionally trained on the proper use of force which backs up your argument that you only exercised the necessary amount of force and are not a murderer. Experts from the school will back you up at your trial. Beyond that, there is nothing more you can do that will actually help.

ANOTHER CRITICAL POINT:

The OP has his terminology and concepts mixed up.

Glocks are closer to DAO than SA but actually their own unique design called a "Safe-Action". They have a medium trigger pull - not a hair trigger. XDs and the like all have something similar to the Glock's action but just different enough that they won't end up in court. None of them qualifies as SA or a hair trigger by any stretch of the imagination.

A 1911 is an example of a SA gun. You have to manually cock the trigger or it will not fire. They usually have light trigger, but they also have a thumb safety.

What I assume you meant by DA is actually called DA/SA. The first pull is double action, all follow up shots are single action. The first pull is hard and long, and follow up shots are very light and short. DA/SA handguns with an external hammer can be set to be SA by cocking the hammer manually...giving you a hair trigger. So your hair trigger comment could be applied more to them than to a Glock. Not all of them have thumb safeties.

It might sound like I am nit picking, but it is important to get your terms and concepts straight. Once you have them straight in your mind then the flaw in your argument becomes extremely obvious.

EXAMPLE OF HOW ANY GUN CAN BE TWISTED INTO A MONSTEROUS CHOICE:

Here is an example of how the DA could use the hair trigger argument applied to your DA/SA Sig Sauer which you imply "looks better" to a court than a Glock or XD.

Not satisified with the default trigger on his Sig Sauer 9mm handgun, the preferred weapon of the Navy Seals, Paramilitary organizations and trained killers around the world, the defendant cocked back the hammer, giving himself a hair trigger to more esily execute the victim as he entered the residence...shooting him twice in the heart and then as if that were not enough the defendant shot the victim once more, not just in his head but into his eye which entered the brain, and bounced around, scrambling the viticims brain and killing him instantly.

You and I hear that you were smart enough to buy a well made brand name firearm. We also know the DA pull is much more difficult than the SA pull and you took advantage of the fact that the villian was not on top of you yet to improve your odds by cocking the hammer (something you usually won't have the luxury of doing). We also know that you made some really difficult shots and deserve a slap on the back for that. The jury hears that you are an assassin right out of a John Woo movie. They don't hear that the only reason you took the head shot at all was because the guy was so juiced up on meth that the first two to the chest were ineffective and kept on charging you.

So no, even opting for a more difficult weapon to master does not mean it will look better in the eyes of the court or the jury. The DA can twist any gun choice around if he wants to.

[Matt P]

I found this article or web page interesting..

Massad Ayoob



Beyond this I was unable to find much out there that is current, or relative to the conversation about the use of modified pistols or ammo as it relates to self defense.

[pontiacpratt]

Tacticalcity thank you for ranting about my question... I heard this rumor... this FUD as it were about DA vs. SA and that is why I came to have it clarified... to me it seemed like a fools argument but there is a lot of information/ disinformation out there and I wanted to know if it was a legitimate concern. I wasn't trying to spread FUD. I'm looking for a gun that is best for me. The XD is something that I've always felt comfortable with. The first few responses reassured me of my feelings that the whole argument was moot. I know the difference between triggers.
I no where mentioned a Glock and it being a single action.
Always gotta be someone looking to be a big man on the Interwebz.
Maybe that is why there is so much misinformation out there. Every time there is a question that needs to be asked. It's taken as a statement of truth instead of the seeking of truth.
Thank you to all those who answered my question.

[9mmepiphany]

Possibly, you have direct links to examples of a individual who was convicted based only on the weapon he used, and or ammunition in lawful defense of himself or others.

The case cite escapes me at the moment and I'm on the way out to pick up at school, but it is a case that Ayoob has cited more than once and it has appeared in either/both American Handgunner and Combat Handguns

It was the FL shooting where a LEO was making an arrest and had cocked his gun to SA. The gun discharged and killed the arrestee, the officer was convicted