IS THERE A BEST PISTOL?

- Part I-

Chuck Taylor

For nearly forever, it seems, the arguments as to which kind of pistol is best, single-action, double-action or some hybrid form of either. Yet, the criteria upon which such pronouncements of superiority are based vary greatly. So much, in fact, that they often bear little resemblance to reality as we know it. So, like most controversial issues, the perspective from which we view the subject tends to influence our opinions more than anything else and, when viewpoint clash, often prevents us from "seeing the forest for the trees."
Such is certainly the case with this particular issue, for emotions often tend to run high when it is discussed. Still, in and of itself, the question is intriguing and, for its own sake, worth investigating. For me, the criteria boil down to a simple question -- which type provides the best balance of the essential elements needed to best fulfill the pistol's tactical mission and, exactly what are those elements?

However, before we can proceed further, let's first define the pistol's actual mission. In other words, we cannot realistically expect to find answers until we first identify the questions, right? Though I am perennially astonished at the number of people with an interest in defensive weaponcraft who haven't done this before they buy guns, ammo and ancillary equipment and begin developing tactics and techniques, the fact is that some serious thought on this subject is in order before any such decisions are made.

So, what is the mission of the defensive handgun? To provide its wearer with the means by which to regain control of his immediate environment when attacked, quickly and with as few shots fired as possible. This means that we must view the issue from more than one direction. First, obviously the more "user-friendly," it is, the better, e.g. the more quickly and easily it can be presented and used under stress, the more useful it is. This means that the weapon's controls must be located for efficient operator manipulation, that the gun itself isn't excessively bulky and/or heavy for convenient carry/concealment and that it "points" and fits the hand reasonably well.

Next, within reason, it must be mechanically reliable and sufficiently accurate for the purpose. Third, it must be powerful enough to incapacitate -- not necessarily just kill -- the attacker with minimum shots fired, preferably one, if possible. Whether of not the adversary dies is, from a tactical standpoint, academic. However, his ability to project lethal aggression, i.e. to continue to threaten us with or utilize Deadly Force against us, is of the greatest importance.

Yes, safety is important, too, but that's part of mechanical reliability. The single-action (SA) self-loader is without question easier to use quickly because it is meant to be carried in Condition One (loaded, cocked and locked). The oft-repeated claim that it is inherently unsafe because the safety doesn't block the hammer is just so much drivel, as are claims that it requires special training and armorer support. A quick look into history discloses that many legendary weapons -- such as the M-1 Garand, Beretta BM-59 and M-14, AR-10, M-16 rifles and .30 caliber M-1 carbine, for example -- utilize this same concept but no one claims them to be unsafe. As far as training and armorer support are concerned, the SA auto has thus far enjoyed a worldwide military career than has spanned over eight decades. Obviously, if it required special treatment or was unsafe, et al, this could not have been the case.

Double-action (DA) pistols were created with the idea of keeping the hammer down on a loaded chamber, allowing the gun to be cocked and subsequently fired by a pull of the trigger, then reverting to standard SA operation for subsequent shots. In theory, this allows it to be kept ready for action with less preparation and operator "fussing around," often the cause of accidental discharges (ADs). One had only to present the weapon, aim, pull the trigger and...boom! -- he was in business.

However, the use of two different operational systems makes such weapons more complex and, often, less mechanically reliable than SA autos. More importantly, from a "human engineering" standpoint, the long, heavy DA trigger pull required to initiate that first shot is tough to handle quickly under stress without loss of first-shot accuracy. As well, that many DA designs require the firer to shift his trigger finger from one position on the trigger to another as the weapon reverts to SA operation proved to be both time-consuming and annoying.

Failing to realize just how quickly defensive handgun encounters tend to take place, many shooters mistakenly think that the DA auto is better because they assume it to be "safer." Thus, they ignore the fact that it is considerably slower and more difficult to operate under stress.

Of the two designs, which do I favor? Well, strictly speaking. I prefer the SA. However, because I'm a professional instructor and consultant, I don't have the luxury of predicating my entire instructional program around a single design. For whatever reason, many people, at least initially, prefer the DA auto and, if military or police personnel are considered, many simply don't have a choice -- they must use whatever type of weapon they're issued! Since I deal with students from many different walks of life, my instructional program must produce superior results with all designs, whatever they may be. Thus, I created a program that works, regardless of the kind of pistol the student uses. In other words, my job is to teach to use their weapon to its maximum potential. What kind of gun the choose is their business -- and their responsibility.

There have been other attempts to deal with the problem: (1) the selective DA or SA; (2) DA-only (with every pull of the trigger being long and heavy), and; (3) the "semi"- DA, in which the loaded pistol is actually on half-cock, thus, pulling the trigger completely to the rear completes the cocking process and fires the gun. Of the three, neither the selective DA/SA or DA-only have achieved much popularity. However, the "semi" - DA, particularly as represented by the Glock¸ is taking the law-enforcement community by storm because, from a tactical, criminal and civil liability standpoint, it offers a viable alternative.

Is "semi" - DA really better? Technically, yes; but let's not forget the most important element -- the shooter. In spite of the irrefutable fact that some guns are easier to use well under stress than others, if the weaknesses aren't too great, operator skill can sometimes overcome a system's inherent deficiencies and produce good performance.

And it was from this perspective that I undertook a research project to find out if there really is a "best" pistol. In consultation with my senior instructors, it was decided that we'd shoot the most efficient --and coincidentally, the most famous -- examples of each design in a test designed to simulate the major tactical functions for which the pistol is used. Subsequent inquiry at several gunshops as to which designs they sold most showed that three were predominant -- SA, DA and "semi" - DA. So, we selected what we considered to be the best of each and to the range we went...

And went...and went, because, due to its thoroughness, the evaluation took many months to complete.

The guns selected? A Smith & Wesson M-39 9mm (DA), Browning P-35 9mm (SA), Colt Government Model .45 ACP (SA), Glock M-22 .40 ("semi" - DA) and, to round things out, a Colt lightweight Commander .45 ACP (SA). How he carried the weapon of his choice, i.e. open or concealed, was left entirely up to the shooter, as was his choice of holster and spare magazine carrier(s).

All five participants in the test were highly skilled combat pistol shooters, three having successfully completed the American Small Arms Academy Handgun and 4-Weapon Combat Master program. The remaining two were not far behind, having been Distinguished Graduates of the ASAA Basic, Intermediate and Advanced Defensive Handgun Courses with the weapons they chose to utilize in the test. Thus, all concerned were well-versed on and highly skilled in the most progressive and effective handgun techniques now known to exist.