A lot of people have asked why I prefer my self-defense revolvers to be double action only. My initial reason was that the hammer spur would often catch on my clothing when drawing from an appendix carry position.\u00a0A popular method of avoiding\u00a0this problem is to place\u00a0the thumb of the shooting hand over the hammer during the drawstroke. However, not only does that\u00a0require maintaining separate drawstroke techniques for revolvers and semi-autos, it also prevents achieving a full firing grip on the gun while it’s still in the holster, which I consider to be a key component of a fast and consistent presentation. So for me, double action only is the clear way to go.<\/p>
But not everyone has experienced the same issues with the hammer snagging on clothing, and some self-defense revolvers are intended for home protection\u00a0use only, and are never carried. In those cases, wouldn’t it be better to retain the single action feature\u00a0on the off-chance one has to take that difficult precision shot in a life or death encounter? If the only consideration was making the gun easier to shoot, I would say “yes.” However, when I take into account the potential safety concerns involved with introducing an uncommonly\u00a0light, short trigger pull into a situation of extreme stress, I think the wiser path is to avoid the use of the single action capability of\u00a0defensive revolvers entirely.<\/p>
I know many will disagree with this assessment, and that’s perfectly understandable, but I believe this\u00a0is an area where the hard won experience of past generations can be very enlightening — there is much we can learn from the history of double action use in the law enforcement world. Watch the video below for\u00a0a summary of that history and the implications for the armed citizen, or keep reading for the unabridged version.<\/p>