Col. Cooper: Double action -- ingenious solution to non-existent problem?

[Johannes_Paulsen]

In my searches of the Internets for information on firearms, I keep running across people who make reference to the late Col. Cooper. One quotation that keeps popping up is the Colonel's saying that a double-action auto is an "ingenious solution to a non-existent problem". Unfortunately, no one seems to go much beyond that, they usually just quote him and move on to something else. Can someone explain to me why he thought this was the case? (What was the context in which he was speaking?)

Thanks.

[Emptymag]

My guess would be the "safety" of a heavy, double action trigger as opposed to the "hair trigger" associated with a single action in it's "ready to fire" state.
Since I'm a DAO owner and not a follower of all things 1911, that's my best guess. I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong.

[ChamberedRound]

The "Internets"... hehe.

It was well known that Col. Cooper was a big fan of the 1911, and heavily advocated it's use. My interpretation of his quote is as follows; take it FWIW. If I can find supporting information, I'll post it.

The "non-existent problem" he refers to is some people's perception of the lack of safety of single-action platforms like the 1911. Col. Cooper long held the belieft that with the proper training and a properly maintained SA pistol (like the 1911), it is as safe as any other handgun when carried in Condition 1 (cocked and locked). In addition, there's a potential for greater accuracy because of the lighter trigger.

[Emptymag]

Is there an echo in here?

[ChamberedRound]

Is there an echo in here?

Great minds think alike.

[Johannes_Paulsen]

The "Internets"... hehe.

It was well known that Col. Cooper was a big fan of the 1911, and heavily advocated it's use. My interpretation of his quote is as follows; take it FWIW. If I can find supporting information, I'll post it.

The "non-existent problem" he refers to is some people's perception of the lack of safety of single-action platforms like the 1911. Col. Cooper long held the belieft that with the proper training and a properly maintained SA pistol (like the 1911), it is as safe as any other handgun when carried in Condition 1 (cocked and locked). In addition, there's a potential for greater accuracy because of the lighter trigger.

Is this why DAO pistols (or DA/SA) pistols were developed, the perceived safety issue?

[Frenchy]

Is there an echo in here?

No its just your immagination...
No its just your immagination...
No its just your immagination...
No its just your immagination...
No its just your immagination...
No its just your immagination...
No its just your immagination...

[ChamberedRound]

Is this why DAO pistols (or DA/SA) pistols were developed, the perceived safety issue?

Again, this is just my opinion, but likely Yes and No. I would say safety was the primary issue, but DA mechanisms were around in revolvers for a long time prior to semi-autos. So in some respects, it may have also just been a natural jump in thinking to say "hey, there's DA revolvers, why not a DA semi-auto too?". Makes perfect sense to try and apply a DA mechanism to a semi-auto.

Given that a SA semi-auto's action already cocks the hammer on every round but the first, it seems to me that all a DA/SA or DAO semi-auto (with a hammer) buys you is the "comfort" of being able to safely carry in Condition 2.

[MarcS]

In my searches of the Internets for information on firearms, I keep running across people who make reference to the late Col. Cooper. One quotation that keeps popping up is the Colonel's saying that a double-action auto is an "ingenious solution to a non-existent problem". Unfortunately, no one seems to go much beyond that, they usually just quote him and move on to something else. Can someone explain to me why he thought this was the case? (What was the context in which he was speaking?)

Thanks.

Let me elaborate: Jeff Cooper was wrong about a lot of things.

[ChamberedRound]

Let me elaborate: Jeff Cooper was wrong about a lot of things.

All due respect, Marc, we're not discussing whether he was right or wrong. We're discussing why we think that he felt the way he did, regardless of whether he's right or not.