TSA handgun contract draws ire of firearms makers.

Is there any pistol made by anyone other than Glock, where partially-releasing the trigger after firing will allow a follow-on shots to be fired with a very short trigger pull, but fully-releasing the trigger will partially-decock the pistol and cause follow-on shots to require a longer trigger pull?

Most of the double-action pistols I own have a short sear reset, though I haven't checked all of them. I think that is a pretty standard feature on semi-automatic actions; even some rifles have this. Some are shorter than others and the Glock is pretty short, but it isn't unusually short.

This "feature" is usually brought up as a response to the fact that Glocks are nominally double-action-only. But it is kind of like saying that a vegetable is cholesterol free -- it is a good thing, but it ALL vegetables are cholesterol free -- so calling it a "feature" is a bit unwarranted.

I like the Glock DAO better than any other DA or DAO action I can think of. The only thing I like better is "cocked-and-locked", and only one really modern combat pistol has that as an option that i can think of (the USP). I find Sig DA to be inferior even though they are very nice shooters.

I also own and carry Glocks, a 26 and a 30 for carry and a 34 for IDPA. I also use a Kimber 1911 in IDPA and have had to continually tweak it for proper functioning. The Glocks are completely stock and I have put over 20,000 rounds through the Glock 34 with no malfuctions or parts breakage. I'll trust the Glock.

Aye. I am not a 1911 bigot, and generally think that action was over the hill a while ago. I carry a G27 for CCW and a slightly modified G20 (longer stronger barrel) on my ranch. As you say, they'll gladly take a lot of punishment with near zero maintenance, though they aren't unique in that regard. My only assertion was that there are better combat pistols, maybe not for the line troops, but for SF, SEALs and similar. If I personally had to choose one and only one pistol for serious combat duty, I'd probably opt for a USP40 even though it isn't what I would carry around town (I have a ton of trigger time and experience on USPs -- VERY competent design).

If I personally had to choose one and only one pistol for serious combat duty, I'd probably opt for a USP40 even though it isn't what I would carry around town (I have a ton of trigger time and experience on USPs -- VERY competent design).

Agreed, although I'd choose either a USP Tactical, Expert, or Mark 23 SOCOM, all in .45ACP. But then I don't carry in a thigh holster as I would if I were in combat.

Most of the double-action pistols I own have a short sear reset, though I haven't checked all of them. I think that is a pretty standard feature on semi-automatic actions; even some rifles have this. Some are shorter than others and the Glock is pretty short, but it isn't unusually short.

Are you talking about DA/SA pistols or DAO? I've never seen a DAO pistol (other than the Glock, if you want to call it one) which did not require the trigger to be nearly fully released between shots. I've seen many SA/DA models that meet that criterion, but unless such firearms are either decocked or have the safety engaged (things one often wouldn't do after shooting them dry) they won't be in a condition suitable for safe holstering.

I think we're all saying basically the same thing over and over. You guys say Saf T Hammer allowed Thompkins to salvage less than 5 cents out of every dollar of their $120 million investment, plus the millions lost in sales due to the boycott, and thereby Thompkins managed to avoid total, absolute, wreck and ruin. You're saying that buyout and the resulting salvation from a total loss will encourage other gunmakers to believe they can make a similar agreement in the future and still come out with a few sheckels in their pockets by selling out after the ensuing boycott. So now if we boycott the new owner into bankruptcy, that will show any potential buyers of future failing bootlicking companies that they will also be bankrupted and put OOB if they buy. Which in turn will keep all gun makers from making such an agreement sometime in the future because they will know that no buyer will buy their assets for any price when they go under. Isn't that about the gist of what you guys are saying, or am I missing something?

What I have said over and over, and obviously it hasn't made any impression, is that the boycott was successful beyond all expectations and what you're worried about will never happen. Saf T Hammer didn't keep Thompkins from losing it's royal red a## big time, and no other American gun maker will ever again make the same mistake Thompkins made unless the owners or directors have a death wish for their company.

I keep asking this same question, and I have yet to get a satisfactory answer. Why on earth would any company's directors or owners make the same stupid mistake Thompkins made in view of what happened to S&W? The right answer is, they wouldn't and they won't. The point has been made with perfect clarity, and no gun manufacturer anywhere in the world missed it. If another such agreement is made in the future, it won't be because Thompkins managed to salvage a few sheckels out of it's self-inflicted disaster. It will be forced on a company, or companies, by a future fascist or far left gun-grabbing government and the company(s) will be given no choice except to sign an agreement or close up shop.

We aren't getting anywhere with this discussion guys, so I'm calling it off for my part. No hard feelings on this end, I'm sure we all agree on many more issues than we disagree.

You got the gist of my point, and we agree that the S&W boycott was a success. I might want more of a good thing (the suffering of sellouts) but if your "5-cents-on-the-dollar" is true then I should be quite content. If it were 50 cents, I would be unsatisfied. Certainly, if they got 90 cents on the dollar in a sham transaction to duck a boycott, we all would want to boycott the successor.

Our only disagreement was a matter of degree, not principle.

Scott: We had a number of discussions with Boston over the impracticality of the consent decree and its impact on S&W.When Boston dropped its suit against the other manufacturers we asked to receive the same consideration. Like others in the industry we are willing to address issues and solutions that are practical and in everyone’s interest. Boston had found that working with the industry was more productive than expensive litigation. In our case they did ask the judge to vacate the consent decree and allow us to pursue the same positive course of action as other manufacturers.We are very appreciative of the cooperation and understanding we received from the plaintiffs’ representatives while we worked our way through the difficult issues with Boston.

Need another reading lesson Pooh?

Geez, Dead... there were two, count 'em, TWO agreements inked by S&W. In the second column of that .pdf, a bit past halfway down, Robert L. Scott is quoted thus:

"...To go on, now that the HUD agreement has been abandoned by the Bush Administration and the consent decree with Boston has been vacated, we are able to move forward in a positive manner..."

Rumors of the HUD agreement's death have been greatly exaggerated.

Read the other links I posted as well. Legally speaking, the "agreement" is in default as provisions within it are time sensitive. Not to mention that there was also a legal name change for the corperation as well. Check it out...

If you want to keep hating S&W for something prior management has done, fine... that is your perogative. Me? I'll wait and see what the new management is doing before condeming them further.

I've had countless debates over this with die hard S&W supporters, and their case completely lacks logic. When confronted with the facts, it basically boils down to "I really want to buy their guns, so I will". I would actually appreciate the honesty if they just came out and said that. But I despise people making up facts or using faulty logic just because they're too cowardly to admit to their own true motivations.

Those S&W fans that you describe sound a lot like the "new" company itself. If S&W was just honest about things, it could rally tremendous support. A "Help Us Kill the HUD Agreement" advertising campaign would be huge. Instead, they try to sweep it under a rug.

We all know that if that HUD agreement is ever properly terminated, the news will be on the covers of half (at least) of the shooting-sports periodicals. I have yet to see the "HUD Agreement Dead" headline on the front of The Shotgun News.

I have a couple of Smith and Wessons. Great guns.I wouldn't hesitate to buy another.They are under new management.A major American gun manufacture going under isn't going to improve guns rights.I don't know what dictionary you get your definition of treason from.Give it a rest.