Longbow Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 I've heard that in the next edition of USPSA rule book, the XD will no longer be legal since its technically a single action trigger design. Any truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 You can read the 2004 Edition of the USPSA rule book on the Uspsa.org web site. Have a look at US Appendix D9. Then have a look at the USPSA list of approved Production handguns at http://www.uspsa.org/production_list.php which lists the Springfield XD as legal for Production. The XD is not approved for Production in IPSC, as they view it as a Single Action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 I've heard that in the next edition of USPSA rule book, the XD will no longer be legal since its technically a single action trigger design. Any truth? USPSA legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harmon Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 para lda, glock XD, and any other DAO(i know its an oxymoron) are all single action pistols. one cant really argue they arent if they do not have two seperate modes of fire. they are single action by design, no mater the trigger pull or how far the trigger moves. an approved list is the way to go, but an approved list, and then a list of features that must be met is kinda overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 Harmongreer, the definition of single/double action doesn't lie in the trigger pull weight/movement. A single action is a gun in which, upon pulling the trigger, a "single action" is performed, i.e. releasing the hammer/striker from its position of rest at maximum potential energy (a.k.a. cocked). A double action is a gun in which, upon pulling the trigger, two separate and different actions are performed, i.e. bringing the hammer/striker (near) to its position of rest at maximum potential energy, and subsequently releasing it. Now a conventional DA gun will be capable of firing in single or double action depending on how the gun is operated, while a DA Only gun will always "decock" (totally or partially) the hammer/striker after each shot. Now Glock needs the trigger pull to completely cock the half-cocked striker, Para LDA needs the trigger pull to cock the hammer (even if the hammer spring is already totally compressed), thus they both are technically Double Action guns. Dunno about Springfield XD mechanics, but I guess if the Powers at IPSC ruled it single action there must be a valid reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 It wasn't just the IPSC rule making body that said the XD is single action. The BATF classifies it as a single-action and in some of the gun magazine articles, it is described as a single-action. For whatever reason, USPSA decided that it isn't a single-action and meets the definition of a Production gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPSCDRL Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 I've heard that in the next edition of USPSA rule book, the XD will no longer be legal since its technically a single action trigger design. Any truth? As we all know, "class" is a representation of a level of skill attained. Division is determined by the equipment with which we compete in a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longbow Posted August 5, 2004 Author Share Posted August 5, 2004 Thanks to all! I know I got a good reason to buy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullautodave Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 I believe the problem lies with marketing. The Croations called it a SA and Springfield Armory called it a SA, so the BATF picked up on that. If you watch real close, after the gun is cocked, the firing pin indicator thing in the back of the gun will travel farther out with the pull of the trigger. Not very much, but a little. I believe it is as much a SA as a LDA or even a Glock, but I don't get to write the rulebooks. Even heard that question asked of the guy that heads the "other shooting sport" that begins with I and that was the reason. Springfield called it a SA, so thats what it is. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Rumor has it that Springfield intended to market it as a DA equivalent, but whoever filled out the BATF form screwed up and marked 'SA' down. Who knows, it's not really DA, even though the striker retracts a bit, but it doesn't really act like a SA either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve H Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 fullautodave is correct in that the cocked indicator actually does move back slightly as the trigger is pulled! As far as IDPA is concerned, it was one of the main board of directors that did not want the XD in SSP as he felt it would take away from the Glock legion of shooter and, he is a Glock guy! If you play or shoot both guns you will see that the XD should be competiting with the Glock in the IDPA arena. Like my 6 year likes to say "that's not fair". But those in charge make the rules, regardless of who they take $$$$$ from. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Like my 6 year likes to say "that's not fair". But those in charge make the rules, regardless of who they take $$$$$ from. I certainly hope that you're not including the IPSC rules guys in that group? Anyway, for those that are interested, there are four files here which all refer to the XD as being single-action. Just click on each "HTM" file. After you've finished reading one, use your browser "Back" button to select another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve H Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Vince, I appreciate the work you do for IPSC. However, the design of the XD was not around in 1976 when IPSC was formed and I think a lot of modern designs are being thown into a catagory because it does not fit anywhere else. Don't get me started on BATF, as I know how they work. If you truly think that the XD should compete in the same catagory as a 1911 then, in my opinion, your thinking is flawed. If you are just towing the company line of the BOD of IPSC, I can understand that. I am not being critical you, I will never shoot an IPSC match, as I rarely get to travel out of my state to shoot a USPSA match, I just think IPSC is wrong on their ruling of the XD as is IDPA. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 I didn't know about the trigger mechanism of the XD, but according to the definitions of SA/DA I posted before, and by reading the links Vince provided: The falling sear is directly engaged with the striker/ firing pin so when you pull the trigger the sear slides down and disengages the firing pin. Although the HS2000 trigger feels like a double-action trigger, it's technically singe-action. When the slide is retracted and released, the wide portion of the striker sear engages a fixed sear in the frame where it's held to the rear. and comparing this with the functional description of a Glock given in the second link site: After the each cycle of the slide the striker is set to half-cock position and is safely blocked by internal safety. When shooter pulls the trigger, he disengades the trigger safety first, then cocks the striker to the full-cock and then fires the gun. it appears the XD has been correctly ruled as a Single Action, since the pulling of the trigger doesn't cock the striker anymore, but only releases the sear connected to the striker/firing pin. Maybe I'm obsessed with mechanics, but these things are almost universal and cannot be interpreted (generally creating confusion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerettaRacer Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 My question is, if the XD has been properly classified as a SA, how did it get accepted by the USPSA in Production division? That gives them an advantage over us guys who shoot a true DA/SA. What happened to the "first shot must be DA rule"? I'm sorry, it just sounds to much like a corporate sponsorship issue to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 It saddens me that some people think that some decisions made by either USPSA or IPSC were for purely monetary reasons. To make such a public accusation w/o any support is even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 My question is, if the XD has been properly classified as a SA, how did it get accepted by the USPSA in Production division? BR, we are facing a case of different conclusions upon starting from the same basis. I don't know which were the reasons that led to this, and I guess you'd better ask USPSA if there is some documentation on the BOD works that led to rule the SA XD as a DA, this could clear up things. IPSC, via Vince Pinto, has already provided evidence of what led them to rule XD as a SA gun. Should you be able to get a reply from USPSA, it would help us understand this whole matter if you could post it. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 The falling sear is directly engaged with the striker/ firing pin so when you pull the trigger the sear slides down and disengages the firing pin. Although the HS2000 trigger feels like a double-action trigger, it's technically singe-action. When the slide is retracted and released, the wide portion of the striker sear engages a fixed sear in the frame where it's held to the rear. it appears the XD has been correctly ruled as a Single Action, since the pulling of the trigger doesn't cock the striker anymore, but only releases the sear connected to the striker/firing pin. Maybe I'm obsessed with mechanics, but these things are almost universal and cannot be interpreted (generally creating confusion). So, how is this different from how the LDA works? If I remember correctly, the mainspring is fully cocked by the action of the slide. All the trigger does is flap the hammer/sear back and release the spring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 So, how is this different from how the LDA works? 8.1.5.1 "Single Action" means activation of the trigger causes a single action to occur (i.e. the hammer or striker falls). 8.1.5.2 "Double Action" means activation of the trigger causes more than a single action to occur (i.e. the hammer or striker rises or retracts, then falls). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Ok.. but how about 'pressing the trigger causes the drop-safety to move out of the way, and releases the striker'? Two actions there, but any Series 80 1911 does that, so that won't work.. But, as I understand it, the LDA hammer is roughly equivalent-- it's a safety piece that needs to move someplace else for the gun to fire. It's not storing any energy. Lucky for Para it happens to be hammer-shaped. I've got no problem with it being in PD (nor the XD), but the whole two-things-move criteria isn't well defined. If DA action is required, "Pulling the trigger adds needed energy to the firing system" like Luca suggest is what we need. Anyway... back to the XD and IPSC vs USPSA IPSC has a "What" (the DA rule) and a list of what fits the "What". USPSA skipped the what and just went with the list so they didn't have to deal with irritating technical questions like this. They decided they could tell a duck by the look, walk and quack and went with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 I've got no problem with it being in PD (nor the XD), but the whole two-things-move criteria isn't well defined.. (i.e. the hammer or striker rises or retracts, then falls). If DA action is required, "Pulling the trigger adds needed energy to the firing system" like Luca suggest is what we need. What I think we need is for people to give this subject a rest. The IPSC Production Committee has ruled on the Springfield XD Series, and none of the Regions who actually use the IPSC Production List have raised any objections. The only people who object are those who are not using the list. What's wrong with this picture? Anyway... back to the XD and IPSC vs USPSA You're happy with the USPSA ruling, right? I'm happy with the IPSC ruling. Onwards and upwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 I've got no problem with it being in PD (nor the XD), but the whole two-things-move criteria isn't well defined.. (i.e. the hammer or striker rises or retracts, then falls). Ahh this is a Kings English thing. To me, "i.e." means "For example", not "only these two options". But, I now learn 'e.g.' is the proper form of 'for example'. Anyway, it's not entirely clear that the terms in the i.e., while limiting, are the entire set of options, especially in common usage. Perhaps somebody can come up with better language at the next rules rewrite. Close it, wrap it up. Is there anything more to be said about XD's in PD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Ahh this is a Kings English thing. Queen's, actually. Anyway, I knew that one day my perseverance in Mrs. McGillicuddy's Latin class would pay off: etc. (et cetera — and so forth) i.e. (id est — that is) e.g. (exempli gratia — for example) et al. (et alii — and others) Now if you didn't spend so much time in math class studying significant numbers, you'd know this stuff ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Vince - You know enough Latin to be a lawyer!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Shred, I've been thinking of this for several minutes, and I am still unconvinced of what you suggested with your comparison, i.e. trigger pull unlocking the firing pin safety and releasing the hammer is DA as is cocking and releasing the hammer itself. First of all I suppose the DA definition (i.e. two separate actions) applies only to those fundamental parts of the firing mechanism, that I suppose to be trigger, sear and hammer/striker. Ancillary parts, such as a firing pin safety, are an add-on to the main trigger system, but their lack doesn't prevent the firing of the gun. The LDA issue: the hammer spring is compressed, yes, but the system hasn't reached its maximum potential energy, since the hammer is at rest, and in this configuration, releasing the sear from the hammer won't fire the gun: the hammer won't have enough kinetic energy. The trigger pull adds more potential energy to the system, bringing it to its maximum and the hammer to a cocked position. This is, IMHO, a true double action. It's lighter, yeah, due to the fact that the hammer spring has already been compressed by the rearward movement of the slide, but none-the-less a DA. OTOH, if the trigger pull doesn't contribute to bring the firing system to its maximum potential energy, all it does is to kick the system off from its unstable equilibrium, whose result is firing a round. This is SA functioning to me. Vince, you know enough latin to be a latin...lover! BTW, it should be et alia nominative plural neutral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts