XD in Production class, no more!?

[shred]

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.

And I thought I was done with this discussion So, this is no more about rules.. merely academic maunderings.

I like the 'no more energy added' idea for DA/SA, but the XD does actually pull the striker back a bit when the trigger is pulled. Not near as much as a Glock, but some. Of course a poorly-cut 1911 trigger-job also pushes the hammer back a bit too, so there's a problem there.

I'm told the LDA won't fire with the hammer down and the mainspring suddenly released but that doesn't mean the energy's not there.. I think there's enough energy in the mainspring to fire a primer and the 'hammer' is acting like a transfer-bar (like in a S&W revolver); a needed part of the firing chain, but not actually needed energy-wise.

[RIIID]

I'm sure some else some where presented this thought, if not here we go.If by definition a DA has more than one firing componate move how does the Glock fit in ie.The gun has a loaded chamber ready to fire, the trigger is pulled there is a light hit on the primer. You can pull on the trigger until you get tired and the Glock will not reset itself to fire the round. A TRUE DA will. The slide has to be manipulated to reset the gun to fire again. So with this example I think the Glock should be banned from IPSC Production.

Just a thought,

Rich

[Dead Buff]

I think there's enough energy in the mainspring to fire a primer and the 'hammer' is acting like a transfer-bar (like in a S&W revolver); a needed part of the firing chain, but not actually needed energy-wise.

The transferbar is a safety mech. that helps prevent AD's when droping the gun/bumping the hamer with a round underneath, etc

The hammer in the LDA acts the same as any other hammer - it transfers the energy stored in the main spring to the firing pin which ignites the primer. In the LDA's case the hammer must first be lifted/moved back and then the sear must be disengaged to transfer the main spring energy onto the hammer.

I can remove the transfer bar and add a spacer piece to the S&W hammer and still fire the gun - no extra or less energy, just a removed saftey mech.. I can not remove the LDA hammer and add 2 more main springs and a 3cm rearward longer fireing pin and make the LDA fire.

The same goes for Glock - if the striker is not retracted and the sear disengaged, the gun will not fire. Both actions are required to get that hot lead/copper headache-clearing pill down the barrel....

[shred]

I can remove the transfer bar and add a spacer piece to the S&W hammer and still fire the gun - no extra or less energy, just a removed saftey mech.. I can not remove the LDA hammer and add 2 more main springs and a 3cm rearward longer fireing pin and make the LDA fire.

The same goes for Glock - if the striker is not retracted and the sear disengaged, the gun will not fire. Both actions are required to get that hot lead/copper headache-clearing pill down the barrel....

I believe that's a geometry problem, not an energy one. If you had a magic-right-angle punch that could send the striking force of the mainspring over to the firing pin, then it would go bang without the hammer swinging.

Btw, somebody said they got a Glock to fire from the 'resting' position. I think it required a deep-seated Federal primer..

[racerba]

Btw, somebody said they got a Glock to fire from the 'resting' position. I think it required a deep-seated Federal primer..

How was that possible (Glock fired from resting position)?

I guess I'll add my 2 cents. I know it's been said before, but I hope to put it into different wording so it might be better understood:

SA = the pull of the trigger RELEASES the (cocked) hammer that is already at its full potential. (The releasing action will no doubt cause the hammer to move backwards some "small" amount to clear the sear. This is true with 1911s. It's physics). The one action of the pull of the trigger is (1) releasing the hammer.

DA = the pull of the trigger MOVES the (uncocked) hammer/striker back to it's full potential before releasing it. Glocks and LDAs hammers/strikers are essentially (half-cocked). The two actions of the trigger pull are (1) cocks the hammer and (2) releases the hammer.

[TriggerT]

I'm sure some else some where presented this thought, if not here we go.If by definition a DA has more than one firing componate move how does the Glock fit in ie.The gun has a loaded chamber ready to fire, the trigger is pulled there is a light hit on the primer. You can pull on the trigger until you get tired and the Glock will not reset itself to fire the round. A TRUE DA will. The slide has to be manipulated to reset the gun to fire again. So with this example I think the Glock should be banned from IPSC Production.

Just a thought,

Rich

Exactly what I was thinking as I reading through this entire thread.

[Ted Murphy]

FWIW, some of the S&W DAO guns (like the 5906 made during certain times) do not have second strike capability. (S&W PC did it to a friends gun when he had a dao conversion. idea was it encouraged tap rack bang for FTF instead of second striking. go figure)

By the above definition that would put it also as a single action. And that would not be true.

Ted

[Dead Buff]

I thought this thread had died....

To make everybody happy lets have div's for every gun

1) Open 1911

2) Mod 1911

3) Std 1911

4) Prod 1911

1) Open Glock

2) Mod Glock

3) Std Glock

4) Prod Glock

1) Open S&W Rev

2) Mod S&W Rev

3) Std S&W Rev

4) Prod S&W Rev

1) Open S&W 5906 pre date xx-xx-xxxx

2) Mod S&W 5906 pre date xx-xx-xxxx

3) Std S&W 5906 pre date xx-xx-xxxx

4) Prod S&W 5906 pre date xx-xx-xxxx

1) Open S&W 5906 post date xx-xx-xxxx

2) Mod S&W 5906 post date xx-xx-xxxx

3) Std S&W 5906 post date xx-xx-xxxx

4) Prod S&W 5906 post date xx-xx-xxxx

1) Open CZ 75

2) Mod CZ 75

3) Std CZ 75

4) Prod CZ 75

1) Open CZ 85

2) Mod CZ 85

3) Std CZ 85

4) Prod CZ 85

until the f$#@ing last gun has been covered!

If the rules and def's are crap - change 'em, If they work and you don't like 'em - LIVE WITH IT! Rules are a "living" thing and will change and adapt with time - hopefully alway towards a better set. If you do not like the IPSC def of DA/SA, get a majority vote from ALL region (who get majority votes from ALL payed-up shooter) and have the rule book changed - until then...LIVE WITH IT!

(Rant mode off....off to shoot some tin cans to calm down again and be able to work!)

[Vince Pinto]

OK guys, I'm locking this thread.

There are already numerous threads here about the Springfield XD series - seek and ye shall find.

As far as the XD Series being OFF the IPSC List but ON the USPSA List - this subject has been beaten to death, and everyone just needs to get over it and move on.