XD9 Service for IDPA penalized?

[Flexmoney]

I would think this description of the basic trigger system operation would still hold true.

Duane,

What makes you trust that to be true in the first place? It's an article in a gun magazine. Consider the source. (I'm not knocking the author...no author was listed)

Where did you hear the XD trigger bar pulls the striker to the rear during trigger pulls?

I'll bet that he didn't really hear it from somebody else. Instead he experienced it first hand.

Loves2Shoot does smith work on XD's. He is hands on...inside the gun.

[Loves2Shoot]

As Flex said, no one had to tell me, as I've done some work on XD's and shot them a bit

Any one can test it themselves, no need to take my word for it. The cocked chamber indicator is held against the striker via the striker spring so as the indicator moves, so does the striker.

You can see the indicator move rearward when you pull the trigger, if you put your finger on it, you can feel it move to the rear also. If you take the slide off an XD, you can see the angle on the part of the striker that contacts the sear. This angle insures that the striker moves back before being released.

The Glock is cocked by the slide racking NOT by pulling the trigger, you too can test this by dry firing the Glock and continuing to pull the trigger after the initial "click." No matter how many times you pull the trigger again, you can not cocking it without racking the slide. To describe pulling the trigger on a Glock as "cocking it" thus, can not be an accurate description of what pulling the trigger does on a Glock in my mind.

"As with the Glock, the trigger design does not fit any traditional classification." In a Glock the striker is "cocked" when you rack the slide, the same way it does with the XD. In the case of the Glock, the trigger bar catches the striker, in the XD the sear catches the striker. When you pull the trigger on a glock or XD the striker moves rearward and then is released.

From reading the article you posted, I would assume this writer would classify the Glock as a "modern single-action design."

Any one to cares to look at a XD can tell the striker moves back before moving forward, and that is why I believe IDPA must have a criteria other than the one you have described.

That the guns are NOT in the division suggest to me there must be "another" reason, ie the XD is THAT MUCH BETTER , as no other reason I've been given passes the smell test.

Now, is the XD that much better than it should not be in the same division, no. They are both stock service pistols of the "modern single action design," as described by the writer of your article.

[Mayonaise]

Loves2shoot,

It's a moot point. The only reason it's in ESP as it has since long before Springfield was involved has already been stated. The original documentation and info with the ATF. As much as everyone loves a conspiracy there just isn't one. Unless the ATF reclassifies the gun I don't think it will move. You never know. In the early days of IDPA there was consternation over the HK P7. It eventually ended up in ESP vs SSP.

[Loves2Shoot]

Pointing out IDPA does not use the criteria Duane stated as why the Glock is a SA and the XD isn't doesn't matter one bit to IDPA, as they will do what they do.

Why is pointing it out moot?

Since when does the ATF classify guns for IDPA divisions, as IDPA is a privately owned business?

Striker fired is neither SA or DA. So to blame it on the ATF because a marketing guy called it a SA just makes no sense to me.

Why would you NOT putting striker fired guns in the same class? Another world wide shooting organization put them in the Production division (which does not allow SA's) because it makes sense to have like guns together, as they are a similar trigger action. They didn't let the ATF stop them, as it is not the ATF's sport.

I'm just calling it like I see it, and I know it won't change a thing. If they cared to change it, they would. No one is stopping them.

ps.

It is in my financial interest to have them in ESP, because I can do more mods on them in that division, but that doesn't mean I can't say I think the classification is absurd from a logical standpoint.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Loves2Shoot

[Jim Watson]

There is no reason, it is just our policy.

Looking at the scores, a rational plan would lump EVERYTHING together.

Gunsmithing and shooting techniques have improved a lot over the past 12 years.

There is no real difference anywhere among the autos except where a lot of 18 hit stages push the .45 CDPs into extra reloads.

For some weird reason I went for years with better scores in CDP than in ESP. Not better placement in the division, better scores. Similar guns. I never worked as hard on SSP, but some do, and shoot just as well.

But that would reduce the number of "winners" so that won't happen.

Otherwise, maybe a strong technical inspection to see that the SSPs are really stock?

A 2 lb Glock trigger = ESP even with no visible modifications, maybe.

[Loves2Shoot]

Jim,

Good post, that makes more sense than anything else I've heard.

If the Glock and XD's were together, ESP would be anemic at the matches I've been to. I'll bet the XD adds quite a bit in numbers numbers to ESP and props it up a bit.

[RobMoore]

I still see more 9mm 1911s in ESP than I do XDs.

[freeidaho]

If the Glock and XD's were together, ESP would be anemic at the matches I've been to.

If the striker fired guns are all grouped together it might just be in ESP. They are more like single actions than true double actions. Be careful what you ask for.... you might get it. This might get a bunch more true double action guns in competition too.

kr

PS: it was great to meet you and shake your hand on Saturday.

Edited September 23, 2008 by freeidaho

[Loves2Shoot]

If the Glock and XD's were together, ESP would be anemic at the matches I've been to.

If the striker fired guns are all grouped together it might just be in ESP. They are more like single actions than true double actions. Be careful what you ask for.... you might get it. This might get a bunch more true double action guns in competition too.

I don't think it matters where they land, I just think it should be consistent.

You guys put on a great match and I hope to make it again next year. I'll bring some rain gear next year though Take away the 2 rain stages and my XDM almost kept up with Goodfellow's fancy STI

You have a great group of shooters over there, and the props were awesome!

Edited September 23, 2008 by Loves2Shoot

[freeidaho]

Take away the 2 rain stages and my XDM almost kept up with Goodfellow's fancy STI

The XD that I saw that you fixed up for our drawing was outstanding. Thanks again for your great work ! ! !

kr

[Duane Thomas]

Scott,

Well, you actually changed my mind on this one. I didn't know that the XD striker was pulled to the rear during the trigger pulls. If that's the case - and I have no doubt you're right - then obviously the XD is a DA gun and should be allowed in SSP.

[Duane Thomas]

Duane,

What makes you trust that to be true in the first place? It's an article in a gun magazine. Consider the source.

[shooterready]

As Flex said, no one had to tell me, as I've done some work on XD's and shot them a bit

Any one can test it themselves, no need to take my word for it. The cocked chamber indicator is held against the striker via the striker spring so as the indicator moves, so does the striker.

You can see the indicator move rearward when you pull the trigger, if you put your finger on it, you can feel it move to the rear also. If you take the slide off an XD, you can see the angle on the part of the striker that contacts the sear. This angle insures that the striker moves back before being released.

The Glock is cocked by the slide racking NOT by pulling the trigger, you too can test this by dry firing the Glock and continuing to pull the trigger after the initial "click." No matter how many times you pull the trigger again, you can not cocking it without racking the slide. To describe pulling the trigger on a Glock as "cocking it" thus, can not be an accurate description of what pulling the trigger does on a Glock in my mind.

"As with the Glock, the trigger design does not fit any traditional classification." In a Glock the striker is "cocked" when you rack the slide, the same way it does with the XD. In the case of the Glock, the trigger bar catches the striker, in the XD the sear catches the striker. When you pull the trigger on a glock or XD the striker moves rearward and then is released.

From reading the article you posted, I would assume this writer would classify the Glock as a "modern single-action design."

Any one to cares to look at a XD can tell the striker moves back before moving forward, and that is why I believe IDPA must have a criteria other than the one you have described.

That the guns are NOT in the division suggest to me there must be "another" reason, ie the XD is THAT MUCH BETTER , as no other reason I've been given passes the smell test.

Now, is the XD that much better than it should not be in the same division, no. They are both stock service pistols of the "modern single action design," as described by the writer of your article.

This rearward striker movement is by design. In any latching system, there must be a force vector acting to hold the two surfaces in contact together. If there is not, it becomes an ineffective design prone to failures due to inertial loads placed on the system.

I would not consider the XD to be double action due to this fact you've stated. It is only required by design. As well, this movement is less than 0.5% of the total travel in the striker. Hardly double action.

Single action triggers store all of their kinetic energy. If the hammer/striker were to fall unimpeded, the primer will detonate. In a double action striker fired firearm, there is not enough stored energy for detonation in the 2/3 cocked position.

[p99shooter]

This rearward striker movement is by design. In any latching system, there must be a force vector acting to hold the two surfaces in contact together. If there is not, it becomes an ineffective design prone to failures due to inertial loads placed on the system.

I would not consider the XD to be double action due to this fact you've stated. It is only required by design. As well, this movement is less than 0.5% of the total travel in the striker. Hardly double action.

Single action triggers store all of their kinetic energy. If the hammer/striker were to fall unimpeded, the primer will detonate. In a double action striker fired firearm, there is not enough stored energy for detonation in the 2/3 cocked position.

+1

I don't work on XDs, but I owned one and studied it enough to understand this point. Yes, you can feel the striker move rear-ward while pulling the trigger, but the movement is miniscule compared to what Glock does. The only reason that there is any movement is because the sear's pivot point is not at the center of the circle that the arc of the sear proscribes. Look at the operation of a 1911

If pulling the trigger on a 1911 moved the hammer to any degree, measureable but not visible to the naked eye, would anyone argue that it was a double action gun?

Additionally, not all striker fired guns are safe-action or single action. I know of one manufacturer that makes a striker-fired gun that is a true DA/SA gun. (My username?) This gun can also release the striker in single action mode without moving the sear. Lumping all striker-fired guns into a certain category just because they are striker fired does not make sense either.

[Loves2Shoot]

Practically speaking, a Glock trigger moves a shorter distance than a XD, and the stock reset on a Glock is a fraction of the XD.

The XD is largely a combination of the Sig 226 (SSP) and a Glock (SSP) mechanically speaking.

Lumping them together IF they are very similar, does make sense, as even IPSC (who doesn't always make sense) could figure this one out.

[Loves2Shoot]

Scott,

Well, you actually changed my mind on this one. I didn't know that the XD striker was pulled to the rear during the trigger pulls. If that's the case - and I have no doubt you're right - then obviously the XD is a DA gun and should be allowed in SSP.

I didn't change your mind, I just gave you the facts

Edited September 24, 2008 by Loves2Shoot

[salilus]

I would feel better if SSP had a trigger pull req. It just gets me that you can have a 2lb trigger on a G34\35 with a extended mag release and be in SSP. I pull my XD out of the box and its ESP.

[Jim Watson]

If pulling the trigger on a 1911 moved the hammer to any degree, measureable but not visible to the naked eye, would anyone argue that it was a double action gun?

Just what I was thinking. The hammer on a stock CZ75 cams back more than the striker on an XD (or Plastic M&P) but nobody calls that double action. It is just due to the sear angle cut acute for safety in a service pistol.

[Loves2Shoot]

Nobody calls a CZ75 A DA? I think you typoed.

[revchuck]

Nobody calls a CZ75 A DA? I think you typoed.

I'm not Jim, but under the definition being used, the CZ-75 SA would be considered a DA since the hammer cams back during the SA trigger pull.

[HoMiE]

Nobody calls a CZ75 A DA? I think you typoed.

I'm not Jim, but under the definition being used, the CZ-75 SA would be considered a DA since the hammer cams back during the SA trigger pull.

If your SA gun cams back, that is just a bad trigger job, not double action.

[Jim Watson]

OK, let me explain...

No consideration of the actual double action linkage in a CZ75. MY CZ75 "pre-B" when in factory stock condition, with the hammer cocked in what anybody would call a single action position, would cam the hammer back even farther as the trigger was pulled.

My Plastic M&P cammed the striker back no more and neither does the XD as far as I can tell.

A trigger job substantially eliminates the camming all around.

The CZ has a swinging hammer visible for all to see its mode of operation, so it is an ESP when cocked and locked, a SSP when uncocked; no doubt about it.

Advertising by the original importers of the XD got it listed as single action and IDPA put it in ESP.

Promotion by S&W got the Plastic M&P listed as equivalent to double action and IDPA put it in SSP.

Just a matter of perception, but that is what the world runs on.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Jim Watson

[Duane Thomas]

I didn't change your mind, I just gave you the facts

Actually you changed my mind by giving me the facts. This is good.

[Loves2Shoot]

So is a mind that is open to using facts and not dogma to make decisions.

[freeidaho]

So is a mind that is open to using facts and not dogma to make decisions.

Goodness knows I respect you and your excellent gunsmithing and shooting, but to say that Glock and XD both move the striker, hence they are the same ignores a bit of geometry.

Glock moves the striker to do the last 30% of the cocking motion. The XD moves the striker about 1%, or a few thousandths of an inch. They both move indeed as you have said. But the geometry makes them not the same at all.

Maybe if you compare a Vaneck Glock to an XD they are much more the same. I have not been able to observe how that trigger actually works.

YMMVAPD

Respectfully,

kr

Edited September 25, 2008 by freeidaho