XD9 Service for IDPA penalized?

[Loves2Shoot]

KR,

I think you illustrated my point very well, thank you. It isn't a matter of geometry though.

A Glock is a modern SA also, just like the XD, but they are a basic service pistol, not a fine tuned 1911. I think this is why IPSC classifies them both as a Production guns.

In a "real" DA, you can cock the hammer/striker by pulling the trigger, and every time you pull the trigger the hammer/striker will fall. I know folks who have light hits on their Glocks wish they were DA.

A Glock can't do this, either can a XD. They work on the same principles and it isn't geometry is not the issue. In SA's the hammer/striker is cocked using the racking of the slide or pulling back the hammer. Saying the Glock "cocks" the striker is inaccurate, it just moves it back a little before releasing it. The majority of the loading is done already and it uses springs to assist in overcome the rest of the pressure.

So, is the Glock really a DA? I don't think so. PRATICALLY speaking an good XD and Glock are not enough different from each other for one to be "better" than the other. That is where my joking with Duane came in, because someone at IDPA must think the XD is much better than the Glock to classify it as an ESP gun because they aren't that much different from a mechanical point, or a functional point.

I think a stock trigger on a Glock is superior to the XD, as it has a much shorter reset, and once they are worked over, the aren't in the same league as stock triggers.

[freeidaho]

I think a stock trigger on a Glock is superior to the XD, as it has a much shorter reset, and once they are worked over, the aren't in the same league as stock triggers.

We can certainly agree to this part....

Put all the striker fired guns into ESP, or CDP....

They do not seem to have any problems competing with 1911's in CDP, if you look at last years Nationals....

They compete just fine in CDP without a whimper from anyone.... go figure

kr

Edited September 25, 2008 by freeidaho

[p99shooter]

Put all the striker fired guns into ESP, or CDP....

Or, we could put all safe-action guns in ESP, but leave the firing pin mechanism out of it.

If, from a hammer / striker down position, you can pull the trigger and have the trigger mechanism fire, ala a true double action, it can go in SSP. It shouldn't matter whether it is is striker or hammer.

I'm really not advocating this position, but I am arguing against lumping all striker fired pistols into ESP. Why? Because I use a striker fired pistol that is a true DA / SA, not safe-action. Maybe I'm being selfish

[Loves2Shoot]

If, from a hammer / striker down position, you can pull the trigger and have the trigger mechanism fire, ala a true double action, it can go in SSP. It shouldn't matter whether it is is striker or hammer.

That sound reasonable and logical.

[Duane Thomas]

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

Wow. Thanks.

In a "real" DA, you can cock the hammer/striker by pulling the trigger, and every time you pull the trigger the hammer/striker will fall. I know folks who have light hits on their Glocks wish they were DA.

A Glock can't do this, either can a XD.

If we go by the traditional definition - which I do - I still don't make having a second strike capability a prerequisite to be considered DA. Ah, well. Life goes on! Semantics. Gotta love it.

[salilus]

When I put a pistolgear magwell on my Xd, most at the club wondered why since I have no troubles with reloads. I told them, "Now I am in ESP for a reason."