Fud & Seecamp
I knew this was going to happen and I apologize for my part in continuing the thread hijack.
I corresponded with Para Ordinance on this matter of single vs double action. Here, with my emphasis and parentheticals added, are the essential points of the response of the company holding the patent: LDA is double action...
...since it is impossible to discharge a LDA without bringing the hammer back first (using the trigger). Yes, the cocking cam is cocked by either bringing the hammer fully rearward, and releasing it, or by cycling the slide.
Double action by pure firearms definition is just that, the trigger performs 2 functions. 1) setting the hammer in the ready position, and 2) releasing the hammer to free fall and initiate a firing sequence.
So, any opponent can find any number of individual definitions that might bring the LDA's double action parameters into doubt, but that does not make it a single action.
The trigger performs
two functions. I respectfully and politely point out that the NRA definition Larry Seecamp cited precisely describes the LDA. Personally, I think we're quibbling over semantics. The double action is not exactly 'traditional' but it is certainly 'double'. If the 'psuedo hammer' isn't readied and tripped the gun doesn't fire regardless of the state of the internal hammer.
Sig 229 SAS is a "light double action" pistol for similar reasons.
The H&K P7 "squeeze cocker", humorously, is both single action and double action and in neither sense are the actions 'traditional'. Go figger.
So, guys, rather than argue about this innovative action design with me, how about you work it out with Para Ordnance, BATF, and various international patent offices, and restrictive state governments. LDA is
not single action and it works just fine.
I wish I still had my 6.45 LDA and I'm glad I have a Carry 12 LDA.