Para Ordnance

[Alan Fud]

Thanks Larry (I'm assuming you're Larry).

 

[seecamp]

Yes, I'm Larry.

I don't normally post away from my forum but my name did come up.

 

[romma]

Hey Larry, nice work you are doing there! Hello from another Ct guy!

 

[seecamp]

Hi,

Come on over and post at our company forum if you can stand the civility.

I think we are as friendly a group as one could hope to find on the net.

Regards,
Larry

 

[5Wire]

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.

 

[shootergirl88]

For my eighteenth birthday, my dad gave me a Para-Ordnance P12 (single action). While it is indisputably the love of my life, I've wanted an LDA to go with it ever since I shot my coworker's. The trigger is delicious straight out of the box.

In terms of quality/durability, my P12 was used when my dad bought it, and since receiving it I've put at least a thousand rounds through it. Problems? None. It stovepipes occasionally (only with Atlanta Arms and Ammo target rounds though, wonder why...), but beyond that it's great. I would definitely say that Para-Ordnance is one of very few worthwhile things to come from Canada.

 

[Zen21Tao]

I can't comment of the single stack, but I absolutley love my double stack Tac-4. Trust me, that is saying alot. I usually don't care for double stacks but for some reason the Para just feels natural. I also like the consistency, smoothness of the LDA trigger.

 

[Zach S]

Based on my experiance with my one Para piastol, if you want stainless steel, get carbon steel, take the money you save and a few buck more and have it hardchromed.

My stainless Para is more prone to rust than the few I have in blue steel.

 

[buzz_knox]

One of the reasons I went with the LDA was anticipating a 'hold until authority arrives' situation - as nerves go up, muscle control goes down - the idea of controlling an SA trigger, particularly a light 1911 SA trigger, while adrenaline surges through my system and the perp is probably wiggling around looking for an out didn't appeal to me.

For what it's worth, if your finger is on the trigger in these kind of situations, you can very easily discharge a DA weapon with a heavy trigger pull, let alone the LDA.

 

[Alan Fud]

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.

The trigger performs two functions. I respectfully and politely point out that the NRA definition Larry Seecamp cited precisely describes the LDA.

I respectfully disagree. If the internal hammer is not pre-cocked either manually or by the slide traveling backwards, pulling the trigger will never "set the hammer in the ready position" -- thus not meeting the first part of your definition above.

Sig 229 SAS is a "light double action" pistol for similar reasons.

The Sig DAK system is a true double action -- without doing any pre-cocking, a pull of the trigger will raise and drop the hammer.

On the LDA's, if you have a weak strike to the primer, you can not pull the trigger again to drop the hammer a second time. With the DAK, a second pull of the trigger will raise and drop the hammer a second time.

 

[5Wire]

I respectfully disagree. If the internal hammer is not pre-cocked either manually or by the slide traveling backwards, pulling the trigger will never "set the hammer in the ready position" -- thus not meeting the first part of your definition above.

as Will Rogers said, "It's not the things you don't know that hurt you, it's the things you do know that ain't so."

You can disagree all you want. LDA is not single action. The LDA requires the 'psuedo hammer' to be moved to the firing position by the trigger or no boom. Releasing the trigger before tripping the sear, no boom. That's two, count 'em, two actions. The fact that the cocking cam might not be cocked is a condition irrelevent to the two actions performed by the trigger. Too bad about the second strike, though, like Glock: The Glock design is "double action only." How do you deal with that?

I again point out you are not really disagreeing with me, it's not my definition, but with Para Ordnance, BATFE, Patent Office, and so on. Either they are all wrong or you are misinformed.

I'm done commenting on the distinction between two and two. So, if you want the last word, go for it. Or maybe someone else will drop in and clear it all up.

As far as the DAK system is concerned, you're correct.

 

[Hank Hunter]

I have the C645. Its an excellent gun. I considered the Glock but the Para is so much nicer. I carry this gun every day.

 

[buzz_knox]

I again point out you are not really disagreeing with me, it's not my
definition, but with Para Ordnance, BATFE, Patent Office, and so on.
Either they are all wrong or you are misinformed.

There's a third alternative: in the absence of an absolutely clear determination either way, all involved have simply agreed to call it double action. Para has an absolutle interest in referring to it as a double action system, since that is an excellent marketing tool for them. The ATFE and the Patent Office have no dog in the fight, and simply accept the determination as there is support for it, just as there is support for referring to it as system requiring the hammer to be precocked and in which the trigger actuation finishes the firing sequence, but does not solely initiate it. The line between DA and SA has become blurred in a lot of areas, so it's not surprising that those without an interest one way or another will accept the manufacturer's definition.

Besides, if you look through the Patent Office records, you'll find a lot of things officially referred to as whatever the applicant called them, despite the fact that some of these things do not exist nor are likely to perform as described.

 

[seecamp]

There is only one part in the LDA that qualifies by definition as a hammer. It is the part that is held cocked by a sear after every slide retraction.

Tripping the sear through a long trigger pull causes this part, the hammer, to strike the firing pin and cause firing.

The external thing that looks like a hammer is nothing more than a device that creates the illusion of being a hammer or a meaningful mechanism.

It serves no hammer function and is by no legitimate definition a hammer. Para-Ordnance defines it as a hammer, but they are also the creators of the illusion.

In my opinion, this illusory device could be eliminated to provide a stronger, simpler and likely much sounder single action long trigger pull system.

 

[G. Wedge]

There is only one part in the LDA that qualifies by definition as a hammer. It is the part that is held cocked by a sear after every slide retraction.

Tripping the sear through a long trigger pull causes this part, the hammer, to strike the firing pin and cause firing.

The external thing that looks like a hammer is nothing more than a device that creates the illusion of being a hammer or a meaningful mechanism.

It serves no hammer function and is by no legitimate definition a hammer. Para-Ordnance defines it as a hammer, but they are also the creators of the illusion.

In my opinion, this illusory device could be eliminated to provide a stronger, simpler and likely much sounder single action long trigger pull system.

Hi Larry. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods, and that your Christmas was Merry.
Am I to assume from reading your last response that you think the cocking cam is what strikes the firing pin, and that the LDA can initiate a primer strike without the hammer-striker attached? That it how your response reads, and that makes me wonder whether you have actually held one. If you need some clarification on how the LDA design was applied to the 1911 platform, please come and spend some time with me at SHOT, and I'd be happy to show you the adaptation. I'm sure that you will be quite impressed by Ted's innovation, and his love of the 1911 platform, which shows in almost every detail.

Cheers, and Best Regards,

George Wedge
[email protected]

 

[seecamp]

Hi George,

My understanding of the mechanism is limited to a short cursory examination of an LDA I made while visiting a gun store around the time the design was first introduced.

The idea is extremely ingenious.

When the hammer is brought to full cock for single action firing mode in a revolver having a transfer bar, the transfer bar slides up between the firing pin and the hammer. On pulling the trigger to release the sear, the hammer strikes the transfer bar and thus imparts its energy to the firing pin.

This arrangement is not normally thought of as a two hammer D-A system, with the visible hammer being considered the external hammer and the less visible transfer bar being considered the internal hammer. Cocking the hammer is not thought of as a double action event even though two things happen when the hammer is cocked..

My understanding of the LDA design has the internal LDA hammer analogous to the visible revolver hammer, and the visible LDA hammer analogous to the transfer bar.

To fire an LDA the internal or real hammer has to be cocked. Pulling the trigger without this hammer cocked is like moving a transfer bar up and down without any hammer activity.

If I use a traditional Sears/Roebuck bought hammer to strike something, and I place an object between the hammer and the something I am striking, I would not consider the object that I inserted in the middle a second hammer. In my view, this would permit the definition of hammer to extend to an infinite number of objects that transfer energy between the striking force and the ultimate recipient of that force. By that definition, a firing pin in a gun might be considered a variety of a type of hammer.

If the internal hammer of an LDA is not cocked, the external thing that looks like a hammer can be cocked and dropped from here to eternity without any risk of discharge.

The external LDA hammer is in my view somewhat akin to the transfer bar in a revolver.

The idea is brilliant, but it does not satisfy my concept of D-A.

Regards,
Larry

 

[5Wire]

I lied. Another post in this thread.

The idea is brilliant, but it does not satisfy my concept of D-A

I believe that is the very crux of the running dispute here. Private definitions colliding with functional definitions. Like the current usage distinguishing 'revolver' from 'pistol', the term 'double action' has evolved beyond traditional, presumptive usage and now includes Para's 'Light Double Action' and 'Glock's Safe Action' as well as 'Traditional Double Action'.