|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Springfield Armory XD-E
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The defining feature of the Springfield Armory XD-E is highlighted above, the DA/SA hammer-fired system that signals a return to an action often overshadowed by modern striker-fired defensive pistols. There was a time, back in the 1970s and ’80s, when giants strode the earth of the desert Southwest. At the time, semi-automatic handguns came mostly in two flavors: Single-action pistols—which were endorsed and carried by these giants—and pistols that were double-action on the first shot and single-action on subsequent shots, which were derided by the giants as “crunchentickers." |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/26/2017)
|
Beretta messed up with changing the safety to the slide-mounted decocking/safety lever. The original design defeated all the objections to that DA/SA pistol, because one could carry it cocked and locked. And believe me, the Beretta's SA trigger pull/break is superior - it is EXCELLENT. One can opt for the Taurus clone with the original design, but the QC just doesn't get there.
On single action, the Beretta places shots like a LASER - you point it, it shoots there. Not so much, the Taurus. AAMOF, from my experience with Colt-pattern 1911 pistols, they won't do that without enhancements. The Beretta does it OUT OF THE BOX.
Okay, that's my two cents. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
