|
|
|
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 |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
