Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitholz
Racking the slide "cocks" the action. Pulling the trigger trips the sear, releasing the striker. The trigger does NO cocking of any sort in an M&P pistol.
Simply put this really is a single action design. If you happen to drop the firing pin on a bad primer the slide will have to be racked to eject the round and reset the striker, sure sounds like a single action to me.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitholz
Well now that's splitting hairs just a bit. OK just to touch on what your referring to, it's a few thousandths of an inch, at the most. That can hardly be considered "double action" in my book.
The truth is, if you drop the striker on a round and it doesn't fire in one of these pistols, you will HAVE to rack the slide and try again. Once the striker falls on the primer it will not reset without pulling the slide back, period.
From a symantecs standpoint MAYBE we can classify these guns as a double action design but in the real world their manual of arms is that of a single action design.
|
Using the reasoning that you just did would prove Glock to be single action and not double action, which would be silly. (The racking the slide to reset the striker being single action part).
Plus, it's related to the trigger alone when classifying.
I never go by what action the pistol is if it is striker fired, some of them are "one and a half" action (if that were a thing), so I always look at how the trigger mechanism works along with the striker.
Don't mean to revive an old thread, but the reasoning just seemed flawed to me.
EDIT: I see you are attempting to say that you see glocks & M&Ps as single action. I did not realize this at first. While I'd have to disagree with classifying the glock as a single action, I do have some trouble with calling it double action, even though the trigger does cock back the striker a bit.
I think that they ought to come out with a new term, partial double action...or something. If that catches on, I claim it.