I already had this discussion before 
As far as I'm personally concerned, any pistol without a "second strike capability" ,i.e. fully recocking and subsequently releasing a decocked hammer or striker (when striker fired) only by pulling the trigger, is a single action. Period.
Pistols like Glock and Para's LDA do not feature a second strike capabality without racking the slide during which the striker or hammer is (partially) recocked and not recocked by merely pulling the trigger. "Safe Action", "Fast Action", "Light Double Action" are inventions from the manufacturers' commercial departments, having one single purpose : selling their guns which are basically (technically) to be considered as single action, requiring a rather modest trigger pull compared to real DA guns. This brings us to the safety and juridical issue : I guess Glock (and others) absolutely wanted the BATF to rate their pistols as DA simply to avoid liability discussions and by doing so not to jeopardize the commercial future of the gun. (cfr. SIG's DAK and DAO triggers and Glock's New York trigger). Don't get me wrong : although Glocks and other so-called DA's are not my cup of tea, everybody is entitled to have his own preferences. Hope this doesn't start a war with Glock aficionados ...
As far as I'm personally concerned, any pistol without a "second strike capability" ,i.e. fully recocking and subsequently releasing a decocked hammer or striker (when striker fired) only by pulling the trigger, is a single action. Period.
Pistols like Glock and Para's LDA do not feature a second strike capabality without racking the slide during which the striker or hammer is (partially) recocked and not recocked by merely pulling the trigger. "Safe Action", "Fast Action", "Light Double Action" are inventions from the manufacturers' commercial departments, having one single purpose : selling their guns which are basically (technically) to be considered as single action, requiring a rather modest trigger pull compared to real DA guns. This brings us to the safety and juridical issue : I guess Glock (and others) absolutely wanted the BATF to rate their pistols as DA simply to avoid liability discussions and by doing so not to jeopardize the commercial future of the gun. (cfr. SIG's DAK and DAO triggers and Glock's New York trigger). Don't get me wrong : although Glocks and other so-called DA's are not my cup of tea, everybody is entitled to have his own preferences. Hope this doesn't start a war with Glock aficionados ...