Para USA PDA 9mm
Personal Defense Assistant—it’s the ultimate 1911!
Page: 1 2
While its 1911 heritage is obvious, the new PDA departs from John Browning’s original design in several important ways. In addition to its compact size and ambi, trimmed-down (but highly functional) safety levers, this gun sports a tapered barrel that eliminates the need for a bushing up front. The bulbous muzzle ensures a snug barrel-to-slide fit when the gun is in battery. The result is more than adequate accuracy and an aesthetically pleasing design.
I’ve already mentioned the most important distinction; the ingenious light, double-action trigger design that sets the PDA (and other LDA Paras) apart from all other 1911s. What’s more, this gun isn’t simply a downsized .45ACP. It features a frame and magazine specifically engineered to digest 9mm cartridges.
Like most 1911-style pistols, the PDA features natural “pointability.” The gun feels good in my hand and lines up on the target seemingly without conscious effort. The “three-white-dot” picture the Trijicon sights provide makes precise aiming fast and easy whether you grip the gun with one hand or two. The rear-sighting slot and front blade are generously proportioned and squarely cut, with sufficient space visible on either side of the blade for fast target acquisition. The rear sight is mounted to the slide via a sturdy dovetail, and is drift-adjustable for windage.
All the controls line up where they should. Thanks to a slender grip, I can easily depress the magazine release without shifting my thumb, something I can’t say about some of the high-capacity 1911s I’ve used that sported the oversized grip required to house a double-stack magazine. The single-stack PDA is perfectly suited to my hands, while the grip safety is positive and unobtrusive. I appreciated the lack of a long, projecting beavertail on this gun.
While the Para PDA is built on the basic 1911 design, the LDA trigger with its drawbar link to the hammer, the absence of a barrel bushing, and other design differences mean the disassembly process is slightly altered. Instead of first removing a barrel bushing to relieve tension on the recoil spring, you must rack the slide rearward far enough to line up the slide stop lug with the disassembly notch in the slide. Then you must firmly grasp the partially retracted slide and the receiver with one hand (remember, the slide is still under spring pressure), and hold it in position while you press out the slide stop with the other hand. This takes practice and strong fingers. From that point on, disassembly is pretty straightforward.
Fortunately, the “Safety and Instruction Manual” accompanying the PDA has clearly written,
easy-to-follow instructions, along with helpful photographs. Without the help of the manual, I’d still be trying to figure out how to take the gun apart.
In addition to giving basic takedown instructions, the manual shows you how to strip out the power extractor assembly, and how to disassemble and clean the magazine. Detailed steps are even provided for properly breaking in the pistol before you carry it on a regular basis. The instructions go on to specify that four drops of oil are all that’s needed to properly lubricate the gun. One drop goes into each of grooves in the slide, another goes on the barrel immediately behind the muzzle, while the fourth drop should be applied through the ejection port on top of the barrel hood. I’ve seen a lot of instruction manuals in my time, but the Para book is the best I’ve run across. It covers all the bases in easy-to-understand detail. Full-color photos illustrate each step.
Range Time
At my desert range, I ran a variety of Hornady, Remington and Black Hills 115- and 124-grain loads through the gun. The PDA’s oversized Para Power Extractor made sure no brass hung up in the chamber. I fired more than 300 rounds without the benefit of cleaning. The only malfunctions occurred when I purposely “weak-wristed” the pistol. All autopistols require a firm grip, but I’ve found this to be particularly true with compact guns like the PDA. Give it a firm, locked-wrist support, and the pistol should feed and fire without a glitch. Dependability is an absolute requirement for personal-defense firearms, and the PDA gets high marks here. Factory loads were used exclusively including “remanufactured” Black Hills ammo. Because of minor dimension variations possible with handloads, I’d recommend feeding a pistol like the PDA factory fodder only for serious social use.
Accuracy was surprisingly good, considering the PDA’s diminutive size and 3-inch barrel. Instead of testing from the 7-yard “close combat” range, I moved the target just over twice that distance away. Firing 115-grain Black Hills JHP ammo from the unsupported offhand position, I was able to print five-shot groups that averaged 3.25 inches between centers. When I closed the range to 7 yards, groups shrank to just under 2 inches.
Final Notes
I seldom put a new gun through its paces without finding some negative things to carp about, but that’s not the situation here. If this gun has any faults, I didn’t discover them during the limited testing I performed. I asked a few knowledgeable friends to shoot the PDA, and then give me their opinion. The answers were unanimous. This is a great little gun.
Page: 1 2
January 20th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
No, I’m not offended — we’re all entitled to our opinions! It makes the world go ’round.
January 20th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Mr Right Coast: Sorry if I offended you but we all have our experiences and opinions don’t we?
January 20th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Wialliam…I guess your only experience with Cadillacs are from the 1980s and ’90s. New Caddys are pretty damn sweet.
January 20th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
I crown the Para PDA the “Cadillac” of handguns.
Why? Like the Cadillac, it is an expensive, overpriced, piece of junk that is totally unreliable with anything except FMJ. This is totally unacceptable for someone whose job requires them to stake their life on a handgun. Consider an infinitely reliable Sig 229 and pocket $200.00!
February 13th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Calm down Robert. - I’m sure you have being that your response was written a year and a half ago from my reply today. Obviously, you are a big 1911 .45ACP fan who carries cocked and locked. Good for you! Carry well, sir. Just don’t jump all over someone with a different viewpoint or level of comfort. C’mon…you know what opinions are like. Everyone has them and every single one stinks. Moreover, most should be kept to oneself - even the one I write at this very moment…..
November 21st, 2008 at 8:19 am
I am appalled! How can you allow a writer to get away with some of the comments within this article. I was looking forward to reading about this pistol until I got to the 2nd paragraph.
The author states, “Two things prevent the 1911 from being a perfect choice for concealed carry, a basic requirement for personal self-defense. First, standard .45ACP 1911s are too bulky for easy concealment, and too heavy for comfortable all-day carrying. Second, while I know the 1911 was designed to be safely carried cocked and locked, I’ve never fully trusted any mechanical safety. Having a loaded and cocked pistol pointing at my nether regions makes me nervous. I’ll carry one in an exposed holster on my belt, but not stuffed inside my pants.”
I have carried a full sized 1911 pistol concealed for over a decade. I find that “bulky” does not describe the pistol as the author mentions. The 1911 is very flat compared to today’s polymer wonder guns. It does not print under clothing and Galco’s IWB Summer Comfort or Royal Guard assist in concealing the full length barrel while maintaining a comfortable carry all day long. Furthermore, there are several 1911 manufacturers that produce a lighter alloy framed gun if the author finds the feel of steel “too heavy.”
The second part of the paragraph gets more irritating than the first. The author basically feeds fuel to the anti-gunners fire about guns (especially the 1911) being unsafe because of the cocked and locked carry mode. It apparently makes him “nervous” to carry the gun the way it was intended to be carried.
Also, in attempting to illustrate how wonderful the LDA trigger is on the Para, the author goes on to say that “The long, two-stage trigger is inherently safer than the single-action hair trigger sometimes found on customized 1911s.” This is another slap at our 1911 being unsafe. And using the term “hair trigger” is downright disgraceful.
Clair may own and carry several kinds of guns but this irresponsibility is unforgiveable in today’s anti-gun environment. 1911 pistols are not unsafe. Articles like this are unsafe. It is too bad Jeff Cooper is not still alive so we can get a true “Retrospective” of this downright disappointing article by Clair Rees.