What are some opinions of the Springfield XD guns?

[chevrofreak]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak

Moving parts in a gas system is not a bad thing. If it keeps the receiver and bolt carrier cool and clean, it's a better design.

What part of a gun is going to stay cool under heavy burst fire? The barrel will get REALLY hot no matter what you do and the bolt/carrier are in DIRECT contact with it at all times other than recoil, and steel transfers heat really well...as does brass.

If the parts aren't getting to ~1000F for any length of time, you aren't affecting the metal. If you are, then you have to replace the barrel as well sense it will be subjected to the most heat...which is why belt feds have quick change barrels but not quick change bolts...


The barrel getting hot isn't really going to affect reliability. There are no moving parts in it that need lubricated.

I've seen FLIR video of an M4 being fired full-auto with a DI upper and a piston upper. The bolt carrier gets hot very quickly with the DI gas system, and the bolt carrier and action of the piston upper stays quite cool through the entire burst. It's a very dramatic difference.

Subjecting oils to that kind of heat breaks them down very, very quickly.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
The MAS 49 & 49/56, Swede AG42, Egyptian Hakim & Rasheed were all direct impingement guns and all of them were replaced by better systems and never returned to direct gas rifles.

Those were all old designs with limited capabilities. None resemble the capabilities of the AR platform. The guns that replaced them were superior in every way...regardless of the gas system. It was probably also much cheaper to buy the replacements rather come up with a new design.

I'm all for improving the weapons our troops are issued. If the SCAR or whatever is in fact a better weapon, then let's do it. We have a very good proving ground at the moment to see if indeed it is superior.
Last I heard it was a pound and half to two pounds heavier than an AR with more parts at ~double the cost. It's really hard to justify that.

And do you have a link to the "self cleaning" aspect of the newer weapons? The AR was billed this way and look what became of that.


The AR is over 50 years old and is not new, its a combo of features from older guns. Only the use of aluminum and modern plastics was new. The gas system is from the designs I mention in my other post. The bolt is from the Johnson rifle, the trigger is based on the Garand, the ejection port from the FG42, and the original mag was based on the designs of John Garand's later prototypes.

Ruger's new piston AR is being marked as self cleaning. The AR was not labeled as self cleaning, it just said it did not need cleaning.

There are and have been better guns for a long time. The US just places fighter planes, missiles, tanks, and other equipment way ahead of rifle procurement. The AR was chosen for the simple fact it was the only thing even close to production development when the US entered Nam. The M14 production could not supply the needs of the Army and Marines, so they picked the only other thing on the shelves to get them by until the AICW flechette gun could come online.....which it never did.

Even the Marines did not want the AR system. They were pushing for the Stoner 63 from Cadillac Gauge, but the Army got its way since it was the larger user. Much like the M1 Carbine it was rushed into production and many of the flaws in the system have never been really fixed, just made better.


Read the Great Rifle Conspiracy by Ed Ezell and you will see that the M16 was bought because it was the only option aside from soldiering on with limited amounts of M14s and M1 Garands in Vietnam.

 

[Steve S]

I have had 4 ARs over the years and I can say if kept clean they work great but there are better battlefield designs. The best is the Ak 47 types, The Galil/Valmet which are an improved AK. Years ago in the 1980s I owned a Chinese AK and a Colt AR "both have been sold darn!" I shot them till without any type of maintenance or cleaning , The Colt started not working perfectly at 500 rounds of third world mil surp as cheap as possible ammo while the AK using Chinese ammo in the tins kept on working perfectly. The AR is a sweeter to shoot rifle though.

 

[Tempest]

AR was designed for marksmanship, the AK was designed to spray bullets.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
AR was designed for marksmanship, the AK was designed to spray bullets.


My Aresenal AK can hit silhouette targets out to 350 yards without much trouble. Since most combat occurs at or below 150 yards in modern war (as confirmed by Dave Grossman and SLA Marshall), the accuracy difference between the two mean little, especially in modern urban combat.

Plus the Galil and Valmet AK based systems are much more accurate than their Russian counterparts due to better standards than in Russian and ComBloc factories.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Tempest
AR was designed for marksmanship, the AK was designed to spray bullets.


My Aresenal AK can hit silhouette targets out to 350 yards without much trouble. Since most combat occurs at or below 150 yards in modern war (as confirmed by Dave Grossman and SLA Marshall), the accuracy difference between the two mean little, especially in modern urban combat.

Plus the Galil and Valmet AK based systems are much more accurate than their Russian counterparts due to better standards than in Russian and ComBloc factories.

+1

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Since most combat occurs at or below 150 yards in modern war

This is very true. Which always makes me wonder why people are very worried about the fragmentation of 5.56 beyond 200 yards...

The superior accuracy of the AR does allow marksmen to engage the enemy before the enemy can engage us. This really comes into play with spec. ops. or recon units that have limited resources (every shot counts). I've seen more than one reported case where accuracy (and superior training) made the difference, as they were able to keep that enemy at extended ranges while waiting for extraction.

 

[gofastman]

SO... what do you guys think of those XD's???

I prefer glocks ergonomics, but I'm in the minority on that.
I have oddly shaped-gorilla hands..

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
I prefer glocks ergonomics, but I'm in the minority on that.

I'd have to agree with you on that. Glocks have terrible ergo's IMHO, but everyone's hand is different.

If you like Glocks, you won't like the XD's. The grip angle is nearly identical to a 1911. They are almost a merging of the 1911 and glock.

 

[chevrofreak]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Tempest
AR was designed for marksmanship, the AK was designed to spray bullets.


My Aresenal AK can hit silhouette targets out to 350 yards without much trouble. Since most combat occurs at or below 150 yards in modern war (as confirmed by Dave Grossman and SLA Marshall), the accuracy difference between the two mean little, especially in modern urban combat.

Plus the Galil and Valmet AK based systems are much more accurate than their Russian counterparts due to better standards than in Russian and ComBloc factories.



My Norinco MAK-90 will ding the 8" metal pipes that hold the gongs at 300 yards every time. The biggest thing that hurts AK accuracy is the inconsistent ammo. The stock sights aren't great, either, but I only use those if my red dot breaks.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: gofastman
SO... what do you guys think of those XD's???

I prefer glocks ergonomics, but I'm in the minority on that.
I have oddly shaped-gorilla hands..
They work well.

 

[Buffman]

I like my XD. I prefer it's ergonomics, and its' looks. I like the look of the 3.8 over the standard XDM. My 4" XD .40 performs 100%.

 

[Edmond]

I'm not a fan of Glock or XD. I like plastic pistols, I carry my H&K P2K daily but I would consider H&K to be in an entirely different class over the Glock and XD line.

I also have a Sig Sauer P239 and Springfield 1911 Mil Spec.

Glocks and XD's are good guns, don't get me wrong, but they're just not for me. They don't "do it" for me.

 

[BlownF150]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
That is one rifle and one experience. The govt studies showed that only with several cleanings a day, chromed chambers, and correct ammo did the malfunctions come down to "an acceptable level"



I can name plenty of others too. My brother was part of a Marine group that was in Falluja D-3 and he took the same attitude I have with it. Clean the [censored] thing, properly, and it will run. Never had a problem. I've seen plenty of SF and private security guys sitting around [censored]'ing while cleaning a weapon in their hands. Second nature to them. Should be second nature to anyone. In BCT that's what we did if we sat down in one spot for more than 5 minutes. 99% of the gripes most soldiers have with them are because they fundamentally don't know how to maintain them properly. They don't know the difference between a heavy coat and light coat of oil (even though it is explicitly mentioned in the manual). I train my soldiers accordingly though. You step out in the field with an Inf. bat and watch the soldiers sitting around...very few are checking their weapons (most are using them to prop up their gear). Takes seconds to pull the bolt carrier and wipe it off with a rag with a little CLP on it. That's really all it takes too. Basic stuff taught in basic training. You might want to think about what those gov't studies really show because they tell you exactly what any weapon system needs to function reliably.

 

[Loobed]

Opinion on the XD?

Another copy of the Glock. Everyone and their grandmothers have one. I hear lots of great reviews from people who own them, but have never shot one myself.

I would love to get an XD tactical in 10mm, if they had one, and it was on the California Okey-dokey gun list.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: Loobed

and it was on the California Okey-dokey gun list.





Isn't that ridiculous? Maryland has an "approved list" as well. Just one of many reasons I left that [censored] state.

 

[Dantheman]

Originally Posted By: Loobed

Opinion on the XD?

Another copy of the Glock. Everyone and their grandmothers have one.


Not really a copy of the Glock , other than they are both polymer .

 

[coolhunting]

I have owned a SA XD(m) .40 4.5" for about 6 months and have put about 1200 rounds through her. I really like the gun, it has proven to be everything that I found from researching before purchase. I don't regret the purchase and would do it again!

 

[Win]

The gun shops around here really push the XD's, which makes me suspect of the profit margin on them.

They look like nice guns, but don't really appeal to me; too much like a Glock for my taste. Maybe if Academy runs a sale on them, I'll buy one to try it out.

The only thing I have that is comparable ( sort of, I guess ) to an XD would be a Walther P99AS.

I like the P99AS a lot.

 

[Dantheman]

I recently purchased an XD45 and I love it . It will feed , fire , and eject , anything I put in it . Accurate and easy to field strip . I'll probably purchase a 9mm when funds come available .