What are some opinions of the Springfield XD guns?

[INMY01TA]

I have two. XD 45 and the XDm9mm. I like my regular XD better than my XDm, just fits my hand better. The XD 45 is my favorite hand gun. I'm looking at getting a compact/subcompact and am thinking about the M&P9 compact for a couple reasons. The M&P9c can be bought with a thumbsafety and as much as I like XDs the XD9sub is still pretty wide for a carry gun. Also the M&P9c has the interchangible backstraps. Stay away from the full size M&P45 for the frame sag issue.

 

[robbobster]

The XD is THE hot handgun for the last few seasons.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: Familyguy
Originally Posted By: tom slick
I recently tried out an XD when buying a new pistol. It shot nicely and seems to be well constructed but I decided on an M&P instead because I liked the grip. I also like the fact that the M&P is made in the US by the same company that has it's name on it.


How the times have changed. I never thought I'd see a Springfield Armory gun made in (drumroll) Croatia.

Pass.


Well Springfield has always been an importer more than a producer as far as the handguns go. They imported guns from Tanfoglio in Italy, IMBEL in Brazil, Astra in Spain, ect.

As far as the halting of imports, its possible, but in the modern global economy its unlikely since the arms makers are slowly making more of them over here anyways. Beretta, FN, and even SIG are already making some or most of their guns here. Plus its political suicide since the support for any new gun control is the lowest it has been since polls started coming out on it.

I prefer the Walther P99 AS personally, with the Beretta Px4 coming in second. I like guns that have a second strike capability in the event of a stubborn primer.

 

[defektes]

Got to remember this is not the old school govt. owned Springfield armory, I think LBJ shut down the original Springfield Armory. Someone bought the name and makes the guns now.



"In 1968, in a controversial economic measure, the Defense Department closed the installation. For almost two centuries the hilltop overlooking the Connecticut River had been an important place for the development and manufacture of arms for the American soldier. The facility evolved from a place where skilled craftsmen built, piece by piece, one musket at a time, into a center pioneering mass-production techniques, and finally into an institute famous for its research and development.

The site is now a museum run by the National Park Service, as the Springfield Armory National Historic Site. Some of the Armory buildings house Springfield Technical Community College (STCC).

In 1974, the Springfield Armory name was used by Robert Reese, to form Springfield Armory, Inc., a new company to manufacture semi-automatic versions of the M14 rifle. The company is not located near the former armory site and has no association with the authentic Springfield Armory but rather is in Geneseo, Illinois."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory#Modern_times

it is kind of sad actually.

 

[Robenstein]

Well it was more than just economic. Army Ordnance really botched the M14 development and procurement process. It resulted in a very very very embarrassing congressional investigation. In response for that and the animosity between Army Ordnance top brass in the small arms development sector and Robert McNamara's whiz kids, they decided to close the armory several years before in 63 or 64. It just took several years to shut it down.

McNamara was sure the private sector could handle things better, and really it did not. The M16 that replaced the M14 starting in 1965 for special forces, and in earnest late in 66 was so poorly done that it resulted in an investigation that was embarrassing in 1968.

I have not been to the old Springfield Armory, which was the flagship of the govt armories, but I have been to the Rock Island facility and its just cool as heck.

 

[Tempest]

The M16 problems were due to ammunition problems and the wiz kids tampering with what the military wanted. The military wanted a chrome bore but the original designed didn't have it, so the wiz kids prevented the change. Things like that.

The M16 has been in service for more than 40 years. It is a very good platform regardless of what people would like to say about it.

 

[Robenstein]

Actually the technology was there to plate the chamber, but not the bore. No one had ever tired to do it in a 22 bore.

Actually Colt mis-represented it as well. The original literature that accompanied the first batches of rifles said something to the effect that "This rifle will go longer without cleaning, lubrication, or maintenance than any other design in current use in the world." By 1969 the military, even with the new chromed bores issued new orders and pamphlets that told soldiers that cleaning the rifle two or more times a day was not too much.

The design is a serviceable weapon, I would not call it good. It does what you need it to do, but you do have to pamper it. M1 Garands went a whole week in the pacific without any lubrication or maintenance. In Korea, they were the only ones that gave anything close to 100 percent reliable service. They had their eccentricities, but were tough and reliable.

I own 4 AR's. Good for lots of things(police, swat, hunting, light patroling), but its far from the top of the list on guns I would go to war with where I would be in foxholes for a week at a time. The last rounds of tests in the military shows that. The M4 came in dead last behind the HK416, the HK XM8, and the FN SCAR.

 

[Steve S]

I totally agree about the AR15/M16 rifles. nice target rifles and nice to shoot. What is really best about ARs is the availability and low price of parts.

 

[BlownF150]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
The design is a serviceable weapon, I would not call it good. It does what you need it to do, but you do have to pamper it.



Pamper it? Not hardly. I dragged mine all over Ft. Benning with plenty of sand and never had a problem. I've kicked these rifles around for years in the field without issue. Requires no more pampering than any other platform when you expect it to function.

 

[GMBoy]

My wife uses an XD40 and my Dad uses and XD9 for concealed carry and they both love them. They both have had them about 2 years. Shoot whatever you feed them, comfortable to carry and just a good overall gun. I am actually looking into getting one for myself after shooting theirs. I'm not sure if the XD's are better than the Glock, but they are atleast very comparable.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
The M4 came in dead last behind the HK416, the HK XM8, and the FN SCAR.

All of which are heavier, more complicated, and much more costly.

All of which are important in a war. Every pound counts when you have to carry you own ammo plus some for the machine or SAW gunner...

People always slam the gas system but it has NO moving parts and works just fine.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: BlownF150
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
The design is a serviceable weapon, I would not call it good. It does what you need it to do, but you do have to pamper it.



Pamper it? Not hardly. I dragged mine all over Ft. Benning with plenty of sand and never had a problem. I've kicked these rifles around for years in the field without issue. Requires no more pampering than any other platform when you expect it to function.


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"

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
The M4 came in dead last behind the HK416, the HK XM8, and the FN SCAR.

All of which are heavier, more complicated, and much more costly.

All of which are important in a war. Every pound counts when you have to carry you own ammo plus some for the machine or SAW gunner...

People always slam the gas system but it has NO moving parts and works just fine.


The gas system is harder on parts as the length of the system decreases, the extractor design is relatively poor, and the gun is not exactly light anymore with all the stuff you throw on it. My Colt SP1 is lighter than a modern M4 fielded now. The gun is getting progressively heavier with the addition of heavier barrels and all the extra equipment put on it.

The SCAR is already replacing the M4 in the special forces in limited numbers. And of course the XM8 and 416 are more expensive, they are made by HK which automatically makes it cost 2x more than the competition. I dont care for HK for many reasons, this being one of them.

The Stoner system is serviceable. I will never call it great. I also think the same of the M1 Carbine that failed in droves in Korea. The main reason we have used it for 40 years is that rifles take a back seat in funding to big bang tech like tanks, missiles, and nukes. In the 70's, there were attempts to modify the gas system to to replace the gun, but the budget did not allow for it. In the 80's the project improvement program that resulted in the M16A2 was all they could afford to do because the money was not there for new platofrms. As long as the design could be easily modified and soldier on, it has been kept for economy until a design that comes along is a whole new step above. Problem with that is it is purely subjective. That means until something is not only better, but cost effective, we keep what we have. If you think I am wrong, the govt wanted to replace the 1911 started in 1953. It only took them 32 years to do it once they made up their mind. More than anything, the modular nature of the AR has kept it alive along with the price it can be purchased. Its also why its the most ubiquitous black rifle in this nation.

Now back to the topic. My gripe on the XD is the grip safety. I dont care for them at all. Plus I find the grip angle does not point well for me. Just make sure to handle one and see how it points for you.

 

[defektes]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
The M4 came in dead last behind the HK416, the HK XM8, and the FN SCAR.

All of which are heavier, more complicated, and much more costly.

All of which are important in a war. Every pound counts when you have to carry you own ammo plus some for the machine or SAW gunner...

People always slam the gas system but it has NO moving parts and works just fine.


The gas system is harder on parts as the length of the system decreases, the extractor design is relatively poor, and the gun is not exactly light anymore with all the stuff you throw on it. My Colt SP1 is lighter than a modern M4 fielded now. The gun is getting progressively heavier with the addition of heavier barrels and all the extra equipment put on it.

The SCAR is already replacing the M4 in the special forces in limited numbers. And of course the XM8 and 416 are more expensive, they are made by HK which automatically makes it cost 2x more than the competition. I dont care for HK for many reasons, this being one of them.

The Stoner system is serviceable. I will never call it great. I also think the same of the M1 Carbine that failed in droves in Korea. The main reason we have used it for 40 years is that rifles take a back seat in funding to big bang tech like tanks, missiles, and nukes. In the 70's, there were attempts to modify the gas system to to replace the gun, but the budget did not allow for it. In the 80's the project improvement program that resulted in the M16A2 was all they could afford to do because the money was not there for new platofrms. As long as the design could be easily modified and soldier on, it has been kept for economy until a design that comes along is a whole new step above. Problem with that is it is purely subjective. That means until something is not only better, but cost effective, we keep what we have. If you think I am wrong, the govt wanted to replace the 1911 started in 1953. It only took them 32 years to do it once they made up their mind. More than anything, the modular nature of the AR has kept it alive along with the price it can be purchased. Its also why its the most ubiquitous black rifle in this nation.

Now back to the topic. My gripe on the XD is the grip safety. I dont care for them at all. Plus I find the grip angle does not point well for me. Just make sure to handle one and see how it points for you.



the grip is very different, very ergonomic. I like it but my father sold it to me because he hated the grip.

 

[chevrofreak]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
The M4 came in dead last behind the HK416, the HK XM8, and the FN SCAR.

All of which are heavier, more complicated, and much more costly.

All of which are important in a war. Every pound counts when you have to carry you own ammo plus some for the machine or SAW gunner...

People always slam the gas system but it has NO moving parts and works just fine.


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.

 

[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...

 

[Robenstein]

A hot receiver will foul up faster. I have seen this happen during a torture test. You could hear the AR cyclic rate decrease and bog down as the receiver got hot, swelled, and the residue and oil cooked up to gunk. Piston guns stay cooler longer. They dont dump residue in the receiver. They are easier to clean. They can be adjusted for hotter or cooler loads and still function. I still dont like the bolt design and extractor.

The standard Stoner gun is not perfect. Its not the best. Just accept that its a decent service gun if you keep up the maintenance and let it go. There are better systems of operation out there. They are just more expensive, and we all know how the government gives their love to the lowest bidder.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
They are easier to clean.

I always hear this. I have a FAL which uses a piston and I can tell you that cleaning the gas tube is no fun, especially if you had to get it inspection clean.

 

[Robenstein]

I have two FAL's, You are comparing that system which is essentially one designed in the 30's and first tried on the FN49 to the modern ones that are pretty much self cleaning on the parts that matter.

I have also seen an FAL made by DSA that went 13k rounds with no cleaning and still worked. Getting the gas piston out took a small punch and hammer to chisel the carbon out, but it still kept all that gunk from entering the receiver and hence impeding the reciprocating parts from working. You have to think of keeping clean what matters in a combat rifle. Gas pistons are a pain to clean, but they have been the choice over the years. So many designers cannot be wrong. If the direct gas impingement system really worked, we would see more than just the Stoner system in service. 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. The MAS guns by roller delayed blowback in the FAMAS, the Swede AG42 by the HK G3 roller delayed blowback rifle, and the Egyptians ditched their direct impingement guns with Kalashnikovs.

The only reason we see so many AR guns in service with other nations is because we sell them at discount prices to nations we have defense agreements with and they have to buy US military hardware such as the case with southeast Asian nations in the cold war. In the case of Israel we gave them so many M16's that they stopped making their Galil's because they could just get free guns. We flooded South America with them to regimes that were anti commie. The few nations that use them by choice do it cause they are cheap and easy to repair due to their modular nature.

 

[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.