Quick intro and then an auto loader question

[dogcaller]

Hi everyone!

Let me just say, I'm new here and I love this site! I've been on GT and ARFCOM and a few others for years, but have never found more useful info than here. I'm so impressed by the quality of discussion and the caliber (no pun intended) of the members. In some ways it's like a blast from the past, with members of the old Yahoo IDPA listserv. TLG, David A. Duane T. Are Jon Diller and Dane Burns here too?! Great place, thanks all! I'm a sometimes IDPA shooter (usually high sharpshooter but once I got lucky (?) and barely classified EX, so now I'm screwed!) and longtime CCW holder relocated to Northern CO from SoCal a few years back. Always looking to improve my skills and am both excited and anxious to test myself with FAST and dot torture. Ok, enough about me: on to the topic...

So I primarily shoot Glock 9s and a CZ75 (DA/SA but always used SA). I've got others (P226, P7m8, 1911, etc.), and other than the M&P series feel pretty knowledgeable about most platforms. So I haven't seen anyone discussing the CZ75 or the XD series. Why is that? I'm looking forward to turning my 75 into a SAO. That gun is so easy to shoot well. What is the P-T opinion of the platform?

And the XD? I don't own one, and don't "need" one, but if I were to buy another .45, the XDm sure does feel nice, especially with the trigger mod to a shorter reset. Thoughts?

[Up1911Fan]

If I were to buy a polymer framed .45 it would be an HK45c or mid sized M&P45.

[dogcaller]

Ok, I guess this part of my question is more about the why. I'm not looking for a .45 per se, but am curious why XDs are not seriously discussed here (to my knowledge).

[ToddG]

Welcome to the site!

We have at least one committed CZ shooter here, and I know there are some XD owners.

Our membership definitely has a strong bias toward HK, Glock, and S&W. The really cool guys are running 9mm 1911s, though, from what I've heard.

[YVK]

Ok, I guess this part of my question is more about the why. I'm not looking for a .45 per se, but am curious why XDs are not seriously discussed here (to my knowledge).

1. Reports of XDs not doing well in LE trials. Don't have specific info, sorry.

2. Very poor grip safety design. For some, it is a no go on account of one handed manipulations since slide won't cycle without safety depressed. I also heard of a case of safety breaking, leading to inability to clear the gun. Allegedly, the pistol was sent to SA with a loaded chamber.

3. That said, I personally know several XD users who are quite happy.

[Frank R]

XD is a fine product. Every manufacturer has its problems including Glock, S&W & HK.

[DanH]

I've heard both good and bad things about the XD, though I haven't yet tried one myself. However, I have heard nothing but good things about the M&P 45, so if I were looking for a 45 that is where I would look first.

[1986s4]

Welcome dogcaller.

I have a SAO converted CZ that I like very much. It has been reliable and very durable over 8+ years of varying use. It became a competition only piece when it was converted to SAO by Angus Hobdell. It has worn out several mags and many springs though the years. I am still using the original slide stop, but I do have a spare. I don't know much about XD's. Never liked them for myself.
Best,
1986s4

[Joseph B.]

I was shooting steel matches with an XD M 9mm for a few months I enjoyed shooting it, had no complaints. Ended up selling it to a buudy who wanted it more than me. I prefer to stay on the glock due to carry, training and matches. However, I would buy another XD M if I got an itch to buy another pistol.

[JAD]

J o n D i l l e r is indeed on here from time to time.

I am hearing a lot of enthusiasm for the XD*s* from some reasonably serious people. It apparently does not have the grip safety issue that the XD has and is a strikingly small and easy to shoot .45, for what that's worth. All hearsay at this point, and will stay so for me since I think they're ugly as a mud fence, but maybe worth a look in .45. There are lots of good small 9s out there, but a small .45 that runs and doesn't beat one silly is at least a little unique.


Jon
KC

[TGS]

XD is a fine product. Every manufacturer has its problems including Glock, S&W & HK.

I'd disagree.

So would pretty much any police department who's tested it. Not that the .gov is the great decider of gun awesomeness, but I'm going to go ahead and invoke the rule of uncommon guns, here.

[ToddG]

... but I'm going to go ahead and invoke the rule of uncommon guns, here.

Except XDs are far from uncommon in general use.

Springfield's approach with the XD was simple: take a ridiculously cheap gun (the Croatian HS2000), rebrand it, and sell it as a lower-priced Glock.

That worked very well. Initially it appealed to the guys who wanted something better than a Hi-Point but didn't see the benefit of spending a few shekels more on a Glock. It also appealed to the folks in the market who, for whatever reason, disliked Glock but still wanted a Glock-like gun. Then, following a very typical path, the growing crowd of XD owners felt the need to justify their choice by exclaiming that it was the greatest gun ever. What followed was predictable: the XD became a popular gun among folks whose choice is more about what other folks say on the internet than on the gun's actual performance. Among my peers, the XD is often referred to as the "Bubba gun."

As you and others have pointed out, no major LE agency has adopted the gun even though it has been available much longer than the (far more LE-popular) Smith and Wesson M&P. Partially due to reliability issues and partially due to design considerations, the gun has failed to meet the standards of institutional users.

The majority of XDs I've seen come through one of my classes were problematic. But I have to admit I've seen some guys go through 1,200-1,500 rounds in a weekend without any stoppages and with great results in terms of their shooting performance.

So, I'm not as down on the XD as I used to be, especially with the improvements to the "M" models. Having said that, it's still not a gun I'd personally select and it's not a gun I believe has the durability or reliability of the guns that are more commonly selected by the membership here at PF (Glock, Smith, SIG, HK, etc.).

[TGS]

Except XDs are far from uncommon in general use.

It was in reference to the adoption of the pistol by LE agencies....as you've noted that I've noted.

[ToddG]

It was in reference to the adoption of the pistol by LE agencies....as you've noted that I've noted.

Noted.

[dogcaller]

Good info, thanks. Seems that, in some ways, the XD may have replaced the "...best gun fer your money..." Ruger P89/P-series. Sounds like it might not be a robust system but the ergos aren't bad.

I haven't followed it closely (as I said, I don't need one) but it did seem curious that I hadn't heard of anyone adopting them. I did see FrontSight trying to give a bunch away...

Call me naive, but I assumed that Springfield had significantly improved design, qc, etc. when they bought the rights to the design.

Though I don't know much about the M&Ps, I wasn't surprised to see large departments eager to switch back to an American gun which provided the benefits of a polymer SF pistol. Glad to hear that they really are good.

[Frank R]

I'd disagree.

So would pretty much any police department who's tested it. Not that the .gov is the great decider of gun awesomeness, but I'm going to go ahead and invoke the rule of uncommon guns, here.


Some people express opinions based on what they hear/read. You.

Some people express opinions based on hands-on experience. Me.

I bought two XDs, a 9mm and a .45acp, several years ago and put a fair amount of rounds through them. I then gave them to one of my sons who has since done the same. Both XDs have performed without any problems.

They may not be ideally suited for LE or heavy competition but otherwise...

[DanH]

I don't really see anything wrong with letting LE agencies test guns for me, they have much larger budgets for both ammo and guns than I do. I'm sure even a small agency can get there hands on more samples of a gun for testing than I. I figure it's my tax money at work ;)

[LSP972]

it's not a gun I believe has the durability or reliability of the guns that are more commonly selected by the membership here at PF (Glock, Smith, SIG, HK, etc.).

And THAT, I would opine, is the bottom line.

.

[David Armstrong]

Hi dogcaller, welcome aboard and good to see another face from some of the old boards. Unlike GT and ARFCOM you'll get a much better noise to signal ratio here, and the management is far less likely to let uneducated nonsense get a free pass than on those sites.

[David Armstrong]

Some people express opinions based on what they hear/read. You.

Some people express opinions based on hands-on experience. Me.

I bought two XDs, a 9mm and a .45acp, several years ago and put a fair amount of rounds through them. I then gave them to one of my sons who has since done the same. Both XDs have performed without any problems.

They may not be ideally suited for LE or heavy competition but otherwise...
The basic problem with the "hands-on" approach is that you have such a small sample size. Your understanding of the XD is based on 2 guns. Todd, TGS, others are basing their understanding of the XD on hundreds, if not thousands of guns. Big difference. For example. IIRC Todd has had very poor experience with the Glock 19. Based on his mall personal sample it is a very unreliable gun subject to lproblemsorblems. But when one looks at the larger experience of shooters with the G19 it ends up becoming one of the more popular and trusted firearms.

[Frank R]

The basic problem with the "hands-on" approach is that you have such a small sample size. Your understanding of the XD is based on 2 guns. Todd, TGS, others are basing their understanding of the XD on hundreds, if not thousands of guns. Big difference. For example. IIRC Todd has had very poor experience with the Glock 19. Based on his mall personal sample it is a very unreliable gun subject to lproblemsorblems. But when one looks at the larger experience of shooters with the G19 it ends up becoming one of the more popular and trusted firearms.


Show me stats that say the majority of XDs manufactured have had problems.

[JodyH]

I'd choose a XD over a Taurus. That's about the best endorsement I can give them and maintain my dignity.
My opinion is based on seeing dozens of them with issues in my CCW classes. Taurus is worse though.

[Byron]

Show me stats that say the majority of XDs manufactured have had problems.
Without taking any stance whatsoever on the viability of the XD, I would point out that such data really doesn't exist in the wild. I wish it did: it would make purchasing recommendations easier, and end a few internet arguments.

But as far as I'm aware, there is no central testing agency that is thorough, impartial, and freely open for review by the public.

Now, with that said, I think the closest you're going to get are Mil/LEO trials. After all, these agencies put weapons head to head against each other, using methodology that is at least documented (clearly some agencies being better than others). They usually test multiple samples of a model, and will ultimately purchase a large quantity. Because of these sample sizes, patterns will be observed in testing, and/or over the course of ownership.

There's really nothing else I can think of that comes close to that level of scrutiny. Are agencies perfect about it? Of course not, but it's the best we've got right now.

Now, back to XD specifically, and as pointed out by multiple other individuals, it doesn't ever seem to win (or come close to winning) any of these trials. Like it or not, that is data. That is an observable, repeatable pattern. And it's a lot more persuasive than a sample of two.

No one has a comprehensive spreadsheet showing that gun x is 10% more reliable than gun y. And it would be even more far fetched to get accurate stats on the number of guns sold by a company that have problems, unless you create a boatload of new legal regs forcing companies to follow a central protocol.



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[Kyle Reese]

The Croatian Army issues the XD, so they must be good!

[JBP55]

I'd choose a XD over a Taurus. That's about the best endorsement I can give them and maintain my dignity.
My opinion is based on seeing dozens of them with issues in my CCW classes. Taurus is worse though.


I concur, same results here.

[DanH]

I think the main problem is the fact that Consumer Reports doesn't test guns :p

Personally, I would place the XD on about the reliability level of Ruger, but considering the fact that they tend to be closer in price to Glock and M&P is not where it should be.

[ToddG]

Show me stats that say the majority of XDs manufactured have had problems.

I don't think anyone has said that 50.1% of XDs have experienced problems.

I'd be willing to bet that > 50.1% of XDs sold have never fired 1,000 rounds through them. And that's not a slam on the XD, because the same could be said for HK, Smith, Glock, or any other brand that is more popular at pistol-forum.com than the XD.

OTOH, every XD produced has a grip safety that locks the slide when it's not depressed. I consider that a serious problem, so in that sense 100% of XDs have a problem. YMMV, of course.

I think you'll find that the membership here is very willing to accept that you shoot your XD well and that your XD runs well. As I said in my initial post, I've had students come through class who've had problems with XDs and I've had students come through who had no problems at all (minus the grip safety snafu, obviously). "If it works for you, it works." But that doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to broader experience, and such experience is what generally compels advice around here.

[David Armstrong]

oops, ND!

[David Armstrong]

Show me stats that say the majority of XDs manufactured have had problems.
I don't think anyone has said that, so why try to find stats on it? What has been said is that when looked at in large numbers, the XD seems less reliable than guns from Glock, HK, S&W, etc. Pretty much any gun can find a supporter who has bought one or two and has had no trouble with the gun. Heck, I've met folks who will swear up and down that a Hi-Point is the finest firearm made. I tend to point out that what is more likely is that it is the finest firearm they have owned, which is a much smaller sample as pointed out. But I am data driven in most of my comments, so if you have some sort of evidence that a significant number of XDs have gone through major stress tests and done as well or even better than the more commonly discussed firearms I'd be glad to take a look at it.

[Frank R]

I don't think anyone has said that 50.1% of XDs have experienced problems.

I'd be willing to bet that > 50.1% of XDs sold have never fired 1,000 rounds through them. And that's not a slam on the XD, because the same could be said for HK, Smith, Glock, or any other brand that is more popular at pistol-forum.com than the XD.

OTOH, every XD produced has a grip safety that locks the slide when it's not depressed. I consider that a serious problem, so in that sense 100% of XDs have a problem. YMMV, of course.

I think you'll find that the membership here is very willing to accept that you shoot your XD well and that your XD runs well. As I said in my initial post, I've had students come through class who've had problems with XDs and I've had students come through who had no problems at all (minus the grip safety snafu, obviously). "If it works for you, it works." But that doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to broader experience, and such experience is what generally compels advice around here.


I know you're the guru of everything that goes bang, but to say that the grip safety is a serious problem? It's not to me and most others that own or, in my case, have owned an XD. Does that make you right and the rest of us wrong? Some may even think it's a worthwhile feature, heaven forbid.

Now, if you said that it could/would be a serious problem under certain situations, but you didn't. And as far as the membership here being very willing to accept how I shoot and how well the XD worked? Well golly gee, thank you so very much. You've really made my day.

The advice around here should be geared to the application and I didn't see anyone slamming the XD even ask the OP about that.

[1slow]

If the grip safety is required to be depressed to cycle the slide, this makes 1 handed reloads and stoppage reductions more complicated.
If I have taken damage and only have 1 usable hand, I would not want to complicate the already difficult 1 hand reloads and stoppage reductions.
I have worn arm casts on several occasions, this is not just theoretical for me.
I am not anti grip safety, I just do not believe it should lock the slide. This is not a problem for me with a 1911 as the grip safety does not lock the slide.

[JodyH]

Taurus, XD, Fobus, Serpa...
All tend to attract a cult like following despite being consistently poor/flawed products.
But they're cheap... they have that going for them.

[ToddG]

I know you're the guru of everything that goes bang,

We can have a polite discussion without the ad hominem, or you can go away. It's 100% your choice.


but to say that the grip safety is a serious problem? It's not to me and most others that own or, in my case, have owned an XD. Does that make you right and the rest of us wrong? Some may even think it's a worthwhile feature, heaven forbid.

Now, if you said that it could/would be a serious problem under certain situations, but you didn't.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. I didn't get into the details whatsoever of why I thought it was a problem. If you somehow thought I meant the grip safety made the gun completely non-functional for any purpose then I apologize for being too short with my explanation. Specifically, the issue I've seen with the XD, and an issue that many LE agencies have experienced in testing sufficient to disqualify the gun, is that the need to provide adequate directional pressure on the grip safety substantial enough to unlock the slide can be difficult in various conditions such as wounded officer drills or even simply slippery hands.

I consider that a major flaw, as making an already less practiced, more complicated task even harder -- and requiring even greater precision in technique when wounded, etc. -- seems antithetical to what a combat-oriented gun should do. As I said before, YMMV.


And as far as the membership here being very willing to accept how I shoot and how well the XD worked? Well golly gee, thank you so very much. You've really made my day.

I'm glad. :cool:

[Frank R]

We can have a polite discussion without the ad hominem, or you can go away. It's 100% your choice.



I'm not sure I understand the distinction. I didn't get into the details whatsoever of why I thought it was a problem. If you somehow thought I meant the grip safety made the gun completely non-functional for any purpose then I apologize for being too short with my explanation. Specifically, the issue I've seen with the XD, and an issue that many LE agencies have experienced in testing sufficient to disqualify the gun, is that the need to provide adequate directional pressure on the grip safety substantial enough to unlock the slide can be difficult in various conditions such as wounded officer drills or even simply slippery hands.

I consider that a major flaw, as making an already less practiced, more complicated task even harder -- and requiring even greater precision in technique when wounded, etc. -- seems antithetical to what a combat-oriented gun should do. As I said before, YMMV.






I'm glad. :cool:


I don't consider condescending remarks being polite. Same goes for threats.

As far as your example above, I agree but everyone using an XD wouldn't be concerned with that. Would they?

[ToddG]

I don't consider condescending remarks being polite. Same goes for threats.

I don't consider your continuing insistence on discussing the matter polite... or acceptable. If you consider that a threat, so be it. Discuss the topic at hand, get out of the thread, leave the forum, or get booted. Those are your options.


As far as your example above, I agree but everyone using an XD wouldn't be concerned with that. Would they?

Absolutely true. The OP asked why there isn't much discussion about the XD here, and the responses were pretty clear. If someone is less concerned about the issues raised -- reliability and the function of the grip safety in emergencies being chief among them -- then obviously his opinion of the XD will be different. It's like the M&P... you'll find many of the people on the forum have concerns about the M&P9's accuracy. There are plenty of people who don't care about (or are utterly unaware of) those problems and they love their M&Ps. And there are people who have M&Ps that don't exhibit those problems. Nonetheless, when someone comes on and asks, "What do you think about the M&P9?" you can expect the experienced shooters here to cover the issue.

[Clusterfrack]

I was working with a guy who was using an XDm 5.25. Nice gun in some ways, but the grip safety did give him problems. The slide would lock when he tried to unload and show clear. It seems odd to have to tell someone to keep a good grip on the gun when doing that.

The GS also pinches my hand at the web of the thumb. No one else seems to have this problem so I guess it's just me on that one.

[LSP972]

Taurus, XD, Fobus, Serpa...
All tend to attract a cult like following despite being consistently poor/flawed products.


From what I have seen first-hand, and garnered from reading a lot of threads like this one, its more of a lack-of-exposure-to-anything-else syndrome than a cult following. Sorta like the guy who buys a Glock (or M&P, Serbo-Croat Special, etc.) for his first gun, it works well for him, and that automatically makes it the greatest. Ditto the rookie concealed carry folks who buy a CrossBreed Super Tuck, or whatever, and claim it to be the only one worth having... without trying any other brand/type of holster. I believe the phrase "They don't know what they don't know" was coined for these folks. They mean well, but do not have a broad experience base...

.