Why I bought a Springfield XD9. Hmm...why DID I buy one?


PDA






emc
December 27, 2002, 01:44 PM
First, the pistol met some requirements. These are:

1. Double action only. No DA/SA

2. The trigger pull had to be managable, with an acceptable level of effort. If it took standing on the backstrap and pulling with both hands to fire the piece, no thanks! For the XD9, it's quite nice.

2. I wanted more of a full size handgun. I already had a Kahr K9, which is a great pistol. I was interested in Kahr's T9, but no one in central Indiana seems to have one at this time, and I want to be able to handle a pistol and work with it first. The P99QA was not available for comparison.

3. Good fit for my hand. This is extremely subjective, but it worked, unlike all of the Glocks that I've handled. Too many of them felt like I was holding a bar of soap. Very blocky. I looked at the Steyr M series, which looked interesting, but the backstrap where the web of the hand fits is too squared off, and it just didn't feel comfortable.

4. The points above were confirmed with some very good feedback on TFL, and a very nice review on Chuck Taylor's website.

I chose 9mm for the following reasons.

1. I already have 9mm handguns, and am set up to reload for it. (I reload for practice and competition only.)

2. I have less time to practice than some, and it seemed to me that there would be additional range time needed to get competent with shot recovery with a .40 S&W.

3. I've learned that it's possible to use the .40 cal. magazine as an ersatz high capacity 9mm magazine.

4. The impression that I've gotten from many comments on TFL regarding the choice between 9mm and .40 S&W is that the .40 does have an advantage in effectiveness, but that the difference is not as major as might be suspected, and there are other considerations introduced, in terms of recoil, etc.

I haven't had the chance to shoot it yet, but hope to do so this weekend, once some of the snow is cleaned up.

FWIW,

emc

If you enjoyed reading about "Why I bought a Springfield XD9. Hmm...why DID I buy one?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
m.i.sanders
December 27, 2002, 02:00 PM
You'll like it. I've got the XD-40 and it is a great pistol. I went with the .40 mostly because, 1) I didn't have one, and 2.) If/when I get the time, I want to start shooting IPSC, and wanted to be in the major class. But I will be getting a XD-9 some time, or at least when everver the wife's not paying too much attention to what I'm buying.

Marko Kloos
December 27, 2002, 02:41 PM
You made a good choice. The XD is a very accurate, reliable, and ergonomic pistol with a pleasing trigger. The fact that it has standard SIG dovetails for easy sight upgrades makes it even better.

I don't fault your caliber choice at all. 9mm will do the job just fine, and the ammo is so cheap that you'll be able to practice more.

Chaz
December 27, 2002, 02:45 PM
And I was hoping you would say...

"Because I could!" :D

Brad Johnson
December 27, 2002, 02:50 PM
I have an XD9 with 6000+ rounds through it. I think I might like it :D .

Brad

10-Ring
December 27, 2002, 03:53 PM
For the last couple of months, I've been renting a XD 357 sig at the range I belong to. Haven't gotten around to buying one yet. They're fun guns & from what I can tell from the rental guns, they WILL stand up to some serious abuse.

Shmackey
December 27, 2002, 04:34 PM
Without starting an argument about old price vs. new price, is there any actual difference between Springfield's XD-9 and the old HS-2000? That is, has Springfield made any improvements or changed any parts?

The new compact is ugly as sin but it sounds like it could give Glock a serious run for its money.

Marko Kloos
December 27, 2002, 06:16 PM
The XD has a few more features than the HS2000. It has forward slide serrations, and an accessory rail molded into the dust shield. Other than that, it's the same gun, except that the Springfield logo on the slide looks snazzier than the old HS2000 markings.

vertigo7
December 27, 2002, 06:26 PM
Lendringser, my 3rd gen HS2000 has the forward slide serrations and the accessory rail. EMC, you'll be very happy with your new pistol. Mine rotates duty with my Kel-Tec P-11 as one of my daily carry guns.

vertigo7

Nosferatu
December 27, 2002, 06:32 PM
The XD is a nice pistol for the money.

Springfield has done a good job with the minor improvements already mentioned. They are also marketing the hell out of it, and supporting manufacturers like ourselves as well. They have been very forthcoming about sending us what we need to build holsters for their guns. Springfield is a very good company, and back their products. They have even stepped up and are going to honor any warranty work for the HS2000.

All in all, I have been impressed with the pistols they have sent us. We will have a 3" on the way, with the funky light, soon.

I think you have an excellent pistol. Some of the folks over at www.hs2000talk.com should be able to help out with any specific questions about this pistol you may have.

blades67
December 27, 2002, 07:50 PM
The HS2000 was only available in 9mm. The XD can be had in 9mm .40 S&W and .357 SIG. That is the biggest improvement.

Kevinch
December 27, 2002, 11:18 PM
You forgot Reason #5 for buying: I wanted my wife to think I was buying Tupperware :D

Seriously, I am sure you will enjoy your purchase. Plastic guns just don't "do it" for me, although I will admit my Keltec P32 does go when others can't. But the XD/HS2000 platform is reported to be a good one, & if I was ever tempted to go with plastic that would probably be it.

Enjoy!

bastiat
December 27, 2002, 11:51 PM
XD also features a beefier extractor. Some HS2000's had problems with cheap winchester white box ammo.

Price would have been raised either way. IM Metals wasn't happy with the deep discounting the original importer did, FWIH.

Marshall
December 28, 2002, 12:04 AM
The XD will more than likely be my next pistol. I just did a BHP and I will probably get a revolver next (need a short bbl one). But, I do believe my next pistol will be the XD. Truthfully, I have not heard a bad word on the XD from those who own them and those who have tested them. Add to that, doing business with SA and you have a winner! IMO!

Glad to hear you like yours! :D


Marshall

modifiedbrowning
December 28, 2002, 02:02 AM
I got to play with an XD40 stainless today. I didn't even know they made one until I saw it today. IMO a nice gun, I don't think you would go wrong with one. Of course that didn't stop me from buying a new P99 today. :D

106rr
December 28, 2002, 08:36 PM
I tried an XD 40 4" at Turlock on the steel plates. It was accurate and fairly easy to shoot. Two of us noted that the bore axis was higher than the Glock thus there was more muzzle rise and longer splits. One guy hit 7 out of 8 plates on the first try and I hit 8 out 8. It a good pistol. There are very few holsters for it and almost no chance of adoption by a LEO.
Mike H

Catbird
December 28, 2002, 08:49 PM
I bought a slightly used (less than 200 rounds fired) LNIB 3rd generation HS2000 (pre-XD9) about 6 months ago so that I could find out for myself if these "things" were any good or not. I found it to be amazingly accurate and mine has been 100% reliable with all sorts of different ammo.

I liked it so much, I recently bought a slightly used (less than 50 rounds fired) LNIB XD40. Results were the same as above, very accurate and totally reliable...so much so, that I invested almost $200 in a new custom fitted Bar-Sto barrel in .357SIG.

I'm sold on these guns. :)

SIGarmed
December 28, 2002, 09:07 PM
FYI another thing Springfield did was widen the grip safety.

emann
December 29, 2002, 10:21 PM
I've got the XD in .357 Sig. I actually like it better then my Glock. I didn't think that possible a month ago. ;)

NoBite
January 20, 2003, 06:46 AM
emc,
I would like your thoughts after you have shot your XD-9 a while. I am considering the Kahr K-9 and the Xd-9 as my next purchase. Since you have both, your thoughts comparing the two would be nice!

Thanks,

Handy
January 20, 2003, 11:42 AM
"1. Double action only. No DA/SA"

Isn't the XD single action?

Skunkabilly
January 20, 2003, 11:56 AM
Tactical Girl just bought one but she even hasn't had the chance to shoot it. I'd like to try it out but am already stuck on my HKs.

emc
January 20, 2003, 12:53 PM
Handy, the XD was mistakenly labeled as a single action by the BATF, but the actual design of the pistol is akin to a "quick-action" such as the Glock, with a cocked striker for each shot. It does require that the action be cycled before it can be fired again, unlike a true double-action such as the Kel-Tec P-11, or the FN Forty-Nine.

emc

emc
January 20, 2003, 12:55 PM
NoBite, I've run about 30 rounds or so through the XD9 so far. I have a few comments to make about the pistol, but will need to do so later on this evening, when I have more time.

Thanks,

emc

Handy
January 20, 2003, 01:06 PM
Yes, I had thought that the mainspring was almost completely cocked.

Duke of Lawnchair
January 20, 2003, 03:35 PM
"Because I could!"

That's what I'm talkin' about!

Gary G23
January 20, 2003, 05:14 PM
The XD is a single action. The striker is fully cocked when you cycle the slide. On the Glock, cycling the slide only partially cocks the striker. Pulling the trigger cocks it the rest of the way. This is why the International Defensive Pistol Association won't allow the XD in Stock Service Pistol Class but does allow the Glock.

mso
January 21, 2003, 03:40 PM
Yep, no mistake about it; the HS/XD is a single action/SA pistol.

The Glock is a double action only/DAO pistol.

The fact the trigger action feels so similar in length/weight of pull is irrelevant to what kind of action it actually is.

So even though they feel like peas in pod, they aren't.

The problem isn't the definition, it's what we want the definition to do for us. The old terms of SA, TDA (SA/DA), DAO also ended up grouping guns by how hard and long the trigger pull was; they don't do that so neatly/fairly anymore. We can't rely on them to automatically give us easier/harder, riskier/safer guns like they used to.

If police departments, IDPA, etc used the newer NIJ (National Isnstitute of Justice) term of SFA (striker fired action) then the Glock and XD could protect, serve, and play together. ;)

emc
January 21, 2003, 06:31 PM
Well, mso and Gary are right! I stand corrected, or something like that! I looked at some technical data pertaining to the status of the striker after cycling the slide, and it is indeed fully cocked. BUT, as mso states, the old definitions are a little bit limiting, since there are definite differences between the 1911 style single action pistols and the XD.

Does anyone have a source for the NIJ definitions? I think that material might be a good one for THR to archive in a FAQ section, if that hasn't been done already.

emc

emc
January 21, 2003, 06:47 PM
At NoBite's request, I'll pass along some comments on what I see as the differences between the XD9 and the K9, since I own both.

1. First, the K9 is clearly a smaller, more compact gun, although I do not believe that there's much difference in weight, due to the steel frame. For me at least, it's easier to conceal.

2. My K9 shoots quite nicely, both from the standpoint of point of aim, as well as accuracy. I've only run about 35 rounds through the XD9. With 9mm Blazer 115gr FMJ, the smallest five shot group that I was able to get from a rest at 27 yards is about 2 inches. This leaves me hopeful that I can do better with judicious handloads. I have not been able to achieve this level of accuracy with the Kahr after having tried a variety of factory loads.

3. The ergonomics of both guns are very good. My hands aren't large, so the Kahr is a good fit as is. Due to the deeply curved backstrap on the XD9, it fits much better than many other autos I've tried, such as the various Glocks.

4. The takedown process for the Kahr is kind of clumsy, since you must use some form of tool to drive out the slide stop lever from the frame in order to free up the barrel and slide. With the XD9, it takes literally seconds to retract the slide, lock it, flip the takedown lever, release the slide, pull the trigger, and then pull the slide and barrel off of the frame. Very much an improvement.

5. The trigger on the XD9 has some noticable takeup, then breaks cleanly. The Kahr is more of a surprise break, and somewhat smoother.

6. I can't say that the muzzle flip of the XD9 is different than the Kahr, without trying one immediately after the other. At this time, I'm not sure that there's much difference. However, I do have a Harrt's recoil reducer in the Kahr, which should alter the equation a little bit.

These are some initial comments. As I have the opportunity to work further with the XD9, I'm sure that there will be more. I do feel strongly enough about the XD9 that I will buy an XD40 in the next few days.

HTH,

emc

NoBite
January 21, 2003, 08:18 PM
emc,
I think your last sentence pretty much tells me what you think about the Springfield!

Thanks for taking the time to put down your thoughts. I appreciate it. Now, I'd like to get out and shoot both guns to see how they feel to me. A good friend is supposed to be bringing over his XD-9 sometime in the next couple of weeks. He used to own the Kahr, likes them both, but considers the Springfield a keeper. FWIW.

akula
January 22, 2003, 07:00 PM
I would want to see a future comparison of the Kahr P9 vs the XD Sub-Compact when it hits the streets...

If you enjoyed reading about "Why I bought a Springfield XD9. Hmm...why DID I buy one?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!