The XD can't handle as much grit as the Glock 19. Its very close though. I like the XD, especially the .45acp. I didn't like thier 9mm. And they have a Melonite finish right? So thats got to be pretty good for corrosion resistance. Still the Glock is smoother to draw, is smaller, and has a lower muzzle bore. The XD is one of the best guns I've seen in a while, but I haven't seen enough from them to want one over another Glock. It'll be interesting to see what else Springfield has for us in the future. I think the XD's have too many cuts and shapes to their slide. I prefere simple clean smooth lines.
Someone want to tell me exactly why Hk is superior and how Glock is cheap? This Stigma is totally untrue. Hk is a little overpriced. That deosn't make them better. The Glock is hardly cheap, last trip to the fun store had them priced at $525-560. The grip frame is solid enough and the finish is decent. I only have experience with the newer Hk's like the USP. Not the old school squeeze cock things.
Many call the larger Glocks "bricks" and I'm with you, but the compact models are spot on.
Glocks are:
simpler than HK.
lower muzzel bore, less muzzel flip, generally quicker shooting.
simple/better trigger
more durable finish
can handle more abuse and grit before failing (oil on the firing pin is a no no, but I clean that part regularly, it takes 5 whole minutes.)
Whats so special about HK? They're really reliable, thats all! No huge peformance gain. They look like plain old pistols to me. Nothing special, I file them with the M9, Ruger P95, XD, FN, Sig, etc. Allthough like someone above posted....a gun that fits your hand well is priceless. If HK fits then thats your gun.
They're no Glock, and they most certainly ain't no m1911a1.