New Springfield XD-M!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like it. I'd love it if the came out with it in a .45ACP compact size, with the thumb safety. That would probably persuade me to drop the coin on an XD. I had almost decided to get an XD45C, looked more into the new thumb safety, and decided I'd wait to see if the thumb safety propagated to any other XD models. Now they come out with this, which I think is better in every way I've seen or heard, except for two things, one minor, one (perhaps) major: (1) interchangeable back-straps (don't like 'em on any pistol, but minor); (2) magazines not interchangeable with older XD's (don't know if that goes both ways, but perhaps a major issue). I thought the old XD's looked fine, although only slightly better than a Glock. They felt much better, but I didn't see them really doing anything better than the Glock, and didn't feel so much better as to need to replace my G19. The XD45C was close to replacing the 1911 as a utility gun, until I decided I wanted the thumb safety. Hopefully SA will continue to progress until they finally get it just right.
 
Last edited:
Manual safeties on duty weapons have saved many officer's lives.

Do you have any sources proving that?

I have personal knowledge of one such incident. An officer responding to a domestic was disarmed by a subject who then tried to shoot the officer. The S&W auto was on safe and he was shot by other officers before he could figure it out. Durring training over the years we were made aware of numerous incidents where there were simular outcomes in police disarms. As another poster indicated, Masad Ayoob has written of numerous such incidents in his works. There have also been studies done indicating it took more time for a person not familar with a certain firearm to make the gun ready to fire if it had a manual safety. (Common sense) I have no ready reference to any of these statistics, nor do I have the inclination to dig them up. Please feel free to research the subject for your own enlightenment if you are so inclined. In my LE career I witnessed the evolution of police duty weapons from revolvers to the current "Point and Click" variety. I carried the later for a number of years when required. Given the choice, my duty weapon would have a manual safety.
str1
 
do you wear loafers because it's too difficult to tie shoes?

Nope, boots.

Since no one is dictating my choices of equipment, I tend to lean toward the KISS manual of arms.

Simpler, in my opinion, is better.

If that means I can skip the manual safety I do. My 1911 has one however and so does my 92 fs and my S&W M92.

None of those are my carry gun though because of the safeties.

Now can we get back to the discussion at hand?
 
walking arsenal - no problem. You'd simply asked why thumb safeties saved police lives.

The new M has no safety.

In the XD-M's favor, the slide stop seems much more slender and low profile than the big tab. Not that I minded the XD-9's slide stop.
 
Manual safeties suck. Get a da/sa and/or learn to keep your finger off the trigger. Remember that DEA agent with the Glock?
 
Nikon,
The manual safeties on duty weapons are not to protect the operator from NDs. They are to increase the time it takes for the gun grabbber to fire the gun in the event of a disarm. It just ammounts to a little training. Anyone that can tie his shoes can be taught to operate a manual safety instinctively.

str1
 
I dunno what the hell the problem is with thumb safeties-the 1911 has answered that question about as thoroughly as it ever can be.

I had the opportunity to shoot the XDM yesterday, rather unexpectedly, and I must say it was at least an interesting experience.

The first thing that I noticed is that they've redesigned the cases. According to SAI, the standard pistol cases that XDs and their 1911s have shipped in are actually relabeled power tool cases. The new boxes are stackable (that noise you hear is the sound of distributors and dealers nationwide sighing in relief) but the pseudo-rails on the sides are utterly baffling (the case won't open if something's attached to the rail).

One of my biggest complaints with the original XDs has been their abysmal aesthetics and mediocre ergonomics. I'm willing to grant that the XDM is indeed better on both counts, although the frontstrap patterning really could use some light sanding to improve comfort. Overall, in person the XDM bears an almost suspicious resemblance to the CZ-100 series in both slide configuration and frame styling.

My first three rounds at 50 yards hit about a foot above point-of-aim, on the right side of the target. Center-to-center the group measured no more than 3 inches. I'm going to attribute that more to luck than anything else, as the subsequent nine shots were distributed in an arc along the upper right side of the silhouette. The "match-grade barrel" may indeed be of superior quality, but the difference will scarcely matter with such a rough and creepy trigger pull. That may smooth in some over time, but the difference in feel between the new XDM and an old XD9 with thousands of rounds through it was quite noticeable.

On the plus side, the new ambidextrous magazine release actually works fairly well for me, which I found to be a pleasant surprise. As a southpaw, I've found that most ambi releases are more difficult to use than a traditional 1911-style left-side release. The XDM breaks from tradition in this respect, with a smooth, functional ambidextrous release that's easy to activate from either side. It's too bad that they didn't see fit to do the same for the slide release, and make the pistol functionally symmetrical.

On a final note, all of the safety nazis out there will be pleased to hear that the XDM does not require the trigger to be pulled in order to remove the slide from the frame. Field-stripping is just as fast and simple as breaking down a SIG.
 
In other news, a disturbing new trend has begun to catch on in American mfrg:

800px-1st-Chevrolet-Avalanche.jpg

I was hoping this design concept would die with the Chevy Avalanche. There is a certain similarity between the gun and the SUVtruckthing, no?
 
My two cents on the thumb safety (from another thread where this has already been debated) ...

I was at a class last year. The instructor wanted to try my GLOCK. We walked to the firing line and I handed him my pistol. He took it in his hand and assumed a firing stance. He came up on target and stood there. After a second or two I noticed the gun move slightly. I could tell that he was attempting to fire the pistol and watched the gun twitch one more time before he pulled it down to inspect it. That was a shade over six seconds. On inspection he noticed the Cominolli manual safety.

I know how long it took him because I deliberately left the safety on and kept an eye on my watch. I know it wasn't a very nice thing to do but I just had to see Mas Ayoob's theory in person. I think Mas came up with a much longer time than six seconds for an untrained person to identify and disengage a manual safety.

Like others here, sweeping the safety down is a natural part of my draw stroke and a natural part of going on target. Sweeping the safety up is a natural part of coming off target. Ghost Tracker has it right though ... just pick the one you like.

I'm surprised that so many people still think the only purpose of the thumb safety is to prevent a ND. Either way, just pick your flavor. For me, I'm hoping that SA will offer the 5 inch Tactical model, .45 ACP with a compact frame (shortened 10 round grip) and thumb safety ... I would buy it tomorrow to replace my 1911 carry gun.
 
I love the original XD9, the SIG family and many Glocks to expect an off switch to prevent a Negligent Discharge.

That switch, though, is for keeping thems whuts not s'posed to from pulling the trigger on you, right away.
 
Springfield put it up on their website within the last day or two (wasn't there Monday when I looked):

http://www.the-m-factor.com/

I like how it looks (not that the old version looked bad). Specs only show it being available in .40 though (where are the 9mm and 45 versions? :p)
 
I like it. It has several improvements over the original XD.

I don't think it's ugly at all. Looks a heckuva lot better than a lot of other handguns on the market.

bg_personlization.jpg
 
Posted by Fletcher:
I like how it looks (not that the old version looked bad). Specs only show it being available in .40 though (where are the 9mm and 45 versions?

Springfield is testing the waters with this one. If it catches on and sells well, a 9mm and .45 will most certainly follow in the near future.
 
I like it and if money is right in the next month or so this will be my next purchase after a CZ75B.
 
I thought the XD was ugly until I shot one. After shooting Glocks they are still ugly :).

I'll suspend judgment until I get a chance to handle one. But the M&P is looking tough to beat. The XD was my favorite plastic gun until I got the M&P.

Edit: With current ammo prices, it'd make more sense to me to "test the waters" with a 9mm.

--wally.
 
Hmmm...

I like the XD-M a lot. I think that Springfield Armory and their Croatian partners did a wonderful job designing this gun.

Springfield finally took care of the two aesthetic gripes that I had with the XDs: barrel/slide length (I thought that the 4" was too short and the 5" looked too long) and that little rod that houses the recoil spring. I've always liked the way that XDs shot, but I was less than enthusiastic about the way the original XDs looked.

I love the look of the XD-M pistol. I really liked the old XD grips, but the new grips look even nicer to me. I can't wait to handle one and shoot one.

I think that I will finally break down and buy an autoloader. I've got a few revolvers, and I've been waiting for the right autoloader to come a long. I think that the XD-M is the autoloader that I've been waiting for. If the XD-M were available in my area, and I had the wife's blessing, I'd buy one today. Unfortunately, we've just got too many projects around the house that need to be done before I can get another gun. My wife would probably shoot me if I told her that I wanted another gun. I bought three guns last year. At least I know what I want when the extra cash comes in.
 
Yeah I don't understand how anyone who likes the look of X.D. in the first place (or Steyr or GLOCK F.T.M.) could find the M so hideous. And 16+1? How much bigger and heavier is it than a std. X.D.? I'm not a fan of swappable backstraps but it looks good to me. I'll take one L.O.L.
 
Handled a XD-M yesterday...

Last night I made a trip out to the local gun store. They had two XD-Ms on display: one melonite-treated with the standard finish and one bi-toned. I was really impressed by both guns. I'm not really a big 40 S&W fan, but I really liked the look and feel of both of these guns. The controls are placed in good positions, the grips feel great, and the trigger is also very nice.

If they ever offer this gun in 9mm, I would buy it for sure. If they stick with the 40 S&W, I will still probably buy it; I'd just prefer an XD-m in 9mm because my wife would be able to control 9mm better than the 40 S&W. I like to keep her in mind with my gun purchases. She can comfortably shoot all of my centerfire revolvers, provided that she uses .38 special and .44 special ammo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top