Duke of Lawnchair
Member
That's what I'm talkin' about!
Why I bought a Springfield XD9. Hmm...why DID I buy one?
- Thread starter emc
- Start date
- Status
That's what I'm talkin' about!
Gary G23
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
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
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
Member
Kahr K9 vs. Springfield XD9
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
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
Member
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.
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
Member
I would want to see a future comparison of the Kahr P9 vs the XD Sub-Compact when it hits the streets...
- Status
