XD Safety (I'M NOT TRYING TO START A FLAME WAR!!)

[Guest m14man]

just for the record i do not suck at shooting pistols, just on certain pistols ha, but i have shot both and i in no way think that a xd is any safer than a glock. like said before dont put your finger on the trigger no problem. i dont care what kind of gun you got. what did they do back in the old days when all we had were revolvers, last i check ive never seen a safety on any kind of them. guess everyone was running around accidently shooting themselves in the foot. haha

just for the record i do not own a glock but i do an xd and i still think a revolver is better than any off the autos and i still havent found a safety on it.

p.s. there is no cure for stupidity.

[Urse]

Bigfoot you say? Check out this forum:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=21886&mode=threaded&pid=444738

Now you can return to your pointless repetetive arguments about Glocks:blah:

[Guest xd45]

That is great! I didn't say anything is wrong with the XD.

Only safety shouldn't be the reason for the choice. Whether you like the gun or not and whether you shoot it well.

I have to disagree about safety not being a reason for a choice in firearms,but back to the debate. I personally have a GLOCK and an XD,I still own the XD and I trust my life with it.I probably will never own another GLOCK unless it's given to me.Personal preference...nuff said.

[molonlabetn]

I tried researching this report and all I could find was an article on Americancopmagazine.com that had your *information and one reference to a 2005 American Handgunner magazine article. Do you know where I could actually get a copy of the report? I would be interested in finding out their testing methods, primer types etc. Did they actually calculate/measure the force at the impact?

From a physics standpoint I find it interesting that a spring at 62% loading has at least an equal force to a similar spring that is fully compressed.

Spring force is F = k(Free length - compressed length) where (k) is the compression strength of the spring. The higher the (k) factor the stiffer the spring.

Assuming roughly equal free length (assuming that since trigger pull length is roughly the same) that would mean that the Glock spring is roughly 38% stronger than the XD spring which should mean that a XD is 38% (on average) more likely to have a light primer strike than a Glock. Assuming that for any given run of primers a Glock does have a light primer strike. Very interesting....

I am suprised that the Glock engineers would have so vastly over engineered a component especially since the 1st 20% of a spring is signifcantly lower spring force and sprung systems should be designed to operate in the central 60% of their free length.

I'd contact Tioga Engineering or Springfield for a full report.

As to the spring tension issue... your assumption is only valid if manufacturers only use the minimum-tension spring which will result in a successful primer strike with a full stroke. I'm sure, as in any other industry, that the springs used are over-designed, to accommodate the hardest possible primer and then some... So, knowing that, it doesn't surprise me that 60% of the normal striker force is sufficient to activate most primers.

On a side-note, I have installed light striker springs in an XD without any misfires, even on hard-primers (S&B ammo).

[DBTN]

nsnate02

The gun can be at fault due to poor design or mechanical deficiencies. If a gun goes off by being bumped, for instance, while holstered then that is and AD. If you buddy shoots you in the foot as he was cleaning it because he forgot to check the chamber. that is a ND. operator error.

Since you are coming to Metro, I thought you should be up to speed on your terminology. AD and ND are the same thing. ND is the more correct and current term. When someone fires a weapon and they did not mean to, you are being nice by calling it an accident. Don't be nice. The person was negligent and the discharge should be referenced as such. If the gun goes off without any operator imput, it is mechanically defective.

[molonlabetn]

Lumping all unintended discharges together as the fault of the operator doesn't capture the (remote) possiblity of a gun malfunction.

It makes sense to define the terms:

ND = User malfunction, gun did what it was supposed to when the trigger was pulled/hammer released.

AD = Gun malfunction, user did not intentionally or unintentionally manipulate the controls to cause the discharge.

[BryanP]

While I prefer the XD to the Glock (and spent my money accordingly) I don't buy the hype about them going off "because someone bumped it when they were holstering it."

Bullcrap.

Someone wasn't paying attention and pulled the effing trigger with a round in the chamber while they were putting it in or taking it out of the holster.

[Guest TNDixieGirl]

Oh yay. Another one.

[BimmerFreak]

I didnt take the time to read all 6 pages, but if this thread is like every other Glock Vs. X thread, im sure I have already heard the arguments... :)

I will stir the pot by suggesting that perhaps the Glock is every bit as safe as any other gun on the market, and its the OWNERS of Glocks that are less safe than other gun owners

[Guest canynracer]

[Guest db99wj]

I think this is turning into a flame war!

[Guest Engloid]

Now from this data, what kind of conclusion do you get?

I'm not a gunsmith, but what do I get from it?

Almost fired is the same as not fired. It's like a car that "almost" starts...it's not going to take you any further than one that doesn't even have an engine or wheels.

[strickj]

B)B) This thread started off as a good wholesome discussion involving safety's,but somewhere someone got pissy because there baby got called ugly.The Glock is un-safe and ugly,and the XD is not any more un-safe or ugly.There,every happy now,there equal

Can we not have a discussion with out all the f-ing fire island gossip?

[Urse]

[ame]

[/ame]

[Guest bigbuck_tn]

I'd contact Tioga Engineering or Springfield for a full report.

As to the spring tension issue... your assumption is only valid if manufacturers only use the minimum-tension spring which will result in a successful primer strike with a full stroke. I'm sure, as in any other industry, that the springs used are over-designed, to accommodate the hardest possible primer and then some... So, knowing that, it doesn't surprise me that 60% of the normal striker force is sufficient to activate most primers.

On a side-note, I have installed light striker springs in an XD without any misfires, even on hard-primers (S&B ammo).

I have sent an email to Springfield and I am still trying to get more information about Tioga, I can't seem to find an email address, I will try and call tomorrow.

I think I might have been misunderstood on the firing pin and you kinda led into what I was trying to say.

What I meant to say was if we assume that Tioga did their due diligence and found the hardest primer they could find that the XD would fire 100% then it would be considered the "control" and then we check the Glock against that control.

That would mean that if both of them fired it, the Glock would have to be 38% stronger because spring force is directly related to free length and compression. If the Glock detonated the primer at 62% of free length when fully compressed it hit 38% harder than than.

I don't believe that because it doesn't make sense. If this were true the Glock would fire a primer that was 38% harder than one the XD would fire. Since Glocks do have light primer strikes, there should me alot more reports of XD's having misfires than we seem to have.

That is why I want to see the data and the test method. If a very soft primer was used instead of a hard primer it could skew the data. They should have tested a range of primers and reported the force required to detonate each one to demonstrate why they chose a particular primer.

Also did they test a random sample of 30 or more of each gun or did they just grab 1 of each? Or did they just test the ones that Springfield sent?

I have seen alot of "independent testing" that was independent but not sound.

If a company comes to you and says I want you to compare product A to product B using this testing method it really isn't independent. They have chosen a method that will show their product in the best light. It happens all the time.

Excellent debate though.

[Guest bigbuck_tn]

This thread started off as a good wholesome discussion involving safety's,but somewhere someone got pissy because there baby got called ugly.The Glock is un-safe and ugly,and the XD is not any more un-safe or ugly.There,every happy now,there equal

Can we not have a discussion with out all the f-ing fire island gossip?

Thank you.

I was hoping that we could have a good discussion that would be beneficial to new gun owners that were torn between the Glock and the XD and that we could have all learned something from each other.

I had hoped that we could have enough good discussion and data that it might get stickied for new gun owners. Unfortunately it seems to have devolved into .

Thanks to those who tried to help me.

[molonlabetn]

...That would mean that if both of them fired it, the Glock would have to be 38% stronger because spring force is directly related to free length and compression. If the Glock detonated the primer at 62% of free length when fully compressed it hit 38% harder than than.

I don't believe that because it doesn't make sense. If this were true the Glock would fire a primer that was 38% harder than one the XD would fire. Since Glocks do have light primer strikes, there should me alot more reports of XD's having misfires than we seem to have.

So... no doubt the striker system of the Glock (or any pistol really) was designed to have some amount of reserve strength, to overcome weakened springs from use, or from fouling. No reason to assume that the XD's striker spring is the bare minimum of strength to ignite a primer. It's pretty straight-forward to conclude that both the Glock and XD's striker springs are stronger by design than needed to ignite a given primer, not the bare minimum of tension to set off the hardest primer which you are suggesting... I have no doubt that the XD's striker could set off a primer if held by the sear at a shorter stroke, or using a weaker spring (which has been done)... the difference is that the XD design doesn't bother adding complexity to a mechanism which gives no extra security from a tripped sear, regardless of whether it was holding the striker at 62% or 99% of its stroke.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

well.. I started not to chime in but here goes. I owned one of the first HS 2000's that was made available to the private market here in the United States. I loved it then and still do... we tried everything to kill it, and it just kept trucking on. Love the grip safety. Springfield bought them out, marked them up a couple hundred dollars and changed a few cosmetics and called them XD.

Im also a Glock certified armorer and have been for 15 years or so. I love my Glock. I guess when you depend your life on a gun in police work you have to have confidence in it.

In short they are both great and safe guns. There is no way possible for either gun to fire without someone pulling the trigger. All these stories you hear about..." He dropped it and it went off" or "He bumped it and it went off"... or He was holstering it and it went off"... Its simply not possible. In all those examples you will find the person that had the AD had their finger on the trigger when the AD occurred.

Now... The only way to determine which one is for you, and the best gun, is to put both in your hand and see for yourself.

Its simple as that. I would pick up either one and defend my life or my families life.

[Guest db99wj]

I haven't heard of any stories of Glocks going off by themselves. All the ones I have heard of were ND's, usually when they were being put in or taken out of the holster and their finger hitting the trigger, which is pure user error. I believe Deerslayer posted a story about I guy with an XD shooting himself while field stripping his XD. From what I can remember and the only thing I can figure out is that he did not remove the magazine when he "cleared" the chamber, locked it back, turned the take down lever, the rode the slide forward, which chambered another round from the magazine he failed to take out, pulled the trigger and boom, into his leg. Was it the guns fault or a design problem, no, it was a finger problem. People with Glocks have had similar problems when field stripping them. They don't follow the proper rules and when the pull the trigger, they shoot themselves.

So my point is and it has been said, follow the basic rules and only pull the trigger when you are ready to destroy what ever the muzzle is pointing at. I own an XD, it will go off when I put my finger in the trigger guard and pull the trigger, I know a lot of people that own Glocks, they do the same thing. I know a lot of people that own _____ gun and they do the same thing.

[Guest bigbuck_tn]

So... no doubt the striker system of the Glock (or any pistol really) was designed to have some amount of reserve strength, to overcome weakened springs from use, or from fouling. No reason to assume that the XD's striker spring is the bare minimum of strength to ignite a primer. It's pretty straight-forward to conclude that both the Glock and XD's striker springs are stronger by design than needed to ignite a given primer, not the bare minimum of tension to set off the hardest primer which you are suggesting... I have no doubt that the XD's striker could set off a primer if held by the sear at a shorter stroke, or using a weaker spring (which has been done)... the difference is that the XD design doesn't bother adding complexity to a mechanism which gives no extra security from a tripped sear, regardless of whether it was holding the striker at 62% or 99% of its stroke.

I think I was misunderstood again. I was just trying to get at my reason to be suspicious of the testing until I read the report. I don't think that the XD spring is set at the bare minimum. Realisticaly it is probably operating at 20 to 30% over the minimum required force to detonate any primer out there as you suggested.

I was just using a gedanken (thought experiment) to demonstrate the methodology that someone SHOULD go through when performing a test like this. If the test HAD been done the results, as reported, would demonstrate that the Glock striker hits 38% harder. Which I don't believe is true because there would be 14 cases of light firing pin hits with XD for every 10 Glock and there are not.

If this test was done with an extremely soft primer that will detonate at say 300 lbs force. (And I have no idea how much force is required) But there are primers out there that require say 450 lbs force to detonate, the test data is skewed (and the results suspect) because if the harder primer had been used the Glock would not have detonated because it is 38% weaker at pre-load and the force required was 50% greater.

Never take a test conclusion at face value, methodology is just as important as the results.

[DaveTN]

Springfield bought them out, marked them up a couple hundred dollars and changed a few cosmetics and called them XD.

Unless something has changed recently Springfield Armory didn’t buy anyone or anything out.

HS Produkt d.o.o. (formerly IM Metal) is a Croatian company; Springfield is simply an importer. Their name and “Geneseo, IL†is on the gun because it is required by federal law.

SA didn’t have anything in the low cost Tupperware line so they picked up this line. Maybe someday they will have their own product; but this isn’t it.

[cadillacdude1975]

i will say this about the XDs. the last time i went shooting, i had the distinct pleasure of shooting 3 different types of the XDs. 2 were the .40 cal, one was compensated and the other was not. the third one was in 9mm.

all 3 were very excellent handguns and they fit my hand much better than my Glock 33 does. i can say that beyond a shadow of a doubt, my next handgun purchase will be the XD. dont get me wrong, i still love my Glock, but the XD is a far better fit. there is a fix out there for the Glocks, but you have to replace the entire lower frame of the weapon and from what i saw, that is around 450 bucks. screw that, that is almost the price of a new handgun.

needless to say, i was very impressed with the sharpness of the XDs i fired. very nice handguns. they get my vote for sure.

[DaveTN]

I was hoping that we could have a good discussion that would be beneficial to new gun owners that were torn between the Glock and the XD and that we could have all learned something from each other.

Then I’ll throw this out for someone that wants to learn something….

They could just buy a Smith & Wesson M&P and call it a day.

Better looking than either of those.

Better built.

Full range of options.

Same price range.

Backed by the best warranty and customer support in the industry.

100% American made; even the magazines.

The choice seems obvious to me.

[Smith]

Unless something has changed recently Springfield Armory didn’t buy anyone or anything out.

HS Produkt d.o.o. (formerly IM Metal) is a Croatian company; Springfield is simply an importer. Their name and “Geneseo, IL†is on the gun because it is required by federal law.

SA didn’t have anything in the low cost Tupperware line so they picked up this line. Maybe someday they will have their own product; but this isn’t it.

It's a little nit picky, but they are more than just an importer. SA did buy exclusive distribution, marketing, licensing rights ect. In effect they control every aspect, even development of new designs. IMM, at this point, is only the factory operating at the desires of SA.

[molonlabetn]

I think I was misunderstood again. I was just trying to get at my reason to be suspicious of the testing until I read the report. I don't think that the XD spring is set at the bare minimum. Realisticaly it is probably operating at 20 to 30% over the minimum required force to detonate any primer out there as you suggested.

I was just using a gedanken (thought experiment) to demonstrate the methodology that someone SHOULD go through when performing a test like this. If the test HAD been done the results, as reported, would demonstrate that the Glock striker hits 38% harder. Which I don't believe is true because there would be 14 cases of light firing pin hits with XD for every 10 Glock and there are not.

If this test was done with an extremely soft primer that will detonate at say 300 lbs force. (And I have no idea how much force is required) But there are primers out there that require say 450 lbs force to detonate, the test data is skewed (and the results suspect) because if the harder primer had been used the Glock would not have detonated because it is 38% weaker at pre-load and the force required was 50% greater.

Never take a test conclusion at face value, methodology is just as important as the results.

But, the test wasn't intended to compare the striker force of the XD and Glock, it was simply intended to find out if the Glock's striker would ignite a common primer from the pre-cocked condition... I agree it would be nice to know how many different primers they used, for sure, but the very fact that the primers they used always detonated shows to me that it is very likely the 'safety' of the Glock's pre-cocked system is entirely imaginary. Also, considering that the DEA tests for the Glock concluded that the Glock was unsuitable for use because when thrown it would consistently discharge, the stored potential energy of the striker is obviously enough to pose a significant risk... regardless of what the maximum energy the fully cocked system was capable of providing.