GLOCK OR SPRINGFIELD XD

[billt]

Another thing is the fact advertising costs a lot of money. One of the main reasons the HS-2000 wasn't sold in large numbers is because it wasn't advertised very well, if at all. Springfield took care of that by introducing an advertising blitz bigger than anything short of "New" Coke or Viagra. They had no choice but to jack up the price to cover it. Nothing wrong with this mind you, it's worked well for them. Proof is this thread, and many more like it. You never heard of anyone touting the HS-2000 to this degree. That said, no one is going to convince me the added $200.00+ they tagged each one sold with is buying that amount of "improvements". It's not, and to even think Springfield pumped $200.00+ into improvements of the XD is simply buying into as much hype, nothing more. Let's face facts. Springfield isn't in this whole deal to lose money. I wish them well. They just won't be getting any of mine. Bill T.

[billt]

Anytime one decides to deride something but picks only selected facts they are at the very least obfuscating the facts.

Which "selected facts" are you talking about? Be specific. I've been. Your reaching about "striker springs". So Springfield "allows" you to work on your gun, "at home". Is this conducive to a quality firearm? Glock, has for a fact, gone up against every Polymer pistol ever manufactured in destruction tests. All have been well documented. It's ability to withstand most anything thrown at it has also recieved the same documentation. The Springfield XD has a long way to go in that regard. Shadetree gunsmithing and all. Bill T.

[billamj]

First, let me take this opportunity to apologize to anyone on the thread that I've irritated. I've allowed myself to become irritated and that is not the time in which one should be posting.

Now to my points which seems to have been overlooked somehow.

1) The OP asked for opinions and has received multiples for and against both firearms.

2) Regardless of the opinions that have been expressed the best way to decide which firearm is best for an individual is for that individual to fire all of the firearms in which they are interested. By doing this they can form their own opinions as to which firearm is more appropriate for them. If you have the ability it would be best to fire 50 - 100 rounds from one of the weapons, write down your pros and cons and then fire the other weapon. At that time you can compare the two weapons based on personal experience and buy the one that best suits.

[dgg9]

1) The OP asked for opinions and has received multiples for and against both firearms.

2) Regardless of the opinions that have been expressed the best way to decide which firearm is best for an individual is for that individual to fire all of the firearms in which they are interested. By doing this they can form their own opinions as to which firearm is more appropriate for them. If you have the ability it would be best to fire 50 - 100 rounds from one of the weapons, write down your pros and cons and then fire the other weapon. At that time you can compare the two weapons based on personal experience and buy the one that best suits.

3) After a healthy experimentation / data-gathering period where you try out many guns, often buying and re-selling -- this can last a few years -- then just PICK ONE (chances are it'll be fine) and transition past the hardware-oriented phase into the skill-oriented phase. IMO, you don't really reach the next level until you just pick one platform, totally immerse in it, and start training and practicing with only that.

[billt]

First, let me take this opportunity to apologize to anyone on the thread that I've irritated. I've allowed myself to become irritated and that is not the time in which one should be posting.

Now to my points which seems to have been overlooked somehow.

1) The OP asked for opinions and has received multiples for and against both firearms.

2) Regardless of the opinions that have been expressed the best way to decide which firearm is best for an individual is for that individual to fire all of the firearms in which they are interested. By doing this they can form their own opinions as to which firearm is more appropriate for them. If you have the ability it would be best to fire 50 - 100 rounds from one of the weapons, write down your pros and cons and then fire the other weapon. At that time you can compare the two weapons based on personal experience and buy the one that best suits.

I could not agree with you more in this regard. Very well said. However, regardless how much a potential purchaser fires either one of these weapons before selecting the one he or she likes best, it isn't going to change what is or isn't in regards to quality, and or design. Remember the Yugo, as bad as it was, had buyers, many who really liked it. That in itself didn't make it resist a total loss any better in a 5 MPH crash test. If someone shoots, and likes the XD better than any of the Glocks, great, that is the handgun they should then purchase. It's really just as simple as that. Personal choice, and quality and merit of design are 2 different things. Bill T.

[Lycanthrope]

One thing the XD is superior to the Glock in is handle diameter and that's only for people with short fingers. That's it. Other reasons given to the XD's superiority are subjective to opinion and nothing else.

You're opinion

Ergonomics. XD likes to tout this one in their advertising as well saying that when you point it the sights line up rather than having you look at the top of the slide. Glock went with their 105 degree handle angle for a reason: they tested, tested and did some more testing and found that it provided the best firing results for accuracy and following shots. The XD's handle angle along with its high barrel axis to the hand provide much more muzzle flip than a Glock which in turn means less accurate double-taps and a less control.

Tell that to the fastest handgun on the planet.....the 1911. The Glock can get there, but most people shoot the 1911 better with it's higher bore axis.

Single action vs double action. The Glock uses the double action for safety. It's one of the reasons it's called Safe-Action. If the striker spring isn't cocked - it can't fire! Just like a down hammer. The XD has a cocked spring. You can count on replacing the striker spring many more times in an XD than a Glock because of this. You also better hope your firing pin block is in proper working order or you're at the mercy of the poorly designed sear of the XD which, by the way, will fire out of battery. Try pushing back on the slide sometime while pulling the trigger. The double action might not be as smooth, clean or as short a pull of the single action, but these are service pistols not target pistols.

Spring service has nothing to do with being held compressed. It's dependent upon cycles. With equal quality springs, they should be the same. 1911's don't suffer from being cocked all the time.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but we're really splitting hairs again.

[billamj]

I could not agree with you more in this regard. Very well said. However, regardless how much a potential purchaser fires either one of these weapons before selecting the one he or she likes best, it isn't going to change what is or isn't in regards to quality, and or design. Remember the Yugo, as bad as it was, had buyers, many who really liked it. That in itself didn't make it resist a total loss any better in a 5 MPH crash test. If someone shoots, and likes the XD better than any of the Glocks, great, that is the handgun they should then purchase. It's really just as simple as that. Personal choice, and quality and merit of design are 2 different things. Bill T.

My only point is that if you stick with a major manufacturer with a good reputation, as in the manufacturers the OP queried about, it should be a relatively blind process since the quality will be one thing both manufacturers will stand behind.

[billt]

"Tell that to the fastest handgun on the planet.....the 1911. The Glock can get there, but most people shoot the 1911 better with it's higher bore axis.

It might have something to do with the fact it's a far more common handgun thats had a 73 year head start in production. Again "splitting hairs", as you say. Also, it's not an "opinion" that individuals with short fingers have a more difficult time with the Glock 21 as opposed to the XD. It's the biggest claim Springfield makes in their advertising, and the only one I'll agree to as being fact, as I said in my post. Bill T.

[rwilson452]

As for me, I have started to carry my XD 45 some of the time. I still carry my 1911 most of the time. reason being I have a lot more time with the 1911. I have been using it longer than some people here have been alive. as my XD is still in its first year with me I'm still in an initial training mode. I think that carry with it is part of that training. We all know that training and practice never stops. I just hit the XD more than the 1911. My plan is to be equally proficent with either, or as close as I can get to that.

I think I'm done with this thread.

[Lycanthrope]

Competitors will try ANYTHING for an advantage in USPSA/IPSC. They will routinely pay 5 times the cost for a tricked out (not common) 1911/2011 over a comparative Glock.

It's always the Indian and not the arrow, but production time has no relevence in competition.