Springfield XD Poorly Designed?

[smince]

I've been considering buying one of these. Yesterday I read on John Farnham's site of a collegue of his who attended the XD Armorer's School. He said there were internal parts that can be put in backward, and there is no sign that anything is wrong until you go to fire it. Then, nothing works. Also it has a blind pin that, if installed backward, must be DRILLED out to remove.

Anyone else heard of these problems? I believe I'll stick to a simpler design for the time being.

[michael t]

I don't know if its true or not. But unless your a Armorer/gunsmith I don't belive you would ever need to worry about it. Normal shoot and clean I sure not a problem. At least that the way it seems for the 1000's of present owners. I strip my 45's couple times a year. But I would think of tearing down my PPK/S all the way..

[4V50 Gary]

What MichaelT says. Most folks shouldn't be going inside their guns. Leave that to an armorer or gunsmith.

[CraZkid]

I think it is the easiest to field-strip. As for putting parts in backwards...the first thing I look for in a gunsmith is ATTENTION TO DETAIL.

[fastbolt]

Since the XD pistol didn't rate highly enough among the disparate group of people selected to shoot all of the various pistols submitted for T&E in our search for a new service pistol, I won't have the opportunity to attend the Springfield L/E armorer's class for the XD series. That being the case, I certainly don't have an answer to your question ...

I DO, however, agree with 4V50 Gary's comments ... "Most folks shouldn't be going inside their guns. Leave that to an armorer or gunsmith."

The only change I'd suggest is to insert the words "experienced and competent" in the second statement, at least in regard to armorers. Just like when it comes to "trained & licensed" mechanics, however, I've had some 'variable satisfaction' after having some guns worked on by different gunsmiths in the past ... and I can say that I've seen other 'certified' factory-trained L/E armorers who I'd never permit to touch one of my personally owned pistols.

[smince]

I went back and re-read Mr. Farnham's statement. Evidently, if parts can be put back in backwards and upside down, and even the ARMORER hasn't a clue until it is fully assembled and then won't fire, there seems to be a problem to me. I don't know of any other weapon this happens to. Certainly not a 1911, Glock, Beretta, etc.

Personally, I like to be able to FULLY disassemble any firearm I own. It saves on smithing costs to be able to replace a part myself. However, I do realize some people don't need to be doing this. I know officers that pay a gunsmith to clean their own pistols after qualification because they can't strip their own weapon.

EDIT: Here is the post from DTI's site:

"23June05

SA XD

I attended part of the SA XD Armorer's Class yesterday. It is clear that SA is making a sincere effort to get the XD accepted by the police community as an legitimate, duty gun. As I've said in the past, XDs we've had in classes have all worked fine.

However, real problems made themselves apparent during the class. Glocks, even at the armorer level, are nearly impossible to reassemble wrong. Glock parts are designed to fit together only one way. When they don't fit together, that is a hint that you are doing it incorrectly. SA engineers need to take note. A number of XD parts can be easily put in place backwards and/or upside down, with no clue that assembly is inappropriate. When assembly is

complete, the pistol won't work. In fact, there is one blind hole, designed to receive a pin. If the pin inadvertently goes in backward, it cannot be removed and must be drilled out!

If SA is serious about making inroads into the police market, they are going to have to make engineering changes in the XD that make the job of the armorer less tedious. The XD is a good gun, but it is not up to Glock standards yet.

/John "

[Sir William]

Basically any pin if tapped in backwards must be drilled out. An oversized pin is then sometimes used. The number of weapons that contain parts that can be reversed would astound. It is not isolated to XDs.

[Andrew LB]

I think it is the easiest to field-strip. As for putting parts in backwards...the first thing I look for in a gunsmith is ATTENTION TO DETAIL.

Its a simple gun to completely disassemble and reassemble. I've done it a few times now and only did one stupid thing which was easy to fix. I accidently put the slide back on with the disassembly lever not in the upward position and it caught the spring on the disassembly levar and wouldn't come back foward. After calling Springfield the gunsmith i spoke with copied what i did while he was on the phone with me and told me to give it a small hit on the back of the slide with a rubber mallet.

Fixed the problem, didn't hurt the weapon.

[CougarRed]

According the Teddy Jacobson, the only thing he dislikes about the XD is that the extractor is nearly impossible to remove. So, here's hoping my extractor never breaks.

[Handy]

A rather angry person posted a problem with an XD when he assembled it wrong (from field strip). SA told him to hammer the slide back off - causing some internal cosmetic damage.

Point being, the problem was caused by the ability to assemble it wrong. Most good guns won't even go together if the parts are in wrong, and will come back apart fine if parts are left out.

[Andrew LB]

A rather angry person posted a problem with an XD when he assembled it wrong (from field strip). SA told him to hammer the slide back off - causing some internal cosmetic damage.

Point being, the problem was caused by the ability to assemble it wrong.

That person was me and I was not angry over the weapon. I was angry over comments made by a few pompus people here who instead of helping me out, made stupid remarks.



What happened was when the disassembly levar is in the down position and you try to put the slide back on with too much force, the end of the recoil spring assembly will catch on the locking block and stay stuck back. It was easy to fix and didn't damage my pistol. I was just overly cautious because i didn't want to screw anything up. Luckily i had a very helpful guy at Springfield Armory actually help me with the problem instead of being an ass.

I've put over 1,000 more rounds through the pistol since then and everything works flawlessly. The only "cosmetic" damage to the internals was a few tiny scratches in the black finish of areas where it was already starting to wear anyways.

Most good guns won't even go together if the parts are in wrong, and will come back apart fine if parts are left out.

Riiiight. I there are many fine weapons out there that if not assembled properly, issues can occur. Especially when doing a full breakdown of the weapon.

[Ultima-Ratio]

Anyone else recall the M-60???

[JohnKSa]

I do, and that's exactly why it's not on my list of "good guns."

[Handy]

Andrew,

Here's the thread, with your amusing behavior and the problem:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=170704

Page two contains my analysis of the cause and possible alternative solutions. Unfortuneately, none of the links to pictures of the gouges and dings you're now referring to as "light scratches" seem to be working.


I suppose you'll have to tell Smince that he makes "ignorant comments" now, too. And everyone else on both threads that agrees with my point of view.

I would have thought the month and a half your took off of TFL after that last XD thread would have helped you work out these emotional problems you have when people comment on inanimate objects.

[juliet charley]

Put the recoil spring in Kahr backwards, and it's off to the factory. I guess it needs to go to the top of the "not good guns" lists, too.

[Sarge]

If SA is serious about making inroads into the police market, they are going to have to make engineering changes in the XD that make the job of the armorer less tedious. The XD is a good gun, but it is not up to Glock standards yet.

/John "


Would that be the 'standards' that cause the Glock to blow up in your hand? I'll gladly be a little more careful in tearing the gun down, in exchange for a supported chamber, conventional rifling, a better grip angle, and a grip safety.

Andrew my boy, you are going to have to learn to either keep your head down, or use the "ignore idiot" feature.

[CopeLC]

I tend to pay attention to how the parts were installed before I rip things apart. If you are worried about forgetting, take a picture of it with your digital camera or a Polaroid beforehand.

[Eric Larsen]

The design of the gun isnt in question...IMO.

Its a gun that works and works very well. Anyone who is gonna tear into one should know what they are doing.
The first time anyone puts one togethor wrong will more than likely be his last time doing it that way.

How many guns out there that have great reps and function wonderfully are like this???????? Most of them? Some of them? No one can answer that question.....so I think its a very mute point.

Shoot well.

[Andrew LB]

The subject of poor design just happened to come up last night when i spoke with a friend who is a high ranking NCO in the USMC and one of the presidents top 100. He mentioned an issue with the design of glocks and I would like to get some imput on this from some of the guys on the forum who really know the workings of these weapons...

He wrote:

Glock Corporation loves me because I used to testilie about their guns blowing up and accidental discharges. They fixed most models by double pinning the gun BUT when the gun is in battery the round does not seat fully in the breach/chamber by design. The bottom of the round is unsupported so when the SQUARE firing pin strikes, the gasses create lots of chamber pressure but the whole round isn't quite in the chamber so it goes double bang. One out of the front, the other out the top and sides of the frame. I used to call them the California Convertable

[Handy]

He's describing a KaBoom, a known and much described problem since the late '80s. He has invented his own new term for it, though.


I'd like to hear where he has testified about that - since no one on any forum has ever been able to find a liability suit related to such a failure. So it would be nice to have some documentation.


I do not understand what the second pin in some models and square firing pins have to do with anything else he was talking about.

[Andrew LB]

I'd like to hear where he has testified about that - since no one on any forum has ever been able to find a liability suit related to such a failure. So it would be nice to have some documentation.

I would guess that it was a military matter and not a civillian issue, thus making it not public domain.

I do not understand what the second pin in some models and square firing pins have to do with anything else he was talking about.

Another pin to hold the frame of the gun together due to the expanding gasses because the cartirage didn't seat properly inside the weapon?



Edit: As for a square firing pin, i'll have to find out about that. None of the weapons i own have one. Does the pin actually have a square tip? If so, i would think it may put angular pressure on the cartirage if its not fully supported on the bottom side, more so than a round firing pin would.

[n3twrkm4n]

I own one, and it is one of the best semi's I've handled. Easy to take apart, and easy to maintain, as far as i'm concerned there are no design flaws...

Hogwash...

[Handy]

I know of no US military unit that has bought Glocks in an official capacity, so that's strange. Also, military suits are public, and usually well discussed.


The pins are in the plastic frame, which does nothing to contain gasses. That is all done by the slide and barrel.


The firing pin tip is a rounded rectangle. This can't affect case integrity.

[Andrew LB]

I know of no US military unit that has bought Glocks in an official capacity, so that's strange. Also, military suits are public, and usually well discussed.

It might not have even been a suit. The word testify has many meanings. It could have simply been a formal complaint or somewhat more.

And i've never heard of such things being public. The military tends to keep things behind closed doors.


As for the military using glocks.... my friend who is special forces and all of his buddies use them.

The pins are in the plastic frame, which does nothing to contain gasses. That is all done by the slide and barrel.

I would think that if high pressured gasses come back into the body of a firearm, the body itself could and would have added stresses. Hence the second pin to hold things together.

I doubt they added that pin just for fun. They had a reason.

I own one, and it is one of the best semi's I've handled. Easy to take apart, and easy to maintain, as far as i'm concerned there are no design flaws...

Hogwash...

I agree. It was a "user error" just like many issues people have with their weapons. Just to test out this "design flaw", i tried it again and it wouln't get stuck.

The guy at springfield had never heard of such an issue when he helped me. So this is definately just a f-up on my behalf.

Careless re-assembly can happen to anyone. I've had over 20 years experience breaking down firearms and re-assembling them and have seen many instances where simple mistakes could have jammed or damaged very high quality weapons.

[Handy]

Andrew,

You're aware the pin you're talking about is made of nylon? The locking block design changed for some of the guns a few years ago, and the new locking block had and extra pin to stabilize it. It is shaped quite differently from the previous one.

The pin just holds a part. It is rather weak itself and held in place by friction.