XD-40 vs Glock and others

[Scott Bear]

I once had an XD-40 and ended up selling it to buy a laptop (sacrilege, I know). Living in Vancouver I didn't have much chance to shoot anyway.

It was a great gun. Felt good in the hand, nice SS mags, easy to clean etc...

My only concern was how the sear engaged the striker. It looked a little shody. Like it could have had two action bars (instead of one) or a better mechanism. It would be nice to read a review of a gun by an engineer and not just hear about the finish and trigger pull.

I was wondering how the trigger arrangement compared to other striker fired/polymer pistols (such as: is the mechanism that holds back the hammer the same idea mechanically as the mechanism that holds back the striker)?

I was thinking of replacing it with an XDm-40 or going all out for an HK (yes, with a hammer).

 

[Brownjoe]

I only have two pistols an XD-40 and an h&k USP. I have in the past had a glock 17 and a sig p226. In my opinion I like the XD-40 better than all of the other pistols I have/had. I personally am more acurate with it and have never had any problems with functionality. I am looking to buy my first .45 and am seriously considering an XDM-45 because I like my XD-40 so much.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[timothydgordon]

I wasn't impressed with the XD when I shot it but I didn't think it was bad, I simply enjoyed shooting the Glock (Glock's ergonomics and balanced weight) more and this was back before I knew that XD was a cheap wannabe of the Glock.

Other notes when I first shot the XD and compared it to the Glock. We were shooting .40S&W and I felt the grip and trigger on the Glock were better. I really liked the more boutique features of the XD, knowing when a round is chambered, strike position indicator is a neat idea but not necessary. I don't care what anyone says the chambered round indicator on the Glock is not substantial enough.

There are other pistols I enjoy shooting more than the Glock but I will say the Glock in my opinon beats out the XD.

In regards to going from a safety assurance trigger on the XD to a regular trigger, you will like the normal trigger better, it's a more ergonomic trigger pull, it's easy to pull it straight back where as it's easy to jerk a safety assurance trigger. Also, with the safety assurance trigger, you pull the trigger first engaging the safety (inner trigger) which then meets the actual trigger and you pull back, you feel "mush" as most describe it on both Glock and XD. You're typically not met with any grinding resistance on a traditional trigger unless you have a poor quality trigger/pistol. The trigger pull difference between my Taurus PT92 and Glock is like Beauty and the Beast.

p.s. HK's are pretty, pretty awesome. Which model are you thinking of?

Goodluck,
Tim.

 

[TDC]

I wasn't impressed with the XD when I shot it but I didn't think it was bad, I simply enjoyed shooting the Glock (Glock's ergonomics and balanced weight) more and this was back before I knew that XD was a cheap wannabe of the Glock.

Other notes when I first shot the XD and compared it to the Glock. We were shooting .40S&W and I felt the grip and trigger on the Glock were better. I really liked the more boutique features of the XD, knowing when a round is chambered, strike position indicator is a neat idea but not necessary. I don't care what anyone says the chambered round indicator on the Glock is not substantial enough.

There are other pistols I enjoy shooting more than the Glock but I will say the Glock in my opinon beats out the XD.

In regards to going from a safety assurance trigger on the XD to a regular trigger, you will like the normal trigger better, it's a more ergonomic trigger pull, it's easy to pull it straight back where as it's easy to jerk a safety assurance trigger. Also, with the safety assurance trigger, you pull the trigger first engaging the safety (inner trigger) which then meets the actual trigger and you pull back, you feel "mush" as most describe it on both Glock and XD. You're typically not met with any grinding resistance on a traditional trigger unless you have a poor quality trigger/pistol. The trigger pull difference between my Taurus PT92 and Glock is like Beauty and the Beast.

p.s. HK's are pretty, pretty awesome. Which model are you thinking of?

Goodluck,
Tim.

A striker indicator is useless. If you don't know what conditon your pistol is in you shouldn't be shooting. The loaded chamber inidcator on the Glock is more than adequate. providing both a visual and tactile difference between a loaded chamber and an unloaded chamber. Again, if you don't know what conditon your pistol is in... The triggers on Glocks are fine, its the operators who suck. The triggers are different, not worse than traditional DA/SA triggers. Take some professional training and learn to shoot.

TDC

 

[Wendell]

That time of the month?

 

[timothydgordon]

A striker indicator is useless. If you don't know what conditon your pistol is in you shouldn't be shooting. The loaded chamber inidcator on the Glock is more than adequate. providing both a visual and tactile difference between a loaded chamber and an unloaded chamber. Again, if you don't know what conditon your pistol is in... The triggers on Glocks are fine, its the operators who suck. The triggers are different, not worse than traditional DA/SA triggers. Take some professional training and learn to shoot.

TDC

Regards, TDC (Troll Driving Controversey?) I did mention that the striker indicator is basically useless. The loaded chamber indicator on the Glock is not adequate, it is in fact barely noticeable. Furthermore, I resent the insinuation that I as an operator "suck". I have professional training and know very well how to shoot. The Glock trigger is inferior to a DA/SA trigger. Many professional shooters and hobby shooters alike complain of the Glock mushy trigger, in fact so many complaints has propagated various DIY trigger jobs and trigger replacements.

Learn to be sociable.

Tim.

 

[Scott Bear]

Thanks for the input but I was really wondering about the actual physical construction of the the pistol and it's reliability. I know how to shoot, I know when a round is in the chamber, I know how describe trigger pull etc... I personally think loaded chamber indicators and cocking indicators are for people who don't know what they are doing.

The way the action bar is hooked up to the trigger and in turn hooked up to the sear and how the sear holds back the striker is what I was wondering about. Would this system ever fail? Would a hammer and firing pin be more reliable or is it a similar mechanism holding the hammer cocked as the sear holding the the striker in the cocked position?

 

[timothydgordon]

Glock: A safety I know about for sure is the drop safety where the extension bar locks the striker into place in a rearward position when the pistol is cocked, the striker stays in this rear position. The action is hooked up to the trigger bar so that when the trigger is pulled, the firing pin is cocked. When the pistol is not cocked and you shake a Glock you can actually hear the striker rattling inside the pistol. Anyways, after being cocked by the trigger, in one motion the striker/firing pin released by the cruciform shaped piece of the trigger bar. I believe Glock's have some kind of a striker/firing pin block as well.

XD: Use a block to prevent the striker/firing pin from making contact with the ammunition because the pistol is fully cocked once you rack the slide. The grip safety is connected to the trigger safety, the trigger safety disengages the firing pin block.

I don't think one or the other is more reliable. Bear in mind if you have a failure to fire you can pull the trigger a second time on the hammered pistol allowing for a second strike. With a striker fired/hammerless pistol both the Glock and XD you must rack the slide, ejecting the failed ammunition before being able to pull the trigger again. This could cost you precious seconds.

 

[TDC]

Glock: A safety I know about for sure is the drop safety where the extension bar locks the striker into place in a rearward position when the pistol is cocked, the striker stays in this rear position. The action is hooked up to the trigger bar so that when the trigger is pulled, the firing pin is cocked. When the pistol is not cocked and you shake a Glock you can actually hear the striker rattling inside the pistol. Anyways, after being cocked by the trigger, in one motion the striker/firing pin released by the cruciform shaped piece of the trigger bar. I believe Glock's have some kind of a striker/firing pin block as well.

XD: Use a block to prevent the striker/firing pin from making contact with the ammunition because the pistol is fully cocked once you rack the slide. The grip safety is connected to the trigger safety, the trigger safety disengages the firing pin block.

I don't think one or the other is more reliable. Bear in mind if you have a failure to fire you can pull the trigger a second time on the hammered pistol allowing for a second strike. With a striker fired/hammerless pistol both the Glock and XD you must rack the slide, ejecting the failed ammunition before being able to pull the trigger again. This could cost you precious seconds.

Lets start with your complete lack of understanding on Glock internals.

All Glock pistols sport THREE safety devices. All are PASSIVE devices meaning they do not require any forethought on the part of the shooter to operate. The trigger safety is the obvious centre protrusion that clearly tells you "its a glock". This prevents rearward movement of the trigger UNTIL something(finger, pencil, zipper etc etc) presses the centre tab flush with the main body of the trigger.

The second safety is a firing pin block. Very common on modern pistols and even the 1911 series of days gone by. The firing pin block is under spring pressure in the "safe"(down) position. There is a tab on the trigger bar that depresses the firing pin block(up), moving it out of the way allowing the firing pin/striker to travel freely through the firing pin channel. This movement takes place around the mid point in the trigger pull.

The third and final safety is the drop safety. The rear of the trigger bar is shaped like a "t" and known as the crucible sear. The bottom of the "t' is where the trigger is, the top of the "t" is angled up slightly, like a ski tip. The sides of the "t" are the "wings" or guides that control the direction of travel when the trigger is pulled.

During the trigger pull, you have first disengaged the trigger safety. As you squeeze the trigger, the trigger bar tab disengages the firing pin block/safety. Finally, during the last approx. 1/10 of an inch the "wings" on the crucible sear travel in a straight line to the rear. During this movement the "sear" portion, or the ski tip pushes against the STRIKER(hence the term striker fired pistol) and compresses the striker/firing pin spring, thus "cocking" or charging the system. Once the striker reaches the rear of its travel and the firing pin spring is at full compression. The "wings" are directed down a slope(this slope is part of the firing mechanism) causing the sear to lose contact with the striker. This allows the striker to travel forward under force from the compressed firing pin spring and the rest is history.

The STRIKER does rattle, but only if the pistol has been dry fired(or attempted to be fired) without having the slide cycle as the striker is now in its free state with no contact from the crucible sear. The striker and the striker spring are under a small amount of tension when the trigger is full forward or the system is reset, they are not COCKED TO THE REAR; that would be a SINGLE ACTION setup. The slight pressure from the striker/spring actually aids in keeping the trigger forward. There is not enough compression in the spring to permit detonation of a primer. Not to mention the sear itself is not permitted any downward movement until it reaches the rear of its track. The limited movement of the crucible sear prevents the striker from reaching the primer. Don't forget the firing pin block, it only permits free movement of the striker/firing pin when the trigger is pulled.

The possibility of a Glock firing without someones finger(or other object) on the trigger is ZERO. I have loaded my Glock and thrown it down range to prove this point. So has Glock and many others who understand the design.

The XD is also a striker fired pistol. The difference is that the XD fires from a charged or single action state. The striker is always charged, thus mimicking a traditional single action(exposed hammer, think 1911) style pistol.

Timothydgordon,

You indicate you have professional training. I'd ask for my money back. Anyone who believes or teaches that second strike is an important feature in a fighting gun is retarded. The failure to have a round detonate is not limited to hard/poor primers. The primary cause of a type 1 malfunction is improperly seated magazines. TAP RACK is the world standard for dealing with type one malfunctions, not attempting to trigger the round again. The loss in time is around 1 second or less. The time you're going to waste clicking on a bad round, or no round before realizing that ten trigger pulls later you still haven't solved the problem... Will cost you a match on the cheap end, and a lifetime on the expensive end.

My previous post wasn't specifically directed at you. I was using your comments as a reference to my statements.

TDC

 

[IM_Lugger]

I had primers that went off on the second strike....so if given a choice I want to have re-strike capability. (The reason why only a few DAO guns have it is because it'd increase the trigger pull to ~10lbs)

For me restrike capability comes in handy at the range; with some guns I ride my thumb on the slide release therefore the slide doesn't always lock back, so when I hear a click I just pull the trigger again, and if I hear another one I can have my hand on the slide half a sec later. But it takes less time to pull the trigger than it is to manualy cycle the slide. Glocks and 1911's is probabaly reason why they teach tap-rack-bang.

I used to have Steyr M pistol and was never comfortable with the fact that it has no firing pin safety and that FP is pre-cocked ~ 70% IIRC enough to detonate some primers. Glocks are pretty safe unless they are around humans....

 

[PeterPan]

TDC,

can you please compare Generation Two and Three if You find some time.
I have been looking to buy a Glock, not fun of polymer designs, used to own XD, however Glock for me is more then a pistol, is more like a culture and icon.

Greetings

 

[timothydgordon]

My previous post wasn't specifically directed at you.

TDC

Well, my apologies for saying you should learn to be sociable. I was 100% in the wrong for saying that.

In regards to my understanding of Glock internals, I only know what I was taught and although I have not taken the Glock armorers course we spent a substantial amount of time with an armorer teaching us about each of the three safeties which I am fully aware of their practical and passive merits however, was not fully aware that the firing pin block was for sure one of those safeties. Otherwise, my understanding of the internal operations of a Glock are spot on except striker position when a Glock is ready to fire. I remember specifically that we were told the striker is held in a rearward position.

Furthermore, I am fully aware of and was taught the tap, rack, failure to fire drill however, it is common knowledge in the world of hammered pistols that when a round is chambered and it fails to fire a second pull of the trigger can in most cases fire that failing catridge.

Again TDC, my apologies for my comment,
Tim.

 

[TDC]

This is the only difference that I know of between 1,2,and 3rd generation pistols. Apparently there are some internal changes but I don't believe its anything major. Newer parts with the exception of the three hole lock block should all work in older model guns.

The differences between the generations has to do with the frame design mostly. Gen 1 guns are smooth grips and no rail on the dust cover and use only 1 pin in the lock block(above the trigger). Gen 2 use 2 pins and some have finger groves and rail on the dust cover. Gen 3 all have 2 pins and finger grooves as well as the rail on the dust cover. Gen 1 guns are not overly common in my experience. Most are Gen 3 that I've seen with a few gen 2 guns making an appearance.

Here's a better visual explanation of how Glocks work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPPgmvcsJNw&feature=related

Here's a great interactive program for the AR series rifle, click the link and hit Go.
http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp

TDC

 

[TDC]

Well, my apologies for saying you should learn to be sociable. I was 100% in the wrong for saying that.

In regards to my understanding of Glock internals, I only know what I was taught and although I have not taken the Glock armorers course we spent a substantial amount of time with an armorer teaching us about each of the three safeties which I am fully aware of their practical and passive merits however, was not fully aware that the firing pin block was for sure one of those safeties. Otherwise, my understanding of the internal operations of a Glock are spot on except striker position when a Glock is ready to fire. I remember specifically that we were told the striker is held in a rearward position.

Furthermore, I am fully aware of and was taught the tap, rack, failure to fire drill however, it is common knowledge in the world of hammered pistols that when a round is chambered and it fails to fire a second pull of the trigger can in most cases fire that failing catridge.

Again TDC, my apologies for my comment,
Tim.

Whoever instructed you about the position of the striker in a Glock is wrong. Armorer or not. The striker is not in a rearward position per say. There is a slight tension on the spring which means the striker is being held just rear of its forward most position. Again, not nearly far enough to the rear(or under enough tension) to detonate a round should the entire firing/safety system(s) fail.

The use of an exposed hammer or DA/SA pistol is irrelevant. The response to a type 1 malfunction is the same for all auto loading handguns. Striking the round a second time is futile. With most failures(type 1) being caused by improperly seated magazines, the decision to strike the primer again only compounds the problem. I'll explain.

The reasons for type one malfunction are as follows.

Improperly seated magazine
Bad/hard primer
Out of battery slide
empty magazine that failed to lock the slide to the rear.
No magazine at all

How many of these issues does striking the primer address? ONE, bad/hard primers is the only possible issue that striking the primer a second/third time MIGHT rectify. The potential for defective ammo is very real. At best, a second strike is only capable of solving 50% of one possible issue.

Tap Rack will solve all of the above. Tap insures there is a magazine and that it is properly seated in the firearm. Racking the slide after the Tap ensures you the pistol has had the opportunity to strip a fresh round(if there are any) from the magazine and ensures the slide is in full battery. When performing a Tap Rack the absence of an ejected round would indicate the issue is entirely magazine related. Improperly seated, not feeding, or empty. Striking the primer a second time, tells you nothing unless the round in question detonates. If this occurs you have learned three things. You had a hard primer or a weak hammer spring, there indeed was a round chambered, and your gamble paid off...This time.

Second strike is a marketing gimmick designed to increase sales of inferior weapons systems. Second strike is great for the shooter on a budget who uses questionable ammo and can't afford to waste a single round and has no desire to retreive any ammunition that has been Tap Racked to the ground.

TDC

ETA:
Tim,

I appreciate the apology but you aren't the first to tell me I'm not sociable. My reputation on CGN is bitter sweet. I don't dance around an issue, I call them how I see them. That being said, I owe you an apology for giving the impression that my first post was attacking you specifically and not just the questions that arose from your comments.

 

[IM_Lugger]

Second strike is a marketing gimmick designed to increase sales of inferior weapons system

Inferior system? Really????

But SA/DA system was out before the DAO so how can it be a marketing gimmick? Sure SA was invented even earlier, but SA/DA can do more and even the name (Double) itself sudgests it's superiour to Single Action Only in it's capability.

If anyting it's the other way around. What advantages does a hammerless DAO give you? DAO is more like SA which is a step back from DA/SA IMO.

I love my M&P (which works pretty much like a Glock) but I would never say its operation is superious to one of a DA/SA gun.

I own SA, DA/SA and DAO handguns...FWIW

 

[TDC]

Firearms with exposed hammers provide another opening for dirt/debris. There is potential for foreign objects to obstruct the hammer from striking the firing pin. They contain more parts which increases the odds of something failing. Single action exposed hammer firearms run the risk of sear failure which could lead to an ND. Exposed hammer firearms(DA/SA) will have either manual safeties or decocking levers, increasing the amount of information to be learned and mastered. DAO firearms with exposed hammers are of zero advantage over DA/SA exposed hammer guns or striker fired pistols.

Striker fired or hammerless DAO(or even SA like the XD) offer significant advantages. For the most part they contain fewer parts. Fewer access points for debris and dirt. Smoother overall profile for a more snag free performance. Lack of external controls, thus simplifying operation. Consistent trigger pull for every shot.

Exposed hammer DA/SA guns like SIGs were the best thing going until striker fired pistols arrived on scene. With the exception of the hammer and the decocker, a DA/SA pistol has the same point and pull simplicity as striker fired pistols like the Glock. The downside is the exposed hammer, the additional controls and the two distinct trigger pulls.

The promotion of second strike capability is the gimmick. Not the system that is capable of such actions. Anyone with a basic understanding of a DAO or DA/SA pistol is aware of the capability to strike a primer more than once without having to cycle the action. The practicality of double strike capability is lacking unless you're tying to get the most out of your ammo budget.

The reduction in parts and increased simplicity both in operation and function of striker fired pistols gives them the advantage over existing designs.

TDC

 

[Scott Bear]

To TDC:

Thanks for your help.

What is your personal preference for a hand gun? Do you own only Glocks or are there others?

I do like the 1911 but polymer is more modern and usually cheaper.

 

[TDC]

To TDC:

Thanks for your help.

What is your personal preference for a hand gun? Do you own only Glocks or are there others?

I do like the 1911 but polymer is more modern and usually cheaper.

I've shot most(Glock, SIG, Beretta, S&W, Walther, Steyr, Kimber, Springfield, Taurus, HK, STI, FEG, Norinco, Ruger, Colt, CZ, Browning,). Some are better than others. Some I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. It really depends on what you want it for. I don't/won't own a firearm I cannot trust with my life. I don't see the point. Any firearm I can trust with my life will probably be problem free and far more enjoyable to shoot.

An aesthetically pleasing firearm is nice but it isn't a requirement in my eyes. I see firearms as tools that accomplish a job. How "cool" they look is not my concern. Simple in both function and design are very important. Function more so than design. Obviously the availability of parts, holsters, mags etc etc can be a major factor in deciding what you buy and use.

I've got one buddy who has owned(sold it) a SIG 226 and a Kimber. Another buddy has a Sig 220 a Kimber, used to have an HK P7 as well. They both own two Glocks. Having shot their non Glock pistols extensively, I still feel better coming back to my Glocks.

My opinion is biased, there's no question. No one is going to trash talk what they own. Its human nature to champion the brand/style/colour/model that you currently own.

On the objective side. I can't find any faults with the Glock line of pistols. They work, they're simple, and they keep on working. The goal I set out for my handguns is easily achieved by Glock handguns. I have no doubt other makes/models are capable of the task, but none as easily or with so many positive features as a Glock.

I don't own anything other than Glocks for three reasons. Nothing else scores enough points on my pro's vs cons list to warrant being purchased. Additional makes/models adds a new learning curve which isn't necessary when I have a make/model that fulfills the task I've set out. The plain cost of additional makes/models isn't doable. Different holsters, magazines, spare parts, tools, etc all cost more money. Money I could be and should be dumping into running what I've got and advancing my skills. Shooting like sh*t with 5 different models doesn't make you any better than the guy who is an average shooter with one gun.

Would I like to own different makes and models? Sure, who wouldn't! The 1911 in my eyes is an archaic dinosaur that isn't suited for many tasks for which a modern handgun is required to perform. Its a classic, its THE CLASSIC. I love the look of them and they are very nice to shoot. I'd love to get an HK P7 but the additional cost in accessories and the difficulty in finding parts and magazines makes it less than practical.

Some really enjoy tuning or tinkering with their firearms. 1911 guys are similar to those who own Harleys. If you aren't riding it, you're working on it. Understanding how your firearm operates is absolutely crucial in my opinion. Having the ability to change parts is equally important. Being forced to understand how your firearm works because you need to change parts to get it running, is not something I look for in any mechanical device. If time and money were no object, I would screw around with everything I could. Neither of which being the case, I prefer something that works out of the box without the need for aftermarket parts or a trip to the gunsmith.

With an unlimited budget and time, I'd own a lot more makes and models than I do now. In the real world, I'll stick with what works, my Glocks.

TDC

 

[IM_Lugger]

it's all about personal preference I guess...

I see things differently; I (only) have 5 handguns and tall of them are different (and get about the same amount of work out) I'm a big Beretta fan but only have one of them, I just don't like to limit myself to one platform. Plus it would get boring if all my guns looked felt and worked the same. In Canada you can't CCW, even home defense is not a valid reason to own a handgun, so trusting your life to gun is a moot point unless you're an LEO and even than the you're stuck with whatever the city/PD could afford. But if talking 'what ifs' one might be in a situation where you have to use someone else's/different gun, and if you can only shoot one gun, what good is that?

 

[TDC]

it's all about personal preference I guess...

I see things differently; I (only) have 5 handguns and tall of them are different (and get about the same amount of work out) I'm a big Beretta fan but only have one of them, I just don't like to limit myself to one platform. Plus it would get boring if all my guns looked felt and worked the same. In Canada you can't CCW, even home defense is not a valid reason to own a handgun, so trusting your life to gun is a moot point unless you're an LEO and even than the you're stuck with whatever the city/PD could afford. But if talking 'what ifs' one might be in a situation where you have to use someone else's/different gun, and if you can only shoot one gun, what good is that?

You pointed out the difference in your post. You enjoy the challenge and experience of running different platforms. It appears this is one of your primary reasons for owning what you do.

Regardless of what is or is not written on paper I have the right and the means to defend myself. I could care less whether the government approves of owning or using a firearm for defensive purposes. The reality that firearms are effective for self defense and available does not diminish with the fact that ownership of a firearm for defensive purposes is not a "valid/legal" reason in the eyes of some clowns down east. Planning for the worst and hoping for the best is not a bad policy.

I own only Glocks, but I never said I couldn't run other makes or models. Its the shooter that makes the shot, not the firearm. Anyone who understands the fundamentals of handgun marksmanship is capable of operating most any handgun with satisfactory results. On the other hand, many PD's issue the Glock which increases ones odds of having to use one should the situation arise.

TDC