Anyone here into firearms?

tvfreakazoid · 07-09-2011, 04:28 AM

What is your choice of brand?

I was looking to getting a springfield XD or possible an XDm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacCool

If only those firearms purchasing decisions were being made by the actual end-users and armorers according to maintenance requirements and reliability instead of by the bean counters more concerned about their department's budget. Firearms purchases by law enforcement organizations is always low-bid. Performance and reliability takes a back seat. Glock in particular has moved away from their previously aggressive department pricing. Sig is desperate to get into the market. Looks like they dropped their prices but maintained their margins by cutting quality. Their current problems with quality control since Ron Cohen took over as CEO are well-known.

Ron Cohen was the CEO at Kimber before SigArms hired him, if that tells you anything.

MacCool · 07-09-2011, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvfreakazoid

What is your choice of brand?

I was looking to getting a springfield XD or possible an XDm.

Personally, I use a Sig P229 .40 cal. It's a German model I bought it 1996. It is a fantastic pistol. It has probably about 15,000 round through it. Virtually no wear on any of the mating surfaces. All I've ever had to do to it is replace a few springs. The newer Sigs, while the same form factor, have some serious quality and design problems. Grips and grip screws are a nightmare, weak or failure-prone recoil springs, hammer failures, excessive slide wear, broken extractors, broken trigger bars, crappy magazines....this stuff all related to me by a buddy who's a Sig armorer for the Sheriff's department. They recently went back to issuing Glocks because it was getting to be a hassle keeping Sig replacement parts on hand.

For a game gun, I use a S&W M&P 9L. It's an OK pistol. I replaced the sear and striker along with a reset-assist device and that took that trigger from "marginal" to "really excellent". It's been reliable for me...I can't think of any failures. I use it in 9mm because that ammo is cheap and low recoil. It's been a good competition pistol for me and I like the 23 round magazines. Having said that, I don't think I'd use the M&P as a carry-weapon or duty-weapon.

If my P229 exploded tomorrow, I'd replace it in .40 with an H&K P30. If I couldn't get the P30, I would reluctantly get a Glock 23. "Reluctant" only because I find the Glocks to be ugly, uninspired weapons. From a standpoint of reliability and accuracy, they are excellent and I wouldn't hesitate to trust my life to one.

As to the XD/XDm, my business partner has an XDm and he really likes it a lot. AFAIK, it's been reliable for him. He's had some trouble finding holsters that work well with it, but otherwise he's had no complaints. We both have a firearms course coming up on the 21st, and then a two day 1000-round course with Louis Awerbuck in August. Those two events ought to represent a good opportunity to find any weak spots that particular pistol. As I mentioned earlier, the XDs are generally regarded as only being "OK" among the people I shoot a lot with. I will say that one reason I see for any scorn the XD's might get appears to be more related to the way they are so often pushed by gun store owners. They have a higher margin in the XDs for some reason and they are readily available, so they get blindly pushed without regard for any drawback they might have. As a group, gun shop owners are probably one of the single worst sources of good advice on firearms. When they start pushing a brand as intensely as they tend to push the XD's, knowledgeable firearms enthusiasts become very suspicious.

tvfreakazoid · 07-12-2011, 04:26 AM

Hey thanks for the info.
I read a lot of people loving the glocks. My one big issues with glocks is like you said UGLY, uninspiring and more. I mean come on who is designing the pistol. Some old fart. I get it that they are good and reliable but does it have to be soOoooooo boring!

I may get a boring glock because of it's reliability, but i like the way the xdms look. There suppose to be the better version of the reg. xds.

I have to agree with you when a dealer tries hard to push a certain brand.

Please let us know how the firearms course goes. I really would like to know how the XDm performs.

Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacCool

Personally, I use a Sig P229 .40 cal. It's a German model I bought it 1996. It is a fantastic pistol. It has probably about 15,000 round through it. Virtually no wear on any of the mating surfaces. All I've ever had to do to it is replace a few springs. The newer Sigs, while the same form factor, have some serious quality and design problems. Grips and grip screws are a nightmare, weak or failure-prone recoil springs, hammer failures, excessive slide wear, broken extractors, broken trigger bars, crappy magazines....this stuff all related to me by a buddy who's a Sig armorer for the Sheriff's department. They recently went back to issuing Glocks because it was getting to be a hassle keeping Sig replacement parts on hand.

For a game gun, I use a S&W M&P 9L. It's an OK pistol. I replaced the sear and striker along with a reset-assist device and that took that trigger from "marginal" to "really excellent". It's been reliable for me...I can't think of any failures. I use it in 9mm because that ammo is cheap and low recoil. It's been a good competition pistol for me and I like the 23 round magazines. Having said that, I don't think I'd use the M&P as a carry-weapon or duty-weapon.

If my P229 exploded tomorrow, I'd replace it in .40 with an H&K P30. If I couldn't get the P30, I would reluctantly get a Glock 23. "Reluctant" only because I find the Glocks to be ugly, uninspired weapons. From a standpoint of reliability and accuracy, they are excellent and I wouldn't hesitate to trust my life to one.

As to the XD/XDm, my business partner has an XDm and he really likes it a lot. AFAIK, it's been reliable for him. He's had some trouble finding holsters that work well with it, but otherwise he's had no complaints. We both have a firearms course coming up on the 21st, and then a two day 1000-round course with Louis Awerbuck in August. Those two events ought to represent a good opportunity to find any weak spots that particular pistol. As I mentioned earlier, the XDs are generally regarded as only being "OK" among the people I shoot a lot with. I will say that one reason I see for any scorn the XD's might get appears to be more related to the way they are so often pushed by gun store owners. They have a higher margin in the XDs for some reason and they are readily available, so they get blindly pushed without regard for any drawback they might have. As a group, gun shop owners are probably one of the single worst sources of good advice on firearms. When they start pushing a brand as intensely as they tend to push the XD's, knowledgeable firearms enthusiasts become very suspicious.

tvfreakazoid · 08-01-2011, 10:11 PM

how was the firearm course with the xdm? Or have you not gone yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacCool

Personally, I use a Sig P229 .40 cal. It's a German model I bought it 1996. It is a fantastic pistol. It has probably about 15,000 round through it. Virtually no wear on any of the mating surfaces. All I've ever had to do to it is replace a few springs. The newer Sigs, while the same form factor, have some serious quality and design problems. Grips and grip screws are a nightmare, weak or failure-prone recoil springs, hammer failures, excessive slide wear, broken extractors, broken trigger bars, crappy magazines....this stuff all related to me by a buddy who's a Sig armorer for the Sheriff's department. They recently went back to issuing Glocks because it was getting to be a hassle keeping Sig replacement parts on hand.

For a game gun, I use a S&W M&P 9L. It's an OK pistol. I replaced the sear and striker along with a reset-assist device and that took that trigger from "marginal" to "really excellent". It's been reliable for me...I can't think of any failures. I use it in 9mm because that ammo is cheap and low recoil. It's been a good competition pistol for me and I like the 23 round magazines. Having said that, I don't think I'd use the M&P as a carry-weapon or duty-weapon.

If my P229 exploded tomorrow, I'd replace it in .40 with an H&K P30. If I couldn't get the P30, I would reluctantly get a Glock 23. "Reluctant" only because I find the Glocks to be ugly, uninspired weapons. From a standpoint of reliability and accuracy, they are excellent and I wouldn't hesitate to trust my life to one.

As to the XD/XDm, my business partner has an XDm and he really likes it a lot. AFAIK, it's been reliable for him. He's had some trouble finding holsters that work well with it, but otherwise he's had no complaints. We both have a firearms course coming up on the 21st, and then a two day 1000-round course with Louis Awerbuck in August. Those two events ought to represent a good opportunity to find any weak spots that particular pistol. As I mentioned earlier, the XDs are generally regarded as only being "OK" among the people I shoot a lot with. I will say that one reason I see for any scorn the XD's might get appears to be more related to the way they are so often pushed by gun store owners. They have a higher margin in the XDs for some reason and they are readily available, so they get blindly pushed without regard for any drawback they might have. As a group, gun shop owners are probably one of the single worst sources of good advice on firearms. When they start pushing a brand as intensely as they tend to push the XD's, knowledgeable firearms enthusiasts become very suspicious.

MacCool · 08-02-2011, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvfreakazoid

how was the firearm course with the xdm? Or have you not gone yet?

This weekend. Goes Sunday/Monday. I just re-replaced the sights on my M&P9L - back to the OEM 3-dots. I just could not warm up to the two-dot Warrens. They're mechanical dead-center but I have to sight them in. My buddy with the XDm .40 is clamoring to do a little prep work before this weekend. Probably a good idea - I hate to go to these things rusty, although we both just did a defensive handgun course about a week ago. I used the Sig .40 for that defensive course since that's what I carry, but I prefer my M&P in 9mm for these high round-count courses where I'm shooting with a bunch of cops and don't want to look bad (in fact, the instructor for the defensive handgun course is a student at this upcoming course too).

ImportConvert · 08-07-2011, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacCool

This weekend. Goes Sunday/Monday. I just re-replaced the sights on my M&P9L - back to the OEM 3-dots. I just could not warm up to the two-dot Warrens. They're mechanical dead-center but I have to sight them in. My buddy with the XDm .40 is clamoring to do a little prep work before this weekend. Probably a good idea - I hate to go to these things rusty, although we both just did a defensive handgun course about a week ago. I used the Sig .40 for that defensive course since that's what I carry, but I prefer my M&P in 9mm for these high round-count courses where I'm shooting with a bunch of cops and don't want to look bad (in fact, the instructor for the defensive handgun course is a student at this upcoming course too).

I really think 9mm is where it's at. The bad rap that it got came from:

a)poor marksmanship (lots of thugs just pointing and clicking, not many people die that way)
b)sub-standard ammunition in the 80's
c)a lot of people who want to cite .38 revolver performance on a far away island using ball ammunition compared to .45 LC revolver performance also using ball ammunition.
d)appeals to many different logical fallacies too numerous to name.

Using modern JHP ammunition, the 9mm will get the job done, and you can't put a price on more chances to hit your target when actual hit percentages in gunfights are so low.

MacCool · 08-07-2011, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImportConvert

I really think 9mm is where it's at. The bad rap that it got came from:

a)poor marksmanship (lots of thugs just pointing and clicking, not many people die that way)
b)sub-standard ammunition in the 80's
c)a lot of people who want to cite .38 revolver performance on a far away island using ball ammunition compared to .45 LC revolver performance also using ball ammunition.
d)appeals to many different logical fallacies too numerous to name.

Using modern JHP ammunition, the 9mm will get the job done, and you can't put a price on more chances to hit your target when actual hit percentages in gunfights are so low.

The terminal ballistics of 9mm just don't hold up to .40 S&W, but IMHO those are mostly laboratory findings. I agree with you that many, many people blame the round when tactics and shot placement are the real culprits. The superiority of .40 gets a little thin in real-world shootings these days, but the basis of .40 S&W of course was the 1986 Miami FBI shootout. The FBI's basis for switching to the 10mm round (then later the .40 S&W when they saw the negatives of the 10mm blast and recoil) was the medical examiner's report. His rather exhaustive analysis made mention of the very remarkable accuracy of the FBI agents, especially under fire, but that the 9mm rounds just weren't having the incapacitating effect that they would have expected from the shot placement. The thing that makes me a little skeptical is that the first gunman took a shot to the chest right off the bat which collapsed his lung and hit his pulmonary artery. That wasn't a survivable wound, but most of the injuries and deaths he inflicted occurred after that wound. I doubt that a .40 cal would have made him die any faster.

ImportConvert · 08-08-2011, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacCool

The terminal ballistics of 9mm just don't hold up to .40 S&W, but IMHO those are mostly laboratory findings. I agree with you that many, many people blame the round when tactics and shot placement are the real culprits. The superiority of .40 gets a little thin in real-world shootings these days, but the basis of .40 S&W of course was the 1986 Miami FBI shootout. The FBI's basis for switching to the 10mm round (then later the .40 S&W when they saw the negatives of the 10mm blast and recoil) was the medical examiner's report. His rather exhaustive analysis made mention of the very remarkable accuracy of the FBI agents, especially under fire, but that the 9mm rounds just weren't having the incapacitating effect that they would have expected from the shot placement. The thing that makes me a little skeptical is that the first gunman took a shot to the chest right off the bat which collapsed his lung and hit his pulmonary artery. That wasn't a survivable wound, but most of the injuries and deaths he inflicted occurred after that wound. I doubt that a .40 cal would have made him die any faster.

the failure was due to the bullet used. They now have ammo that expands well and penetrates 12"+. Then, it was kinda either/or.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode