From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I noticed the cons section is appropriately labeled with a weasel words identifier. Most of what is contained in the cons section seems to be personal opinion and comes across as both wordy and biased. I'm going to clean it up. Before reverting, explain why and/or add citations for some of the claims. Beatdown (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

does wikipedia have a policy on pros and cons lists? (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Springfield Armory XD / HS Produkt HS2000[edit]

According to, Springfield Armory doesn't manufacture the XD pistol-- it imports them from Croatia. "The XD is manufactured in Croatia by a company HS Produkt. SA has sole importation rights to the HS2000 in North America." (HS2000talk) Therefore, "The Springfield Armory XD ("X-Treme Duty") pistol is based on the Croatian HS 2000" is an untrue statement since the XD is a rebranded HS2000. Sandcrawler 09:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)sandcrawler

9x19 mm Capacity[edit]

Though Springfield Armory lists the capacity of the XD 9 mm as 15+1, a 16 round magazine is distributed by Springfield Armory. Therefore, full capacity on the XD 9 mm is 16+1. Item Description: 9 mm 16rd S.S. Magazine, P/N: XD5016, UPC: 706397860639 Sandcrawler 18:20, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)sandcrawler

Mec-Gar currently advertises in their catalogues and online an "AFC" ("Anti Friction Coating," it looks and feels like black teflon paint) finished, flush-fitting 18 round mag for these. They make 18-round flush-fitting mags for some other designs, and offer an option for others (though not yet for the XD9) of a slightly extended hollow baseplate adding an additional two rounds capacity, for a total of 20; a similar hollow baseplate is available from Pearce Grip, though I do not know whether it is intended specifically to fit the Mec-Gar mag tubes. The "AFC" mag for the XD40 holds 13, and with the baseplate would, we suppose, hold 14 or 15. I am not aware of any extended-capacity mags for the XD45.
For the XD9/HS2000 9mm specifically, I have seen both 15 and 16 round mags advertised for it. I have read that the 16 round mags are a later design with different follower geometry to allow an additional round, but the 15 round mags are still manufactured because in certain jurisdictions (New Jersey, for instance) mags holding more than fifteen rounds are legally forbidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Double-action-only / single-action[edit]

The internal working of the XD are single-action. Pulling the trigger doesn't cock anything or move the striker rearward. It only releases the trigger. However, it FEELS like a double action, probably because of the slight spring resistance from the drop-safety as you pull the trigger, the pre-travel, and then the crisp break. I feel it's more appropriate to label the XD single-action (As does the IDPA, I believe), even though it doesn't nicely fit into either category. In the community, there's so much debate on just this topic that we may have to get rid of this designation altogether... And refer to it with SA's "Ultra Safety Assurance" term. OverkillTASF 15:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When I was overhauling the Glock articles I put Safe action as the action type. I think this issue is along those lines, even though an XD is true single action and a Glock is sort of half and half. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 04:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to get really technical the XD and XDm are Striker Fired pistols, and not SA or DA. Most publications accept this fact, and it has even been mentioned by SA itself. I am at work and would provide the links, but I am blocked out of the sights. You can find the information on Guns & Ammo's website, in a review by Patrick Sweeney, and I do believe SA mentions it in some of the press videos they released. If I remember correctly it is the video they have online that speaks about the safety features of the firearm. (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That is a good summation, I think. Subjectively, with the long takeup and then relatively crisp release (it was gritty when it was new, but it broke in quite nicely after a few thousand rounds), the feel of the XD's trigger reminds me of nothing so much as the Browning Hi-Power. The XD9/XD40/XD357 share a grip frame size, shape, and angle that likewise feel very reminiscent of the Hi-Power's, at least in my hands.

grip angle[edit]

"wrist is held such that a 1911 syle pistol would be pointed more towards the ground" Does this mean that the Glock grip is more perpendicular? --Gbleem 16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Glock pistols have the grip at a greater angle (19 degrees) than do 1911s (about 12 degrees). Holding a 1911 like a Glock would make the 1911 point downward. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Slide finish?[edit]

The article tells me that the slide is finished with something akin to Glock's finish, but a lot of other sites on the internet tell me that it's just plain blue steel. Are they talking about the older pre-2006 finish, or do we have a contradiction on our hands?Stevekl 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the XD-45's, and as of July of 2006, all new XD's in any caliber have the Melonite treatment/finish/coating/whatever. It's the same process that Glock's get, only Glock holds the rights to the Tenifer name so they have to call it something different. Any info you see on the web to the contrary is either incorrect or (most likely) outdated. 'Card 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That's great! Thanks for the quick information. The only thing holding me back from buying one was the talk of a blue steel slide. Stevekl 01:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Happy to help. Not sure where the "blue steel slide" references came from, but the XD was 'never' sold in a blued version as far as I know. Before they switched to Melonite, XD's were treated with a process called Burinal - which, to be honest, was pretty much crap. Some people didn't have any problems with it, but people who carry routinely with the XD against their skin had major rust problems. The Melonite though, is pretty much bombproof. 'Card 14:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The Melonite has a Rockwell C Hardness raiting somewhere close to 70. Which is really high, higher than most good quality metal files. (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
To be fully accurate, the Melonite/Tenifer finish is a cyanide-based nitrocarburizing process that imparts no particular color to the finished metal. Both are normally then blackened by a method chemically most similar to bluing, but to call the finish "matte blued" would be technically inaccurate and give the impression that the finish is less resistant to corrosion than it actually is.

.45 GAP XD[edit]

I have heard that Springfield Armory is no longer offering the XD in .45 GAP due to low sales. I cannot see it offered anywhere on the Springfield Armory page, however, several non-official sites for the XD still list it. Does anyone know for sure. I have fired an XD in .45 GAP and found it too be one of the most accurate pistols I have used. If the ammo was not so expensive, I would consider buying it. Seems a shame to quit making the pistol so soon after the release, before it could have shown promise and sales could have picked up.SAWGunner89 14:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason being is because .45 GAP is a dead/dying caliber. It was a niche caliber to begin with, but once large capacity .45 ACP polymer handguns became available, the avantage and point of the .45 GAP was all but completely lost. Glock 37 sales are low from what I understand, too. If you look at the .45 GAP page, there's not even one piece of criticism (in fact, a review by a firearm magazine that painted .45 GAP in a negative light is even made into a positive by stating that the ridiculously overloaded factory loads will be reduced), despite slumping sales and the discontinuation of models offering .45 GAP chamberings. --Sturmwehr 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The .45GAP is looking more and more like an experiment that never really took off. In all honesty, the only reason for it in the first place was to allow gunmakers to cater to the American love-affair with the .45-caliber, by developing a .45 cartridge that was short enough to work in the polymer-framed pistols without major frame changes. Now that all the major manufacturers are producing polymer-framed autos in .45ACP, there's really no reason for the .45GAP's existence. While there's nothing inherently wrong with it, I'd personally avoid buying one. Over the next few years you'd find ammo harder and harder to find. 'Card 05:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, one could argue that the GAP round fits into the same frame size as 9mm and .40 without any dimensional changes, and for some people with smaller hands, it may offer ergonomic advantages. The XD45's frame is noticeably larger than the XD9's, just as the Glock 21's frame is noticeably larger than the Glock 17's. The point is probably moot. They are now only available either new old stock or used, and the ammunition has always been much harder to find and much more expensive than .45 ACP.


  • Though some parts can be purchased through aftermarket suppliers, Springfield Armory refuses to sell some individual XD parts[citation needed]. Springfield Armory's position seems to be that with a lifetime warranty that includes repair work, parts sales are not necessary[citation needed]. Because owners cannot keep spare parts on hand, this policy of Springfield Armory essentially inserts a mandatory delay ranging from days to weeks between the gun breaking and the gun working again. This is a major stumbling block for shooters who are involved in competitive pistol activities, those who are using their XD on a daily basis, or those who may find themselves in a situation where continual, uninterrupted self-defense capability becomes very important (for example, during riots or a natural disaster with looting). Buying an identical second XD for the purpose of serving as a complete spare part set is one answer, but this approach is expensive. Some have reported that Springfield Armory will sell parts upon calling their customer service division, though the parts offered for sale are limited to user serviceable components[citation needed].

This seems more like just another person's rant than anything else. Unfortunately I don't know of a really good way to phrase it so that it sounds professional.

Any Ideas? ProtektYaNeck (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that paragraph myself when I put together the original version of this article. I think a few editors have tweaked it since then, but it's still largely the same as it was when I wrote it. I agree with you that it comes across as being non-neutral, and I really struggled with that when I wrote it. The problem is that Springfield's refusal to sell individual parts is unique among gunsellers as far as I know, and it creates a real, genuine, persistent problem for some owners - especially competitive shooters. For those two reasons (real problem for owners, unique policy among gunmakers) I felt then (and still do now) that it's an important thing to include in the article. Anyone considering buying an XD really needs to know about that policy, and Springfield isn't going to tell you about it before you put your money down. So the trick becomes... how do you say that in the article without it sounding like you're blasting Springfield? I don't know. What you see is the best I could come up with at the time. If someone else wants to take a shot at a more neutral (but equally informative) version of the paragraph, I'm all for it. Ken Thomas (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. It is addressed in the correct section and contains relevant information. It just sounds like you were venting. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
One wonders if the people from Springfield Inc. read this article or the discussion page to begin with.

Springfield XDM[edit]

Are there any reputable online sources on the Springfield XDM? I know several magazines currently have articles about it, but I can't seem to find anything online. GRIMDARK Thinker (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC) - Official Website of the XDM.
The End is Near for All 06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by K30 (talkcontribs)

For the record, ya'll know the Blacktail of RE4 is this gun, right? I just felt that should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Who cares, and no. — DP5 03:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Springfield Armory XDHS2000 — The Springfield XD is just a brand name change for the American market. The real name of the pistol is HS2000. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OpposeNeutral on WP:COMMONNAME basis. "Armory XD" - wiki" 6,510 hits[1], "HS2000" - wiki: 1,990 hits[2]. Certainly flexible if it is shown that HS2000 is the prominent international choice.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
It is. See The XD is the name only while it's being sold in the U.S. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Would a rename to HS2000/Springfield XD be more appropriate?--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Certainly far more appropriate than the current name. However, the Grand Power K100 (sold in the U.S. as the STI GP6) and the Tanfoglio T95 (sold in the U.S. as the EAA Witness) are both listed exclusively (on Wikipedia) under their proper international names with a note about their U.S. names within the first few lines. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Springfield is only a licensed producer, not the originator. It is not a Springfield design. (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Springfield isn't even producing the pistols though. It's even more blatant. They're importing them, putting some logos on them, and selling them. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Springfield Armory - producer vs. importer?[edit]

I was previously under the impression that Springfield had licensed the design from HS, but was manufacturing the XDs domestically; I realize this may be incorrect. However, the citation saying that the XDs are manufactured in Croatia and imported by Springfield is a dead link. Can someone find an updated reference for this? -Zachcoggin (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I know the most recent examples I have seen still say made in Croatia on them, but I'll look around. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Seal Beach shooting[edit]

This may have been one of the weapons used in the 2011 Seal Beach shooting, but the sourcing is unclear.[3]. Is this gun described as a 9-millimeter Springfield?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that would not be worth noting in the article anyway, at this point. ROG5728 (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HS2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)