# TACTICAL TERRORIZER: Springfield XD Pistols



## Spr.Earl (4 Dec 2004)

judge for your self.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_XD,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2004)

Although it is a nice piece of kit, I think pistol design is well past the point of diminishing returns with .45 and 9mm ammunition.

If we do need a pistol or personal defence weapon (PDW), we should be looking at something very out of the box, either different ammunition (FN 5-7 pistol http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg18-e.htm and P90 SMG http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm), or different "actions" like the Metalstorm weapons (http://www.metalstorm.com/). For that matter, if you are engaged at short range, there is nothing like a sawed off 12 gage to even things out (a militarized, purpose built one, of course).


----------



## Kal (5 Dec 2004)

I would beg to differ, the 5.7mm round is great fore penetrating body armour the bullet itself is too small to effective put down an enemy.  That's why the new U.S. Marine MEU pistol is chambered in .45, why the army sf uses .45 and the numerous municiple and federal SWAT/ERT teams use it.  A big, heavy bullet that travels slowers transfers more energy (stopping power) into the target.  Besides, in Iraq, Afgahistan anf other poor country, when is one going to see the enemy in modern bosy armour?  That XD has the grip of a H&K USP and the receiver of a glock. What a knock-off.....


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2004)

I was mostly commenting that there reallly is little difference between the various .45 and 9mm pistols on the market. A Glock .45 or a Taurus .45 will do pretty much the same job, lots of money is being spent for very little gain in performance.

The 5-7 and PW-90 family of weapons uses a different approach, if I was to choose I would say dump the pistol and go for the PW-90. The Metalstorm weapons can be programmed to unleash a hail of fire (almost like a hand-held claymore mine), while a sawed off 12 gage does the same thing without the electronic bells and whistles.


----------



## Kal (6 Dec 2004)

Sorry Majoor, I got confused in the translation.  Yes, a more formidable should be available to soldiers while doing VCP's or some clearing, seeing as using just a 9mm pistol would be a poor comprimise.  A shotgun is a great tool, but can't control where all those bb's are going to go though.  As to the metalstorm system, I'm just wondering how fast reloads would be and how they would be even done, let alone the firing mech may just be too complex for a secondary weapon.  Tell me though, what is it about the 5.7mm round that interests you so much?  For tight urban ops, Vcp's and other types of guards work I would much rather have a C8 CQB or a MP5/UMP in .45.......


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2004)

Good questions, so here goes:

A PW 90 is a submachine gun with a 50 rd magazine and the ability to hit and penetrate targets at ranges up to 200m. This covers a lot of potential situations from shooting through cars at a VCP gone wrong, engaging targets beyond pistol range and even "spray and pray" on full auto (counter ambush). The 5-7 pistol is mostly a marketing tool by FN, since it has all of the limitations of any pistol, and none of the virtues of the PW-90 except for penetrating body armour.

Metalstorm weapons have very simple mechanisms, so questions about cyclic rates and jamming become largely irrelevant. Loading is a good question, since the barrel is also the ammunition magazine and the firing mechanism. A simple weapon would probably break open like a shotgun, and the user extracts the old barrel and inserts the new one. The pistol shown on the Metalstorm site has four barrels, so there would be a square "cassette" with four preloaded barrels for the shooter. How this would work with an assault rifle class weapon is anyone's guess.

Shotguns can fire different types of ammunition, in the military context only "deer slugs", Hatton rounds (for blasting off door hinges) and 00 Magnum shot would be considered. Shotguns are simple and well known, and I only include them to demonstrate the alternatives.


----------



## Kal (7 Dec 2004)

Thanks for the info, Majoor.  I am familiar with the history and design of the 5.7mm round and the P90.  I first read about it is a firearms magazine about 7 years ago.  The British government necked down a 10mm casing to 5.7mm and they called it the .224 BOZ.  They did this after examing the lack of firepower and moreso the enability of American police officers bullets being able to penetrate the body armour worn by the criminals in the famous L.A./Hollywood bank robbery.  

What I may still concerned about though is the mass of the projectile itself.  The mass of the bullet of the FN round is only 31 grams.....  Yes, it does penetrate body armour, but I don't believe it has enough mass to create a large enough wound cavity.  A range of 200 metres for a SMG is excellent, but what is the effective range?  Maybe 50 meters?  Also does the little bullet even create enough stopping power to drop a combatant at that range?  Little bullet, travels fast, good penetration.  Big bullet, travels slowers, tranfers that energy better into the target.  A .45 may not pierce armour but will drop someone.  Think about it, a .45 +p round with a 230gr hollowpoint traveling 1000 fps, or a 31gr fmj round that travels 2200 fps.  Which would you rather not get hit by?  The range of the .45 is about 50 metres, the 5.7mm 200, but which round carries enough mass and energy into the target to effectively stop it?  Let's make another example, a 5.56mm 62gr bullet travelling say 2500 meters, or a 12 gauge shotgun with a 1 1/4oz slug travelling 1300, which has more stopping power? Slug.  Better range?  5.56mm.  

What we also need to understand is the biological reaction the body has when being hit and penetrated by a bullet.  It's been shown a slower movie round with cause greater shock on the nervous system because the body can 'feel' the round better.  In Afghanistan, the U.S. Rangers would having to shoot combatants in of excess of 5 times the 5.56mm round.  The bullet itself is simply not large enough to effectively down someone.  Thats why rounds such as the 6.8mm SPC and 6.5mm Grendal have entered the spotlight in the SF community.  In the case of the 6.8mm the bullet is 115gr, twice the size of the 5.56mm.  It was reported with great success this round was, too.  

Sorry, for getting somewhat off topic.  I would appreciate to hear what you, Majoor, or anyone has to say about this.  I look forward to the resposnses....


----------



## Kal (7 Dec 2004)

The Afghanistan story wasnt with all shooting cases, just some of the documented cases of the ineffective 5.56mm round.  I apologize for any misunderstanding.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2004)

FN claims the PW 90 can effectively engage targets at ranges up to 200m, which would imply enough energy in the round to penetrate a helmet or body armour. After that, I would expect the dispersion would be so great as to preclude an accurate shot, but being winged by a PW 90 bullet will probably still put you down at 300m (even if you are not killed).

While I don't claim to be an expert in terminal ballistics, I will say the reasoning behind small calibre rounds like 5.56X45 and the 5.56 X22 FN round is they deliver their kinetic energy by tumbling inside the target. In fact, a person who is not wearing body armour might be better off, since there is not the initial layers of Kevlar to start the bullet tumbling before it hits the body. On the other hand, if the round strikes bone, it will tumble and create a fearsome internal wound channel. (This info was shown to me once by a military doctor I was training on a MITSIP course).

The real answer is there is no "ideal" round. We can go to ridiculous extremes like .50 cal pistols for total "knock down" power, or pistol class weapons firing flechettes at 2000m/sec which can pierce body armour at long range. The 5-7 and PW 90 are compromises optimised so the soldier can have a weapon with range and  penetration in a reasonably sized package.


----------



## Kal (8 Dec 2004)

I know what you're saying Majoor.  I would contest though and say the main reason the 5.7mm round was developed was to have a pistol and/or smg with a round capable of piercing body armour.  In doing so though, they had a round, I believe, that wound penetrate armour, but anything after that nothing else really...  If you were to shoot them in the 'body T' then I believe the round would put them down, but if a round went centre mass, I don't believe the performance of the round would be that appealling.  If it were the case that was round was able to pierce armour and was still able to effectively down an individual then we would be seeing this caliber used considerably more than it is now.  

When FN says the round is effective to 200 metres, I believe what they mean is the round well penetrate military body armour at this range.  If it was able to drop someone too at this range, then you would see many more militaries and special police units adopting this round.  In the 15 years this round has lived only a handful of countries use it, and when the elite choose a new weapon it is always a larger caliber, for pistols at least...  The only reason why a unit like the SAS, JTF2 or SEALS would use the 9mm round is that because they are trained to shot the enemy in the head.

Thanks for your opinion though, Majoor, it is appreciated, but I don't believe the 5.7mm round is really that effecting for wounding an individual.  If you have any info that might change my mind please share it, it would be quite interesting.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2004)

Thinking about this thread has raised a different question; do we need pistols at all? While employed in the D&S platoon in Banja Luka, I wore a pistol on duty as a symbol of my rank and authority, but I was convinced by my troops that the pistol would be better employed on the actual gate, since it could be brought into action at close quarters (when next to a car) far more quickly than a rifle. This being said, a pistol has only limited effectiveness in this situation, since most of the bullet's energy would be expended in penetrating the car. (The "powers that be" did not agree with the reasoning).

So, what is the pistol for? Is it to indicate rank and authority? This could be done with a brassard or a different hat, and has the disadvantage of marking an individual as different, which would lead an enemy to target that person. Is the pistol for CQB and personal protection? In that case, it is of only marginal effectiveness (please, no .45 ACP vs 9mm replies) mostly due to the ergonomic issues (i.e. holding, aiming and firing).

If we are to agree that a pistol is the current thing for CQB and personal protection, then we can look to discarding the pistol in favor of a weapon that is compact, has a lot of firepower, and is fairly easy to use. If we don't want to change the supply system, then a C-8 with the stock collapsed would be ideal, since everything from ammunition to training stays the same. Next in line would be conventional SMG's like the HK MP-5 family. If we want to play around with terminal effects, then a militarized 12 gage shotgun is in order. Exotic weapons like the PW-90 or Metalstorm can be considered, since they offer a of of features which other weapons do not, but the changes to the supply system also have to be considered as well. Is the advantage great enough to offset the addition of special ammunition natures?

Historical analogies would suggest the answer right now is NO. The Enfield EM-2 pioneered the western use of "assault rifles" in the 1950s with the ".280 Ideal" cartridge, but since America was organizing and QMing NATO with millions of surplus .380 Winchester (7.62 X 51) rounds, the .280 fell by the wayside. Similarly, there is a consensus the ideal LMG round is actually 6.5 X 45, but we don't see too many of those, it is more practical for the section weapons to share the same ammo.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Dec 2004)

I wonder if you ever crawled through a hold of a ship a_majoor? We carry MP5s and Remington 870s as well and even they with butt retracted or folded are still too big to carry into such tight and cramped quarters. I think there will always be a need for a pistol.


----------



## Kal (14 Dec 2004)

I would be inclined to agree with ex-dragoon.  The pistol is a great tool and the idea shouldn't be scraped.  I don't believe in equipping a pistol as a primary weapon for soldiers, but as a secondary weapon.  I have a feeling that dragoon has some experience with CQB tactics and fighting and would probably agree with my next statement.  If I were engaging the enemy in tight confinements such as a ship or even normal urban environments, if I were to empty my magazine I wouldn't drop the empty and grab for a fresh one and continue with my IA drills for my primary weapon, but would draw my seconday weapon and keep firing.  That's why I believe the pistol should be issued as a secondary weapon.  In urban or tight cqb fighting, I can switch from my primary weapon (rifle) to my secondary weapon (pistol) and re-engage faster rather than conducting my IA drills for my rifle then re-engaging.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2004)

During my pre-training for ROTO, we did CQB and Urban Ops, and I was not issued a secondary weapon. Assaulting buildings using full length C-7 and C-9s (as well as hauling the C-6 in to make strong points) certainly is enough to convince anyone who tries it that more compact weapons are indeed needed. In the conventional Infantry, pistols are often used to denote rank and authority rather than as a practical weapon (see the situations alluded to as part of the Guard Platoon in Banja Luka). 

On the other hand, I have not boarded a ship, and there are certainly other situations where pistols make sense. In general, and for the army in particular, I will still lean towards the "pistols if necessary, but not necessarily pistols" argument.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Dec 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I wonder if you ever crawled through a hold of a ship a_majoor? We carry MP5s and Remington 870s as well and even they with butt retracted or folded are still too big to carry into such tight and cramped quarters. I think there will always be a need for a pistol.


I'll stand by you on that one Ex.


----------



## McAllister (17 Dec 2004)

I only hear good things about the XD. Handgun of the Year (2003) by the National Rifle Association, American Rifleman's Handgun Of The Year (2003)... Can't argue with the brand name either. Plus they make em' as mentoined in .45 GAP now but that ammo is hard to get a hold of.


----------



## M16 (20 Dec 2004)

The XD is pretty much tied with Glock.  Then XD is one of the top handguns.  When did they start making them in .45 GAP?  Last time I checked they were only in 9mm and .40 SW.


----------



## Kal (21 Dec 2004)

Getting awards is all well and good and can sometimes tell something about a product.  I'll wait and see what federal agencies and police forces choose this pistol.  From what I have seen, 'hybrid' firearms never usually have great success.  Why buy a Sig look-a-like that preforms like a Sig, or a glock clone that shoots somewhat like a glock?  Why not just buy the tried and trued, proven weapon?


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Dec 2004)

Kal said:
			
		

> Why not just buy the tried and trued, proven weapon?


It's called compition and business.


----------



## Kal (22 Dec 2004)

I can understand why they made it, seems like every major manufacturer has their own 'plastic' pistol now, if they didn't would be losing possible orders to other companies.  Their 'new' pistol, sure looks like a glock though, seems to function somewhat like a glock too.  I'm just saying, as a customer, why wouldn't I just buy the proven product.  Sure, Springfield decided to 'copy' a fantastic weapon and they produce some of the best 1911's on the market, but I don't know why they would design their new weapon to look like another.  I could maybe understand if their pistol performed better than a glock, but then, why have the two look almost identical.......


----------



## McAllister (7 Jan 2005)

The grip is a lot different from the glock. different feel.


----------



## Kal (7 Jan 2005)

Yeah, the grip does look different from a glock, actually, looks like a USP grip......  Now, I've never held or shot the XD, so it would be interesting to see how that pans outs.  I can say though, the glock sits in my hand very well, and has great balance and even better natural pointing for instinctive shooting.  The USP takes a bit more getting used to, the slide seems a bit heavy than the frame and, for me at least, is a bit more awkward.  However, the sights do fall into place nicely and when gotten used to, feels, for lack of a better term, more aggressive.  As i said earlier, would like to see/feel how the grip and slide combo works out.  Still a fan of the 1911, though...


----------



## McAllister (7 Jan 2005)

I like the glock too. The G21's grip is a little to fat for my grip but the .45 GAP glock is supposed to be only slightly larger than the G17. Hard to find though. I heard the glock can shoot underwater at depths up to 20 metres. Thats pretty cool but doesnt do many people much good except for maybe clearance divers or frogmen.

Can a Canadian soldier in a combat zone or peacekeeping deployment carry a sidearm of his choice?


----------



## Kal (7 Jan 2005)

Glocks are remarkably engineered and reliable weapons.  I've heard the same about the underwater thing, also about freezing them for a couple weeks, then chipping the ice off them and they still operate, there's a few stories circulating on their performance.  As to bringing you're own sidearm, I am very confident the answer is no.  Perhaps some individuals more educated on that subject could further elaborate.  I heard of American soldiers while it Vietnam being able to, but I highly doubt that's the case today.


----------

