Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled "Springfield Armory XD 5" Tactical 9mm Review" and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/springfield-armory-xd-5-tactical-9mm-review/.
Springfield Armory XD 5" Tactical 9mm Review
- Thread starter Mike H.
- Start date
A nicely written review - here's bit of constructive criticism.....
The author listed a number of advantages of a longer barrel pistol -
Let's say that the second portion of the last is a bit too involved to test and show - I think that's a perfectly reasonable compromise, and am willing to let it go without data (although there's always been a debate in the community as to whether higher velocity actually guarantees better terminal performance - most recognize that it is virtually impossible to guaranty exactly what that additional velocity will do), as this is after all just a 6-minute quick-read review, and not a comprehensive examination of the gun. Besides, the author nicely charted some velocity data that does back up his assertions.
Why is there no split-time data to compare recoil mitigation? Given that velocity and accuracy (more on this in a second) data was obtained first-hand, why was this not objectively reviewed, particularly given that this was repeatedly asserted in the body text?
And in terms of "less muzzle flash and noise," again, I get that the latter is a bit more involved to actually data log, but the former certainly should -NOT- have been highlighted by this very picture, taken from the review itself:
While that picture certainly is a very cool snap, it really doesn't sell the review, does it?
Perhaps my biggest disappointment came in terms of the "improved accuracy and precision" claim. I was especially disappointed to see that this part of the testing was done at only 7 yards, and what's more, that at that distance, the performance was far from impressive.
We know from Tim Herron's excellent 7-yards-for-25-yards test that for a shooter to be able to print a 2.5 to 3-inch group at the 25 yard line, he or she really needs to be able to print that "one ragged hole" group (appx. 3/4-inch) at the 7 -
www.unitedgungroup.com
^ and in video format -
OK, I know - I'm gonna get some good-natured ribbin' from my friends here who would say that I should look at the title of the thread/review, and remember that this is a "tactical" weapon, ostensibly for duty/defense and not geared for bullseye shooting. But let's remember that Larry Vickers' accuracy standard for handgun is 5-inches at 25 yards:
- which, in-actuality, is very doable for most proficient shooters. With the data logged in this review, I really don't see how this was in any way favorable.....
And really, bullseye shooting isn't realistic? What if your opponent wanted to bring back the gentleman's game of dueling?
The author listed a number of advantages of a longer barrel pistol -
Springfield Armory XD 5" Tactical 9MM Review said:
Let's say that the second portion of the last is a bit too involved to test and show - I think that's a perfectly reasonable compromise, and am willing to let it go without data (although there's always been a debate in the community as to whether higher velocity actually guarantees better terminal performance - most recognize that it is virtually impossible to guaranty exactly what that additional velocity will do), as this is after all just a 6-minute quick-read review, and not a comprehensive examination of the gun. Besides, the author nicely charted some velocity data that does back up his assertions.
Why is there no split-time data to compare recoil mitigation? Given that velocity and accuracy (more on this in a second) data was obtained first-hand, why was this not objectively reviewed, particularly given that this was repeatedly asserted in the body text?
And in terms of "less muzzle flash and noise," again, I get that the latter is a bit more involved to actually data log, but the former certainly should -NOT- have been highlighted by this very picture, taken from the review itself:
While that picture certainly is a very cool snap, it really doesn't sell the review, does it?
Perhaps my biggest disappointment came in terms of the "improved accuracy and precision" claim. I was especially disappointed to see that this part of the testing was done at only 7 yards, and what's more, that at that distance, the performance was far from impressive.
We know from Tim Herron's excellent 7-yards-for-25-yards test that for a shooter to be able to print a 2.5 to 3-inch group at the 25 yard line, he or she really needs to be able to print that "one ragged hole" group (appx. 3/4-inch) at the 7 -
Tim Herron's shooting tip. - UnitedGunGroup
One of our goals is to bring to light great shooting tips, and our friend Tim Herron had a moment of brilliance. From Tim’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TimHerronShooting/?fref=nf I did a little bit of experimenting yesterday evening as the question of the day was asked...
www.unitedgungroup.com
^ and in video format -
OK, I know - I'm gonna get some good-natured ribbin' from my friends here who would say that I should look at the title of the thread/review, and remember that this is a "tactical" weapon, ostensibly for duty/defense and not geared for bullseye shooting. But let's remember that Larry Vickers' accuracy standard for handgun is 5-inches at 25 yards:
Accuracy
Accuracy As anyone who has taken one of my classes can attest, m y classes always stress a high degree of accuracy. That is because in a gunfight accuracy will almost always suffer. There are...
www.vickerstactical.com
- which, in-actuality, is very doable for most proficient shooters. With the data logged in this review, I really don't see how this was in any way favorable.....
And really, bullseye shooting isn't realistic? What if your opponent wanted to bring back the gentleman's game of dueling?
