Fun shop trip!

Yeeps, but it's been a while since I've been able to do the fun shop thing.  Got a chance to spend a short bit of time in the Sportsman's Warehouse in Soldotna, with the family up in town for a geocaching picnic...and on the whole, what I saw was pretty encouraging.

First and foremost, there was .22 ammo.  Both the sales guys seemed to confirm that it wasn't just an illusion, but a real sense of palpable relief and recovery from The Extended Stoopid of the last too many freakin' years.  Prices haven't quite dropped to what they were before, but that could mostly be explained by inflation, and hell, it was there!  Bricks too, although packaging is just different than it used to be, when a brick was a brick was 500 rounds on the nose, in ten 50-round boxes.  Today, I saw packaging in 200, 300, 400, and 1400 round quantities, at rational if not entirely reasonable prices:  okay, I'll take it.

Primers were available too, by the thousand, and simply priced a little higher than I'd think appropriate.  Component bullets much more available, and ammo in general looked healthy all around.  There were even a few boxes of 16-gauge shotshells, although nothing in the buck and slug formats.

Okay, so recovery is arriving, in a location which is usually last to see the national trends.  Long may it ride.

In guns, I was happy to get a chance to meet my first .45 caliber S&W Shield.  Very nice piece;  precious little larger than the .40, and boasting a 6+1 capacity flush mag (to the XD-S's 5+1 flush mag) that was luxuriously comfortable in the hand.  Today, the trigger on the Shield was much superior to the trigger on the XD-S, but I've seen enough examples of each to know that either could come either way--so I should shop around, when the time comes.  

And boy, I do like both guns.  I seem to be warming to the Shield more and more with time, but I've not lost any fervor for the XD-S either.  In an ideal world I'd have copies of each, and would see which one would prove more likely to get the call in true daily use.  :-)

They had a CZ 527 as well, in 7.62x39;  still love everything about that rifle but the stinkin' backward safety.  (Ergonomics, people!)  Of interest, that 527 also comes chambered in 6.5 Grendel now, for those who like that format.  (Every ten years or so, I go through a mental exercise that explores the viability of nonstandard cartridges, such as the Grendel, or the .35 Whelen, etc.--and after a delightful bout of number crunching, every time I seem to (re-)conclude that yes, some of these rounds do seem to offer something over their standard-fare stablemates...but the advantage is so slight, and specialized, that overall it doesn't seem to be worth the effort unless one has money to burn and simply wants to do it because he can.  I can support that idea fully of course, but honestly, there is not a whole lot that a .35-caliber 250 at 2400 is going to do, that a .308-caliber 220 or 240 cannot.  Keep the '06, load up the heavies when called for, and otherwise rejoice in the extra choice and occasional surplus quantities of the standard round.)

Took another look at the .22 rimfire Ruger American rifle.   I'd forgotten that I liked this the first time I saw one, and here again today I was pretty impressed with it as a platform.  The safety in particular (tang) seems to be well designed, and I think it looks like a good entry for a quality .22 trainer.  Will cogitate on that one further.

Finally, in addition to the Shield, I wanted to re-acquaint myself with the M&P service pistol's ergonomics;  in that regard I got to see one of the "2.0" designs, and was impressed.  I am not a fan of double-stack designs, but they are pretty ubiquitous, and this one is one of the very most comfortable I have ever run across.    The 2.0 in particular also had the manual safety on it and man, it felt very, very natural, positive and comfortable.  So, I think that by now I can conclude that the M&P platform is going to be the right choice to go to, to build an across-the-board stable of guns to work with for all sorts of training.  By which I mean, it would be fantastic if I could use, in the same holster for the 9mm/40S&W sized pistol, all of the following:

• Airsoft M&P model with blowback
• BB M&P model with blowback
• M&P .22 rimfire model
• M&P 9mm or .40 model

Similarly, in an open-bottom holster rig designed for the .45-caliber M&P, I could envision:

• Rifled pellet M&P45 airgun
• .45ACP M&P45 pistol
• .460 Rowland conversion on M&P45 pistol

I do wish the airgun and Airsoft world would get on board with more slim-line pistol options such as the ASG Bersa BP9CC--by which I mean S&W Shield or SA XD-S, of course--but for now the best option is to go with 1911s in full size and the Bersa in compact...we'll see.

And finally, I did note that they didn't have any Benjamin Discovery airguns any more--but there were a lot more Gamo-Eff-Pee-Ess options for the credulous.  What a shame!  That Discovery was, is, pure genius, and I still need to acquire a few to put ideas into play.

Anyway, wanted to record a few notes--a pleasant discovery that things seem to be looking better for the nonce.  Yes, more of that, please!

Another fun shop installment.

Worked a fun shop visit in to our business today, and wanted to document a few observations.

Mossberg MVP boltgun

This one wasn't the "scout" model that I still hope to meet some day, but it was the same turnbolt action on which the "scout" model is based, and I'm happy to have learned what I did.  As expected, extraction is (very small) sliding-plate and ejection is boltface plunger, so boo, but other than that, it was actually pretty nice.  Loading/ejection port access is actually not as restrictive as I would have guessed, even with the Weaver rail straddling the receiver rings.  Bolt operated smoothly, with a convenient bolt stop and friendly cocking effort.  The safety was ergonomic and pleasantly positive;  I'd prefer that it lock the bolt as well as prevent discharge, but that seems a minor point.  I'm not a fan of "open" rear sights on rifles, but this one was well-done, and hey, kudos that the rifle has them at all, in an age that seems to automatically presume conventionally mounted moonscopes. 

I'm happy to say that the trigger is no joke.  No, it's not a Savage Accu-Trigger, much less a Mannlicher Scout or Blaser R93 trigger, but it's good enough that you'll not need to improve it.  Presuming the rifle runs reliably and durably, it seems like a reasonable platform, and I look forward to seeing the "scout" trim, both the glassed and glassless models.

Mossberg 464 levergun

Now having met this piece in person, it seems to be just exactly what I figured it might be, and I think I may need to add one to my stable some day.  It feels just a hair long with the fancy flash hider, but it balances like a '94 levergun, which is always a win.  I'm happy to say that the fore-end is slimmer than I was fearing, and the rail segments seem to be integral with the fore-end composite.  Presumably they can be either replaced with a separate fore-end, or simply cut off, if like me you prefer keeping things as compact as possible.  (I might keep the bottom one for a sling attachment point, although it does seem rather grandiose for that simple purpose....)

The tang safety works, and is a welcome addition to a levergun which is to serve "serious social purposes" as well as traditional hunting ones.  (I could tolerate Condition Zero in an urban levergun if necessary, but would prefer Condition One if I could get it.  The tang safety makes that possible.)  The sights are excellent, but again as on the bolt, why bother with an "open" rear sight when the 464's receiver has a beautifully placed rearward ring in just the right place for a compact ghost-ring aperture?  I simply do not understand why anyone would prefer open sights to an aperture:  the latter is superior in every way that matters.  (And then, of course, the top of the fore-end could get its own rail space for forward mounting of "scout" glass or dot sights.)

The buttstock is exactly what it should be, and the quick adjustments are very nice to have.  An excellent feature for working with noobs, especially the smaller-statured.  Action seems smooth enough, and presuming it runs--it's a '94, and should work well.

The trigger...is rough.  Nearly painful, actually.  Consider all the bad press you've heard about levergun triggers before;  that's because of triggers like this one.  Okay, so it needs work. Theoretically, with a '94 action, gunsmiths should know how to do that--and the effort would be worth it.  With a crisp trigger in the 3-4 pound range, this seems a seriously useful rifle.  As a 6+1 in .30/30, it really is a full-blown rifle, limited mostly by the range limitations of iron sights, not horsepower.  I still think it would also be worth offering as an intentional carbine, chambered in .45 Colt, .44 Magnum, or even .357 Magnum, with a 9- or 10-round capacity.  Again, within the limitations of iron sights, these revolver rounds have surprising reach, and more thump than I'd have guessed.  And if we ever sort out The Great And Pointless Rimfire Shortage, there is the idea of this levergun as a 14-round .22...

Browning 1911-22 pistol

Wanted to check this fit in the 6yo's hand today.  Glad I did.  She can get a good grip, with thumb on safety and no H-gripping, and the pad of her trigger finger is within a quarter-inch of right on.  Essentially, she's ready, ergonomically.  She's also strong enough to rack the slide, properly.  Squee!

Great.  Now I just need to get the whole "earn a living" problem sorted out, and find some .22 ammo, and add this lovely little piece to the stable.  

Ruger LCP pistol

6yo very sweetly requested to see an LCP accoutered in pink camo, and an LC9 in solid purple.  Very well then!  She learned a little about ergonomics when she tried to rack the wee slide on the LCP, against the DAO hammer, but this gun fit her hand nicely if she consciously took a high grip.

The LCP seems okay.  .380 doesn't thrill me, but with the right ammo and the right attitude, I'd sure use one over throwing rocks.  It doesn't seem that much smaller, to me, than the Diamondback DB9, which I still see here and there, and I'd take the DB9 in a heartbeat for the pocket gun role.

Ruger LC9 pistol

I was a little less impressed with the LC9.  In 6yo's hand, trigger reach was much too far, and sizewise, the piece seems right in there with the Kimber Solo, DB9, Kahr, G43, etc., designs, all of which have better ergonomics.  Well, now I know!  :-)

Kimber Solo pistol

Dang if I don't continue to like this little pistol, even though I've heard some unflattering things about it here and there--that I haven't fully vetted one way or the other.  Trigger, at least on this sample, was really excellent, with a somewhat long but positive reset, and despite the diminutive size, controls and ergonomics are very nice.  Sights are excellent.  The manual safety design in particular seems outstanding, and perfectly intuitive to 1911 aficionados.  It seems to be right on the cusp between true "pocket pistol" (such as DB9, DB380, LCP, etc.) and "subcompact" (such as Kahrs, G43, S&W Shield, etc.) and with a lightweight frame, would become my instant first choice in a 9mm pistol.  (It's not exactly heavy, even with a steel frame, but its weight does exclude it from the sub-one-pound class.  Suffice it to say that if I were to choose a 9mm based on weight and size alone, it would be the DB9, and if I were to choose the best shooting subcompact--suitably small but still requiring a holster for support--I'd probably go to the Solo.)

Kimber Micro 380 pistol

This was unexpected.  Got to see Kimber's mini-1911 in .380 ACP;  more than anything it seems to be exactly the sort of update to the Colt Mustang that I always hoped for before the Browning 1911-22 and 1911-380 came along.  It's small.  It's 1911ish, but with pivoting trigger, slightly different safety lever, and the full-on Kimber treatment.  Looks promising in many ways, but again, .380 does not thrill me, and there is now the 1911-380, which may be the superior choice for most uses.  

Will keep an eye out, and look again as .380 options become more immediate for up-and-coming kids.  :-)

S&W Shield pistol

The "what mood will Shield be in today?" effect continues.  I continue to like the general ergonomics, and the price point is actually pretty compelling too.  But today, this one's trigger had horrible backlash and a mushy, very un-positive reset.  Hm.

Still, I like the piece in general.  The safety still works every time, despite its diminutive appearance.  Grip comfort is conspicuous.  It has a reputation for running without fuss.

S&W M&P pistol

I wanted to renew my acquaintance with a standard M&P pistol frame, mostly because I am intending to go this route with airguns.  (A separate topic for another post;  suffice it to say that I needed a core design among the polymer-framed, striker-fired, doublestack guns to go with, and the S&W is getting the nod based on several factors, including ubiquity of models across the spectrum of pellet guns, BB guns, and Airsoft guns of multiple powerplants.)

After a few minutes in the hands, I think it's the right choice.  The M&P frame is pretty comfortable, for a double-stack, and otherwise ergonomics are plenty good enough.  Trigger on this one was surprisingly good;  perhaps a bit heavier than ideal, but with a very nice, positive reset, and without the noticeable backlash problem of the Shield.  

I'll be posting more about M&Ps as the airgunnery experiment unfolds.  Given that I don't like doublestack designs as a rule--on simple account that they feel like two-by-fours in the hand--M&P is definitely one of the friendlier ones.

Springfield Armory XD-S pistol

Picked up one of these again, just to compare it on the same day with Shield.  Glad I did, too:  it confirmed that I really like this pistol.  Ergonomics suggest a much bigger gun, but XD-S is slim and compact.  This one's trigger was crisp (for a striker gun), reasonably light, and with a notably positive, short reset.  I still think that the XD-S "4.0" is the logical heir to the Colt Lightweight Commander, for the working man's general purpose pistol.  Now having seen probably a dozen examples each of XD-S and Shield, I think I'd always opt for XD-S first, for my own purposes.

Colt Commander CO2 BB pistol

Saw this in blister pack on the way out of the gun section.  I hadn't come to look at airguns today, but it caught my eye, and I'm considering this piece as a possible training/education tool anyway.  It's a reasonably faithful 1911 reproduction, powered by a CO2 12-gram cartridge contained in the detachable magazine (which also houses the BBs), and is developing a decent reputation for accuracy ("accuracy" being something you have to adjust your thinking to, with smoothbore round-ball shooters like 'BB guns' and Airsoft guns).  The gun does "blowback" on firing, which is good in a trainer to disrupt your sight picture, and in general the manual of arms is nearly straight 1911 firearm.  It's really only missing a ducktail grip safety among the most common updates, and with the minimal blowback of a CO2 BB pistol, I suspect it won't be the problem it is with a .45 ACP anyway.

So there it was, and I took a second to look at it.  It is indeed "full metal", as weighty as a steel 1911, with good sights, functional safety, and in general looks well-built.  I look forward to trying one out, especially with some of the new low-ricochet plated BBs that have become available.  

Until next time, then.  Much cogitation to do.  :-)

Well dang, if that ain't comfy.

And by "that", I mean this:

Never mind the nearly full-tactard amusement of the website's marketing (just because they seem to take themselves way too seriously doesn't mean they don't have some good stuff);  I have been meaning to try out this variation on the holster-shirt idea for a while, and boy, am I glad I did.  (I still have a couple of Greg Kramer's first-generation holster shirts, which are still technically holding together, but which are no longer...ideal.)

The one thing it ain't is fast, but it's not really meant to be, either.  This is not a rig for speed, but rather for the First Rule of Gunfighting*--and for that, it's pretty choice.  Thus far I am impressed.

The holster pockets themselves are cavernous--you could probably fit a 4" N-frame in there if you really wanted to--and the "built-in harness" does seem to distribute weight very effectively.  I suspect there is a practical upper limit on weight, but it's going to be much, much more forgiving than what I have used before.   (And I, for one, am not going to be toting heavy iron this way anyway.)

Interestingly, once the piece is in there, it sits more forward of the body's fore-aft midline than I was expecting--but it didn't seem to negatively affect either concealment or comfort.  (The Kramer design put the gun directly on the midline, below the armpit.)  And, somewhat to my surprise, the pocket completely closes over both a Centennial J and a Kahr CW40.  The hand can still snake in there, defeat the two little Velcro patches, and obtain a proper fistful of Oh No You Don't in pretty short order, but until then it is actually completely covered.  I rather like this idea, actually;  I see this both as a true deep-cover garment and something for athletic movement.  (It's intended to be reasonably tight-fitting, and should work well in that latter regard.)

I'm really pleased as well at how well the Kahr carried, compared to the J.  You don't really notice the slightly greater weight and butt length (unlike on the Kramer), and the pistol's flat profile is quite nice against the body.  With this rig, there will not be a need to carry the revolver because the pistol won't hide well enough, and I'll always choose the slick-handling Kahr over the snubby if given the choice. This is additionally encouraging for those moments when the full Bat-Belt either just doesn't make sense (e.g., kayaking, rock climbing, tumbling or sports, etc.), or for when it is simply inconvenient or non-ideal (e.g., shopping for pants, long drives, cycling, etc.).

Testing will continue, but at least for a decent dose of sweaty yard work, this thing is comfy, and promises to be pretty useful in general.  At some point, I also have it planned to try out the CCW Breakaways concept, which is another way of extending the shirt-tucked-in wardrobe, but I'm happy to say this one may be well worth the outlay.

Which is to say that once I'm no longer broke, I'll probably want another one.  :-)



_____________________
* Which is, of course, "Have a gun".

A pleasant fun shop surprise.

Had an unexpectedly pleasant chat with a counter-fella at one of my "local" fun shops, and got a chance to do a little more side-by-side comparison of a few defensive pistols.  Some interesting data points, plus a real surprise I wasn't expecting from a piece I hadn't met before now.

I've written here before about being impressed by the Springfield XD-S 4.0 as the logical heir to the Colt Commander.  I still stand by that idea on the whole, but I have to admit that a S&W Shield in .40 seems to stand right there with the XD-S 3.3 in .45, as an EDC pistol.  It's comfy in the hand, and dang if that thumb safety doesn't continue to work every time I try it out, despite always looking and feeling "too small".

I also got to compare the single-stack XD-S against double-stack XD-Ms in both .40 and .45, and essentially confirmed what I'd concluded last time I handled those guns:  as double-stacks go they are among the most comfortable I've met--but I still don't much care for double-stack guns.

Trigger comparisons were very interesting, especially now having met a sufficient handful of examples of each model.  Both among XD pistols and Shields, it seems that the quality of both trigger pull and reset can be highly variable in individual samples, and when the time finally comes for me to acquire one for myself, I will probably just shop triggers.  (That may yet be a while, of course, both with my being freshly unemployed and having used up a great deal of gun karma on the Gunsmoke projects.  And to be honest, my humble little Kahr CW40 already serves this functional need;  has done so admirably for nearly a decade now.)  At their best, all can be very good;  at their worst they are still better than revolver triggers, and most seem to be distinctly in between.

All this is mostly confirmation of previous meetings, of course.  It's good to see the consistencies stack up, and I now think I can discuss these pieces with a bit more confidence when noobs ask me questions.  Fortunately, there is much of interest to discuss between the XD-S and Shield options.

Then, I had occasion to pick up a Walther PPQ, which I had not met before. 

It's not in the same category as the XD-S / Shield / Kahr;  Walther's entry in that space is the PPS, which I've not met in firearm form yet.  (I do have a spring-piston Airsoft replica PPS, and frankly I've been pretty impressed with it thus far--I hope to meet the firearm soon.)  The PPQ is a full-sized pistol in 9mm and .40, and most dimensions and stats seem pretty standard and even humdrum.

In the hand, though, that grip is uniquely comfortable.  It is far and away the most comfortable double-stack grip I have ever picked up.  I'll be interested to see if I have the same experience next time;  I was not expecting it to be that nice.  Most of the rest of it seemed to be as I'd expect from a brand like Walther, and I suspect it will run as well as anything else in its class.  On the downside, I'm not a fan of the overtly trapezoidal slide (a slab-sided slide is easier to manipulate) and I positively dislike large slide stops. 

Then I tried the trigger. 

Really?  Whoa, that was nice!  Will it do that again?  Then I tried the reset, and nearly fell over.  The fella behind the counter started giggling knowingly, having seen my expression after running the test. "I see you noticed," he said.  "Hell yeah I noticed.  Jeez, is that for real?"  I asked, racking the slide over and over again to prove to myself I hadn't hallucinated it.  At least on this example, yeah, it's for real.

This is a striker-fired pistol, but I swear that trigger felt nearly like a 1911 in its release and reset.  Not a match 1911 maybe, but certainly a good street gun.  Like no other striker-fired gun I've seen, tuned or otherwise.  Sure, I realize maybe it's just this one example, but it sure got my attention, and you can be certain that I'll check out every PPQ I can find for a while, to see if it's inherent to the design.  If it is, then at the price I saw this gun at, that is one hell of a value in a full-sized pistol.

I'd kinda written Walther off years ago, on account of not liking their fire-control systems, but between the promise of the PPS and this first introduction to the PPQ, I think I may have to rethink that.

Excellent!

Notes from the fun shop.

Just documenting a couple of things for future reference.  (There will probably be more on most of this at some point.)  Some erranding with the girls today in Soldotna yielded some useful intel.

To wit:

• Holy freakin' cow.  It's here.  (Browning's 1911-22 in modern trim.)
• I actually found five boxes of 16 gauge buckshot on the shelf today.  Which means that I bought five boxes of 16 gauge buckshot today.
• .22 availability is still stupid.  Stoopid.  (Are regular people even buying .22s any more, with no way to feed them?)
• Availability of other ammo and components actually seems to be improving.  It's ridiculously expensive, sure, but it's there.
• Got a chance to meet an XD-S 4", in person.  This one had a distinctly sweeter trigger than the one I met the other day (another data point), and more importantly I got to look at the extension magazine.  In short:  I was impressed.  I'll keep looking every time I see one, but the "new Commander" appellation seems to be very appropriate for the Springfield.

More later, of course.  Deadlining in other areas, and playing Mr. Mom for a week, I do have to put off the fun of writing this all up properly.  (Maybe it'll be after neighbor C. and I get some range time together.  Another find today was a stash of Buffalo Bore ammo for his 460 Rowland 1911...I can be an enabler sometimes...  :-)

Did a direct compare of Shield and XDS...

...and results were a bit surprising.

At least for the two examples I happened to pick up, both trigger pull quality and reset quality favored the Shield.  I had remembered both a crisper trigger and shorter reset when I first met an XDS, but not so on this one.  (I may now make it a point to try out every one I see, just to have a sense of how variable each one can be.)

The Shield's trigger is indeed the partial-cocking striker-fire variety, and I was impressed.  At least on this example, it was superb--it reminded me very much of the impression I'd got the first time I saw an XDS.  :-)

Other variables went back and forth.  The trigger guard on the XDS is better for gloves than the Shield's...  The Shield actually felt slightly slimmer in the grip than the XDS, but recall that the Shield's magazines have a slight stagger that make them noticeably thicker than the XDS' true single-column tubes...  There's the whole 6+1 .40 versus 5+1 .45 comparison...  The Shield has the potential for a manual safety, but without a 1911-esque thumb extension, I might actually prefer the sans-lever model...  The XDS is very slightly smaller in height when both guns use their short magazines, but it's very much taller when the long magazines are used...

Really, it's kind of a wash, with all things considered.

And if I'm honest, I can also compare both the Springfield and the Smith to my Kahr CW40, which is 6+1 .40, 0.94" wide, 4.6" tall and 6.3" long (read:  effectively the same), and realize that its only real disadvantage is the revolver-length reset, which frankly only matters to me because of the (potential) glove problem.  The Kahr's trigger pull quality is better than either of the other pistols, it's lighter, and its grip frame is one length, rather than "extensible" by a longer magazine that also tries to replace grip space.  The grip is also large enough to get the whole hand on comfortably.

All duly noted.  I suspect that one would be well-served by any of these three choices.

I admit I'm still intrigued by the idea of the XDS 4 playing the role of LW Commander, with the ability to suddenly become a subcompact in grip profile, as a newbie's first and most-flexible piece.  .45ACP is pretty forgiving for a general purpose cartridge--moreso than .40--and in the end that might what sways a recommendation.

Looking forward to my first range experience with either of these newer designs.  :-)

Okay, I admit, I find this significant.

Recently, quite by accident, I ran across my first reference to the new Springfield XD-S 4-inch .45.

My first thought wasn't all that kind.  "Wait, they took an outstanding tiny .45 and made it bigger?  WTF?

But then my brain said "Hang on a moment, and take a fresh look at what we have here."  A 7+1 .45ACP, 5.4" high, 7" long with 4" barrel, 24.5 ounces, and only 0.9" wide.  Excellent ergonomics.  Quality short-reset trigger.  Good sights.  Multiple passive safety systems designed around the opening (safe) and closing (bang) of the human hand.

That's essentially a Colt Commander, in dimensions and concept.  (!!!)

And the promise goes farther.  The trigger guard is conspicuously more glove-friendly than the 1911's is.  The overall length is at least half an inch shorter than the Commander's, for those who rely on the length of the cover garment for concealment, but barrel length is still a service-length 4".  It's several ounces lighter than even the aluminum-framed 1911s.  It's flatter even than my deliberately "slim-lined" 1911 frames.  There are interchangeable backstraps to adjust for different hand sizes.  With a two-sided magazine release and no manual thumb safety, the gun itself is ambi-friendly right out of the box.  The feed system was designed from the beginning for high-performance hollowpoints.  Takedown is simpler.  And simply by changing magazines, the gun changes from 7+1 and 5.4" high, to 5+1 and 4.4" high, which makes a huge difference for concealed carry.

And it's cheaper than a good Commander.  Even before considering the idea of two-guns-in-one for the price of a magazine change.

Well now.  That does seem significant.

Cons?  Well, I admit I'm still a little leery of the idea of using the magazine as a grip length extender.  I would think that this must somehow affect the practice of magazine changes, but I have not run such a gun to see how it holds up in actual use, and who knows, maybe it's not a problem at all.  As well, as nice as the XD-S trigger is...it's just not the same as a good 1911, because nothing else is.

But really, that's about it. 

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that this might be the way to go for someone starting out.  A single gun that could serve both as a full-sized service sidearm and a very viable concealment piece (with one full-sized reload, one would have 13 rounds available).  Provided it runs (and I'll assume that with Springfield's reputation, it will), it's like a modernized Colt Lightweight Commander, but with some useful extras, and less expensive to boot.  The trigger is good enough to do nearly anything you'd want to do with such a weapon, and up here at least the glove-friendly trigger guard is not a trivial consideration.

And for someone who can afford a second piece as well, having both an XD-S 4" and the shorter XD-S 3.3" (for those times when another 3/4" shorter would make a difference), sharing the same magazines and leather, would represent quite an efficient overall system to cover all the bases.

Now I need to try one, to find out.  If the concept is viable, I'd want to recommend with confidence, and that would seem to be an important recommendation for noobs, who do tend to ask.

__________________
While I'm daydreaming, I do wonder how viable the XD-S system might be to a .460 Rowland conversion, which would add mid-level .44 Magnum power to the same platform.  :-)

Springfield Armory XD-S .45 ACP

Got another chance today, while in Soldotna, to check out a gun counter, and this time I ran into another piece I had not yet met:  the Springfield Armory XD-S single-stack .45 ACP.

Not a lot in the gun design world excites me any more, with most new offerings being "new hat!" re-hashes of traditional designs and features that seem to impress people who don't shoot very much.  There are a few, of course, that are and have always been exceptional, and they remain.  But it can be hard to get really jazzed about new designs when their feature sets seem to have come from a marketing department rather than from people who live with the guns every day.

Which is why I very much wanted to meet this XD-S.  This design actually does seem exciting, although to be blunt there is absolutely nothing revolutionary about it.  It simply represents a collection of attributes that is operationally useful to someone who actually wears a gun regularly;  that is:  it's exciting because it should prove really good at its intended role.

In short, I expected to be impressed, on the strength of buzz such as this...and I am impressed.

The gun really is tiny (0.9" slide and grip width, 1" overall width at slide stop, 4.4" tall from the top of the slide to the bottom of the magazine floorplate, and less importantly, 6.3" overall length) and yet controls are well-laid out and my large-ish hand had no problem getting a good hold on the grip.  This is scarcely larger than a Kahr CM40, in the most important dimensions for a carry gun:  width and height.  And the XD-S is a 5+1 .45 ACP, whereas the Kahr is a 5+1 .40 S&W.  No slight to the .40 there, but let's face it:  the reason I'm interested in the .40 in the first place is that I can either get a smaller gun than the same in .45, or with the .40 I can get another round or two in the magazine at the same size.  Hmm.

It's a 21.5 ounce gun.  This is right in between the lightest .40s like the Kahr (17.7oz), and the smallest aluminum-framed 1911s (~25oz).  The only place you're going to notice this being a heavier gun is on your ankle or in your pocket;  in a serious carry holster it's going to "carry lighter" than many other guns which may weigh less but have fat or long grips.

The XD-S is striker-fired, and the trigger on the sample I saw today was a very good striker-fired trigger.  Distinctly better than any Glock I've met, if not quite up to the luxurious pull quality of Kahrs, and of course it may break in smoother with use.  There is a perceptible amount of overtravel, but that seems to be inherent in all the partial-cocking striker designs, and I admit I was looking for things to find wrong.  What was unequivocally outstanding was the short reset.  It's not "1911 short" (nothing is like that), but it is much, much better than its competitors, which typically require a revolver-length reset.

Reset length is one of those things that is trivial, until it's not.  And there are two cardinal values of a short reset.  The obvious one is what it can do for delivering multiple shots.  Anyone who has learned to "ride the disconnector" on a 1911 understands just how much easier it is to deliver a second precision shot with a short-reset trigger, than (as most of us learned the comparison originally) with a revolver.  (It's one of the reasons why 1911 aficionados can't shut up about how good the trigger design is:  it really is that exceptional.)  But here is a less obvious value that may be even more practically important than that:  a short-reset trigger, combined with a generous trigger guard, is a demonstrably superior "glove gun".  In places where you get a lot of winter (ahem), you're often wearing gloves, and the last thing you want is to manage to get off your first shot, but be unable to deliver your second because the gloved trigger finger, having fully depressed the trigger and subsequently poked fully through the trigger guard, now actually prevents the trigger from returning far enough forward to reset.

In the space of a few dry-snaps, my conclusion was that the short reset was very noticeable on the XD-S, and highly appreciated.  At speed (well...what you can do simulating a reset shot in a gun store), it seemed even shorter, and the backlash less pronounced:  all in all, an excellent trigger for its purpose.

The steel magazine seemed very sturdy and the release buttons (one on each side of the grip) were positive.  Magazine release and seating seemed positive and natural, and I'd expect reloads to be quick and smooth.  Most of us will need to open the shooting hand slightly to avoid pinching due to the short grip length, but we've learned how to do that already, and it's no different here.

My understanding is that the guns run extremely well, but in the case of stoppages the controls are ergonomic enough that it feels little different than a full-sized pistol.  And speaking of ergonomics, I found the little grip safety completely un-noticeable, there were no notable sharp edges, and even with the larger backstrap insert in place (I'd almost certainly swap it for the smaller one) the grip shape and texture is excellent, promising control without being "sticky".

What don't I like about the piece?  Well, I sure don't go in for chamber indicators--as Jeff Cooper used to say, "I would rather look and see than put my trust in a gadget"--but it doesn't seem to get in the way, either.  I admit I'm not a fan of the fiber-optic front sight, but that's easy enough to replace, and hell, I may wind up changing my mind on that anyway as my eyes age.  Likewise, I would always prefer to have a 1911-style manual safety, but that's a personal preference, and if I can't get a frame-mounted, up-for-safe down-for-fire, positive safety lever, I'll be quite happy with the striker guns' passive internal safeties, thanks.

In the hand, the gun has the feel of having a lot of mass up high.  This is mostly a trivial aesthetic thing;  this gun is nothing at all like the "who actually thought anyone would buy this thing?" Heckler & Koch .40 caliber P7, which feels like someone took a regular P7 and welded a solid steel 2x4 to the top of the slide.  WTF?  Nonetheless the impression struck me, especially after comparing against the luxuriously small and light Diamondback DB9 further down in the case.  (Now that thing really is a whole class lighter and smaller than the XD-S or CM40;  a 6+1 9x19mm that is 0.80" wide, 4.0" tall, and only 11 ounces.  Noticeably flatter, and enough lighter that it really would be at home in a pocket.)

Yeah, that's about it for dislikes.  And again, I was trying to find things wrong.  Presuming that the guns run like the previous entrants in the XD line (which is to say, spectacularly), and that hits in live-fire are as simple and easy as the design seems to promise, it would be hard to establish a superior choice for a general-purpose, do-it-all carry piece.

Shit.  Now I want one.

UPDATE:  Updated to reflect the correct height of 4.4", not 4" as I originally read.