How does your XD compare to your 1911?

[OleFart]

I was on the range today with both my SA Champion and my XD45ACP. I'd fire 2 mags with the Champion then 1 with the XD at ranges from 5 meters (about 16 feet) to 10 meters (about 33 feet). With my old eyes I have trouble getting the rear sight, front sight and target all in focus (or even in view) at the same time. But I still made one 3 inch hole in the target, so they sure shot alike -- ok there were a half dozen fliers out at 10 meters -- old eyes! The biggest difference was the two mag to one handicap with the 1911.

[DoctorSuarez]

I'll try to add something besides what the others have said, as well as my general impressions. For the record, I have:

1) Kimber Gold Match II (purchased first)

and

2) Black XD-40 Service (purchased more recently)

I tend to shoot the Kimber first at the range, operating from the assumption that it's "easier" to shoot. Of course, this means that, after a month, I need the .45 to lose my bucking reflex, and by the time I'm shooting the XD, I'm much more stable and controlled. This means my .45 is getting a raw deal. I will probably switch them soon.

With the Kimber, shooting first, I tend to shoot small groups that are off-center. With the XD, I tend to shoot on target, but with a bigger group. At that range, it can't have much to do with any sort of match-grade manufacturing. It's probably just the fact that a shorter barrel and less precise sights create more overall wobble, while the Kimber reveals my actual shooting problems, since the gun is long, heavy, stable, and the sight picture is excellent.

Also, after 50 rounds of .45, the .40 feels like a staplegun. And the .45 is a fairly soft shooter out of a 5in. barreled all-steel gun.

The thing that really stood out was the fact that the 1911 is much easier to shoot one-handed. My XD trigger isn't bad at all, and it's certainly more than adequate for a rough-and-tumble close-range defensive pistol. However, when fired one handed, I find it moves around in my hand far more than the GMII, which has a light, short trigger and a design that dates back to an era when one-handed shooting was the standard Army doctrine. I think the thinner grip allows for more control from one set of fingers.

This is particularly important if you wish to shoot in conjuction with a flashlight. I discovered this during a night-shooting workshop. I did alright with the XD, but when I switched to my GMII, it felt much more like an extension of my hand, and I shot it very well despite having all black sights. (I have since replaced them with night sights) The difference was immediate and unmistakable, eliciting several "oohs" and "aahs" from the other students. The XD was far more of a challenge, and one student who borrowed it pronounced it "terrible". Of course, he'd been shooting a night-sighted TLE II all night and was simply spoiled rotten.

Of course, the XD has been more reliable than the 1911. The Kimber never fails during slow fire at the range. I've had a few failures during workshops, since I was unused to shooting rapid pairs and constantly readjusting my position. I believe the failures to have been my fault, and as I have gotten more experienced at shooting scenarios, the malfs have dropped off drastically. I believe it was limp-wristing born out of a disruption in my shooting rhythms. (of course, that disruption was totally neccessary, and welcome.)

So, the one-handed thing is to me the most salient difference. Recoil, ease of takedown, and trigger pull are factors as well, but I believe they are more easily overcome. I find the overall 1911 design, however, to be far better suited to one-handed shooting, owing to the thin grip, short trigger, and legendary pointability.

[profman]

I tend to take both of my weapons to the range. Usually, I start out with the GI .45 and fire a few hundred rounds through it. The pistol will eat anything I put into it, is very accurate, but has a tendency to bite me when the slide transitions back during recoil. I love the weapon for lots of reasons; one being that my grandfather used one extensively in WWII (saving his life), my father in-law used one in Korea to good effect, and both uncles carried them in Vietnam. By the time it was my turn to enter the service, the .45 had been replaced by the 9mm. The GI model keeps me in touch, so to speak, with my heritage.

With that said, the XD-40 beats my GI model hands down. Sight acquisition is faster (old military sights aint worth a dang), the trigger does allow stress to move through your finger without firing a round, and you can carry more rounds. I carry my XD and feel confident that it would not let me down. Also, taking apart the XD is a simple matter, whereas my GI takes just a bit of effort sometimes.