I broke in my new XD 40 (4") Wednesday afternoon. The gun consistently shoots approximately 2" below point of aim whether free hand, or from bench rest. Nice 2" groups from the bench, 3" to 3 1/2" free hand, but either way, 2" low (all at 10 yards, indoor range). Tried a few rounds at max distance (16.7 yards), but without use of sights, and therefore no measurements were made.
Upon cleaning the gun I made two observations. First, the scuff wear at across the top of the chamber hood (the part exposed through the ejection port) seemed excessive for only 150 rounds. My XD 9 (4") has 5 times that number of rounds through it, but the hood scuffing is 3 to 4 times less. There is also a slight indention visible at the lower left side of the scuffing wear at the established line where the scuffing ends and the blueing begins. I realize that scuffing occurs across the hood, but using my XD 9 as a reference, it seems excessive.
Second, the front of the chamber hood does not fit flush with the top of the slide. Again, using my XD 9 as a reference, there is a 1/32" difference between the two of them (the XD 40 being that far under a flush fit). I also noticed that the slide material is obviously thicker as you view it at the ejection port. I think this may be by design since it's a .40, but was curious if this may be the reason for the fit being different.
I'm no gunsmith, and don't pretend to be, but if the chamber hood on the XD 40 fit as close to flush as the XD 9 does, then would it be reasonable to assume that the front of the barrel would also have to rise, thereby increasing accuracy?
According to the guy at Springfield that I talked to, he doesn't think the chamber hood fit is an issue, because the gun cycles without a hitch, and he may be right. His advice was to send the gun in (he gave a return authorization number), they'll test it at 25 yards and make a sight adjustment if needed, which is what he thought was more than likely the problem, although I measured the sights (height and width on both guns) and found them to be exactly the same. He also said it would be 4 week turnaround. Not all that appealing, but if neccessary, OK.
As additional information, I was shooting Remington UMC 165 gr. MC ammo. I'll go to the range again today with some Winchester 165 FMJ and Remington 155 JHP to see if there is any difference. I'll also have the range owner shoot the gun to see if he gets similar results.
One more comment, and then I'll shut up. The only reason I think there may be a problem, is because my XD 9 shoots dead on. It's neither low, nor high. Same with my .45. Both with a variety of ammo.
Any and all advice/input/comments are welcome, and I thank you in advance.
Upon cleaning the gun I made two observations. First, the scuff wear at across the top of the chamber hood (the part exposed through the ejection port) seemed excessive for only 150 rounds. My XD 9 (4") has 5 times that number of rounds through it, but the hood scuffing is 3 to 4 times less. There is also a slight indention visible at the lower left side of the scuffing wear at the established line where the scuffing ends and the blueing begins. I realize that scuffing occurs across the hood, but using my XD 9 as a reference, it seems excessive.
Second, the front of the chamber hood does not fit flush with the top of the slide. Again, using my XD 9 as a reference, there is a 1/32" difference between the two of them (the XD 40 being that far under a flush fit). I also noticed that the slide material is obviously thicker as you view it at the ejection port. I think this may be by design since it's a .40, but was curious if this may be the reason for the fit being different.
I'm no gunsmith, and don't pretend to be, but if the chamber hood on the XD 40 fit as close to flush as the XD 9 does, then would it be reasonable to assume that the front of the barrel would also have to rise, thereby increasing accuracy?
According to the guy at Springfield that I talked to, he doesn't think the chamber hood fit is an issue, because the gun cycles without a hitch, and he may be right. His advice was to send the gun in (he gave a return authorization number), they'll test it at 25 yards and make a sight adjustment if needed, which is what he thought was more than likely the problem, although I measured the sights (height and width on both guns) and found them to be exactly the same. He also said it would be 4 week turnaround. Not all that appealing, but if neccessary, OK.
As additional information, I was shooting Remington UMC 165 gr. MC ammo. I'll go to the range again today with some Winchester 165 FMJ and Remington 155 JHP to see if there is any difference. I'll also have the range owner shoot the gun to see if he gets similar results.
One more comment, and then I'll shut up. The only reason I think there may be a problem, is because my XD 9 shoots dead on. It's neither low, nor high. Same with my .45. Both with a variety of ammo.
Any and all advice/input/comments are welcome, and I thank you in advance.
.. you also mention the slide is thicker than your 9mm.. only reason I could think of why this could be is, the .40 cal round is an extremely high pressure round and they built it that way for that reason? Im no gunsmith either, but If I had to guess that would be it dont take my advice on this as gospel by any means
