Ever since my Walther PPS hit the market a couple of years ago, there were always questions as to whether or not Walther / Smith & Wesson would ever get around to increasing its caliber selection (currently 9mm and .40S&W caliber) to include the tried-and-true .45ACP.
At this point, though, the answer appears immaterial – Springfield Armory beat them to the punch:
Springfield Armory released the new XDS .45 with six shots and, at an inch thick, has the single stack magazine. Cashing in on the desire for smaller carry guns and adding the popular .45 to it is a good move.
The overall design looks remarkably like the PPS I carry almost daily, with the exception of a more-standard magazine release and takedown lever, and my 9mm variant can take 6, 7, and 8 round magazines – Springfield will definitely be missing the bus if they do not offer a “full grip” magazine that solves the “dangling pinky” and adds another round or two.
It is always interesting to see how firearm manufacturers move… Ruger has made an industry out of copying other companies’ designs, rebranding them, marking them up, and laughing all the way to the bank; in this case, Springfield Armory took a Smith & Wesson concept to its natural conclusion, since S&W showed no indications of doing so themselves. This is why I love things like the KRISS…
Oh, and regarding the title, what moron in charge of marketing at Springfield Armory decided to name their new handgun using the same string of letters that was previously, and still is, used to describe multiples of a previous model of handgun? Now, when someone says “XDs”, are they referring to two-or-more “XD” firearms, or the new, .45 subcompact?
It might not be so bad — I plan on pronouncing “XDs” (the single stack) “Ex Dee Ess”, and “XD’s” (multiple guns) “Ex Dees”. Now, the issue remains — how to pronounce having two or more single stacks…
That was basically what I thought as soon as I saw the flyer online. “XDs” is a terrible naming convention – Springfield Armory, just call it the XD Slim, please. That’s the feature you’re selling, now put it in the name and it’ll bypass the confusion.
I agree on the name. Terrible.
I’m going to go with Robert Slaughter on this one “Ex Dee Ess” for the XDs and “Ex Dees” for more than one XD. Plural of XDs? “Ex Dee Esses.” The tricky thing is in writing. What’s the convention for differentiating between more than one XD and an XDs?
Of course, it’s not as bad as Beretta coming out with the 90-two a few years back.
Or XDh–H for half. But then people could call it an “Ex Duh” which isn’t that good either…
Oh, and I have to take issue with you on the Ruger thing–you left out the “actually make the guns in enough quantity that people can find them,” which is the real reason they are so popular, I think.
The name is terrible, also the design doesn’t knock my socks off. Its bigger than my PM45, but my PM45 still allows a 3-finger grip, has the same capacity, and my PM45 weighs Less FULLY LOADED (24oz) than the XDs does EMPTY (29).
I’d get it if it accepted magazines from the bigger guns like the baby glocks…but I fail to see the advantages…especially with inexpensive Kahr CW45 out there that’s more or less the same class of gun, but superior in every way.
Yeah, I like Kahrs, what about it?
@ Robert Slaughter: I was more concerned with the plaintextl run a search for “XDs” – it is a damned shot in the dark what you get back.
@ Trevor: Or, hell, if you want to stick to acronyms, go with sXD – slim XDs. But that would be… y’know… rational
.
@ SGB: They certainly could have done better.
@ oddball: At least the Beretta was textually different, and did not impact search or rankings and such.
@ bluesun: Yeah, well, that is because they outsource their R&D and product development to other companies
.
@ Weer’d Beard: They certainly are not bad guns, but they are a bit expensive, which is pretty much why I went with the PPS.
Great name because it is sure to frustrate the antis next attempt to ban guns by name.
Can you imagine them trying to argue which pistol they meant to ban in front of a judge?
Bob S. wrote:
Unfortunately, I can imagine their argument:
“We must ban all polymer-frame pistols, regardless of name, because the word “polymer” reminds me of that poor girl from PS238. Better yet, we must ban all pistols that can fire more than one shot without reloading. After all, we need to be sure that Evil Gun Makers don’t find a way to exploit a Loophole. Remember all those drive-by bayonetings? Hundreds of thousands of our long-suffering subjects die monthly, simply because bayonet lugs weren’t outlawed from the start.
“Our evenhandedness in not discriminating against specific makes or models of Evil Firearms proves that we are not targeting any particular Evil Gun Maker, and therefore our reasonable proposed restrictions against any Evil Gun that can fire more than one cop-killing bullet per year ought to stand. Oh, and it’s come to our attention that certain so-called ‘air rifles’ can put someone’s eye out, so we need to ban those, in the interest of public safety.”
@ Bob S. & @ AuricTech: Curse you two… First you go and give the anti-rights cultists a “good” idea, then you provide them the very script they use.
Sure, it sounds ludicrous to us, but I would remind you that the Assault Weapon Ban passed once upon a time, and still remains in some less-enlightened states in the Union.
And, speaking of, new per-name bans are probably off the table thanks to DC v. Heller – now we just need to work on getting the existing ones struck down.
@ Linoge:
Well they WERE quite expensive until they came out with the CW/CM line, the CW9 is a direct competitor to your Walther but at the same price as the LC9 which it is also a direct competitor to.
But yeah if you want my micro .45 you’re going to have to spend more than a brand-new Full-size Glock. Of course given that there are no 5+1 DAO .45 ACP pistols that are smaller than a S&W J-Frame on the market, $700 is in fact the best price out there.
And competition is always good
.
There is definitely a lower limit to .45ACP handgun sizes, so it is interesting to see companies running circles around themselves to try to shave as much metal off barrels and frames as physically possible… which, of course, drives up costs.
But, hey, if there is a market, there is a market
.