XDs Recall: Does this mean what I think it means?

[CoolClownFish]

[h=5]The latest update (10/11/2013) says the following and I have noticed a key word: "modifying"

Q1: How did this all begin and what was the problem?

A1: One of our customers reported that his XD-S™ had fired multiple shots unexpectedly and returned this pistol to us for our inspection. Our gunsmith recreated this situation in a test pistol by modifying the components of that pistol and was able to recreate the customer's claim. Through extensive evaluation and testing of this pistol, we developed an improved engagement among critical components of the pistol to prevent the remote possibility of this unintentional discharge.

Does this mean that their was no actual issue with the unmodified XDs's? Was the original "Problem" gun altered or modified to cause this issue?[/h]

 

[wolf_fire]

No it doesn't... :sarcastic:

 

[CoolClownFish]

No it doesn't... :sarcastic:

There it is fixed. Don't know what the heck was going on but it wouldn't save the post. It is saved now so no need to delete it.

 

[wolf_fire]

I'm sure someone in this forum can provide a better answer than I'm about to give. From what I gather, Springfield realized the potential of a problem with their firearm. They issued a voluntary recall if you were willing to turn in your gun. They believed they had a fix in place but as it turned out they needed a bit more time to tweak their fix properly. This has caused some agitation to Springfield owners.

This is what I have learned as I've been following the events leading up to and during this recall.

 

[CoolClownFish]

I'm sure someone in this forum can provide a better answer than I'm about to give. From what I gather, Springfield realized the potential of a problem with their firearm. They issued a voluntary recall if you were willing to turn in your gun. They believed they had a fix in place but as it turned out they needed a bit more time to tweak their fix properly. This has caused some agitation to Springfield owners.

This is what I have learned as I've been following the events leading up to and during this recall.

I know first hand how frustrating it is over this recall. My personal feelings have been criticized to no end over it. However, it is nice we finally get a (somewhat) straight answer from them. I'm not worried about a Magazine, I just want my gun back. It also makes me think twice about buying another SA product. I just feel that if I can't trust the Manufacturer then how can I trust the product? That brings me back to the original post of this thread and makes me wonder about the "modifying" part of their comment. it sounds like someone modified ther XDs and it was reported to SA so they wanted to make sure nobody could do it to theirs thus calling it a voluntary recall. CYOA, comes to mind.

 

[ezkl2230]

The latest update (10/11/2013) says the following and I have noticed a key word: "modifying"



Does this mean that their was no actual issue with the unmodified XDs's? Was the original "Problem" gun altered or modified to cause this issue?

It really almost sounds to me like the firearm with the problem was either damaged in some way (most likely the firing pin assembly), or simply wasn't maintained properly. Both the problem with the slamfire and the unintended double tap can be explained by a damaged or sticking free-floating firing pin; as I said in another post, many other firearms - both pistols AND rifles - that utilize free-floating firing pins have experienced similar problems that didn't necessarily lead to recalls. But then I stop to think that if either of these explanations were true, Springfield would probably not have initiated a recall?

 

[Happypuppy]

Perhaps under wear the fear was the conditions could occur?


Go Seahawks!

 

[jcreek]

Sounds like either one defective pistol slipped through QA or the owner messed with it. CYOA sounds about right