Browsing through the store section of the Springfield Armory website I can only surmise the paradigm of the designers when it came to XD and XD(M) accessories:
We only design stuff that either has a picatinny rail on it, or it attaches to a picatinny rail… NO EXCEPTIONS
Feast your eyes on this:
Your initial thought is probably “So what Mike? It’s a mag loader… I don’t get the big deal”
Well… the big deal is that on the left side of picture above that curved section is designed to mate to a picatinny rail.
“So what?! I still don’t get it” you say… “I can attach it to my picatinny railed XD holster or my picatinny railed XD mag pouch or to my picatinny railed case the gun came with” (shown below)
OR
OR
Well your right.. you could do that.
But since your gun has one of these rails as well, you could also do THIS:
Nothing quite like doing tactical reload with a loaded gun, and putting your entire hand right in front of the barrel.
It’s not a question of if someone will actually do this and shoot themselves in the hand … It’s a question of WHEN is it going to happen?
Comments
14 responses to “The Springfield Armory lawsuit waiting to happen”
Yeah, some idiot is likely to do that at some point and may try to sue Springfield. But if it happens, Springfield should get a really aggressive lawyer and use the “he’s a moron” defense. Possibly even countersue. If more companies would take that approach to those kind of lawsuits instead of just settling to make it go away, a lot fewer of them would happen.
I agree “He’s a moron” would be great to hear in court on something like this.
The whole fact the mag loader even attaches to a picatinny rail is stupid though. If it didn’t attach then the safety concern wouldn’t even be there in the first place.
How often on your other guns have you said “damn I wish my mag loader was able to attach to my holster, mag pouch, or carrying case … because they just are not bulky enough as is!” :) I guess it’s their way of trying to keep everything organized, but I really think its just tacticool useless overkill with all the rails.
But what happens when the injured party turns and uses the “he’s a moron” argument against the designer? :-)
As long as they clearly (most likely in BIG red letters) mention in the owners manual that you should not place your hand in front of the muzzle, they’d probably hold up pretty well in court.
I have to point out that the mag loader is designed to slide on the magazine freely. The loader-to-mag fit is very loose. Just try this at home: put the mag loader on the front rail, put a mag in the loader, and point the muzzle down. The mag loader will not retain a magazine.
Really? That’s kind of useless then as a mag holder. What happens when you’re running, moving around, and bending over? the mag just falls out onto the ground?
It’s a mag loader not a mag holder/holster.
wouldn’t/couldn’t that be considered a front hand grip? therefore the atf would go psycho on some one useing that.
You’re probably right. If it was used as a vert grip then I’m sure they would treat it as such, no matter what the “original” designed use was.
It isn’t a mag holder. It is a mag LOADER.
I know, but it does hold the magazine (albeit loose), and could easily be modified to hold it tight. I just hope no one is stupid enough to actually attempt to use the loader in that way.
I see that education is needed here. Pay attenion on you dubble mag holder is the placement for your loader. This is good at the range…
You can buy a tactical penis that mounts to a pic rail. This is pretty milk toast. Who gives a shit?
It’s obviously made to attach to the holster (for resting or transport @range) – if somebody misuses it in any other ridiculous way, a mag loader is the least of their worries- they have a loaded firearm…🤦🏽♂️💁🏽♂️💯