-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
HK USP .45 best polymer gun ever?
- Thread starter marrero jeff
- Start date
The Wolfhound
Regular Member
imported post
If you are paying HK prices for a Smith, You got ripped off in a big way. No way I see the 2 comparing. The M&P is ok but not in the class with the HK USP.
If you are paying HK prices for a Smith, You got ripped off in a big way. No way I see the 2 comparing. The M&P is ok but not in the class with the HK USP.
The Wolfhound
Regular Member
imported post
Let's chat again after 10,000 rounds. I have no doubt the USP will still be going strong.
Let's chat again after 10,000 rounds. I have no doubt the USP will still be going strong.
SPRINGFIELDMAN-21
Regular Member
i have to agree with superlite my xd 45acp has all the features that i feel i needed and to top it of the ergonomics fits better to my hand than the HK 45 did
gsx1138
Regular Member
No.
heresyourdipstickjimmy
Regular Member
Though I like some HK products, particularly the Mark 23, when I hear those letters I am reminded of their customer service which make me do this. :banghead:
The Wolfhound
Regular Member
Lately the nightmare quality of HK service has NOT been being lived up to. Other than the parts train from Germany being slow, I continue to hear GOOD things. The legend seems to have a life of its own.
Last edited:
crisisweasel
Newbie
Well I've had my HK45C for awhile and I bought it because I wanted a carryable .45. My only other .45 is a Jericho, which is a fantastically pleasant gun to shoot, but not carryable.
But more than that I wanted to see for myself what the deal with HK was. The same HK discussion plays over and over like a classic rock song. Love it or hate it, everyone knows the words:
[Guy #1]: HK simply makes the best pistols, period.
[Guy #2]: HKs are overpriced and the company is elitist.
[Guy #1]: You get what you pay for. You probably have a Glock!
[Guy #2]: Actually I have a Springfield. I bought a gun which goes bang just like your HK for just over half the price.
[Guy #1]: No way is Springfield or Glock anywhere near on the level of an HK.
[Guy #2]: Just because HK is priced as it is, doesn't mean you get more for your money. I can pay a lot of money for designer jeans but does that mean I get a way better pair of jeans than I do if I buy some cheap Levis?
[Guy #1]: German engineering, the tolerances, THE O-RING MAN, THE M-F'in O-RING, the fact that HK is used by private security forces, military, and law enforcement all around the globe and your firearm is made in CROATIA...
[Guy #2]: Croatia actually has a fine reputation for firearms manufacturing, and....
[Guy #1]: Don't even say Springfield goes back to the Revolutionary War, it doesn't....
[Guy #2]: I wasn't going to say that but I was going to suggest that you are ignorant and of poor character - and that you own an HK because you play a lot of video games and the only reason anyone would pay that amount of money for an HK is because they play a lot of video games and want the tacti-cool stuff they see in video games.
[Guy #1]: The fact remains that I own an HK and you do not. Thou art a cad and a bounder and I bid you good day, sir.
[Guy #3]: SIG ALL THE WAY, THAT IS ALL.
And that is the whole discussion. Sometimes the conversation weaves its way into HK's line of rifles, which have far more critics.
My HK 45C experience so far:
(a) Conceals better than I'd hoped. Good for concealment or open carry. Not too heavy, nor too light. Also feels fantastic in the hand. I like the feel of my HK, a lot. Especially for a compact pistol.
(b) Has yet to choke on a single piece of ammunition I've fed it. It is more reliable than the Jericho but thus far *as reliable* as my Glock 26 (apples to oranges? Different caliber & form factor). Which is probably as reliable as pistols get.
(c) Looks cooler than any Glock. This is somewhat subjective but...if I took a poll, I am pretty sure people would mostly agree.
(d) Can't hit a damn thing with the H&K. I have thus far only run it out in the desert at targets like cans. I can hit almost anything with my Jericho, but the Jericho is not as reliable (occasional F2Es mostly on the Jericho). The Jericho is also not practical for daily carry. I can shoot my Glock, accuracy-wise, midway between the Jericho and HK.
Conclusion so far, subject to modification:
You do not get 2x the gun for HK prices. Right now I'd put the HK and the Glock on even footing in terms of pure utility, even if the Glock is a little plain looking. The XD, which I am not a huge fan of (don't really like the grip personally - have nothing else bad to say about it; just not for me. Even the range XD I've rented a few times, as ill-maintained and mistreated as it is, has not had any failures, at least not when I shoot it), would probably be right in there as well.
If you are a complete pragmatist -- if style and pleasure and the like are not important to you -- if you view guns like the tools in your toolbox, there is probably no reason to spend more than $600 on a gun. This is my amateur, non-professional, subjective opinion. Subject to change.
I don't regret buying the H&K and hope to get better shooting it once I can get some range time with paper targets and can see where I'm screwing up when I shoot it.
I don't play video games. I couldn't even name you a video game where there was one gun or another represented in it, and while I am well aware of the H&K fanboys out there and their...disproportionate enthusiasm for everything Heckler & Koch, the fact remains that from what I can tell, their pistols, at least, are solid. Most - almost all - criticism of H&K pistols surround its price and the company's supposed contempt for civilian gun owners. Having not had to deal with H&K (the pistol works great so far), I will remain open minded about the latter point.
I have to admit, I don't really get the brand bashing. We seem to live in what could only be termed a golden age for civilian gun ownership, not only in the progress we've seen in gun laws (in most places, not all), but in terms of what is available to us on the market. I can understand preference but I don't really get people who bash Glock (I can find nothing bad to say about mine, except that as a subcompact the feel in the hand is a bit weird) given its overall track record. In terms of catastrophic Glock failures, we could probably say there are more broken down Ford F-150s than any other truck too (because it is, last I checked, the best selling vehicle in the world). I've seen maybe a dozen reports of Glock failures. How many are in circulation? Do the reports of catastrophic Glock failures tell us anything useful? We all have pattern recognition: Glock failures are a meme. So when we hear of or see a Glock failure, that part of our brain lights up and says, "oh, another to add to the little compartment in my brain dedicated to the concept that Glocks sometime fail catastrophically.) Would a Sig P220 failing even have a little mental drawer? No - even though they may fail, percentage wise, as often as Glocks. I don't know: it is impossible to come by reliable data. Just anecdotes, which are as reliable as anecdotes about sex on the schoolyard.
The "it is made in Croatia" thing re: Springfield is ridiculous. As if we import so many products from Croatia (as we do Japan and China) that we can have a general feeling about Croatia's manufacturing quality. Springfield could potentially import a gun from multiple manufacturers in multiple countries and slap its name on a pistol. It chose this one for a reason. And frankly if you bash Croatia, you might as well also bash CZ (which few do), since it is in a similar position, manufactured as it is ex-Soviet state (*). Fact: Anyone who buys a Springfield can also afford a Glock, which is Austrian - a country with a well regarded reputation for manufacturing and engineering. People who buy Springfields mostly love them. There is probably a reason for that.
The other thing is you *don't* always get what you pay for. That's reality. There is overpriced crap and there is underpriced gold (a lot of Ruger's products are in this latter category). Another that comes to mind is the Bersa Thunder - a gun everyone seems to be surprised by. I haven't owned one, but in every case I see Bersa getting slagged, it's generally by someone who hasn't owned one. Yet almost all of the time I encounter someone who owns one, the comments are positive and almost surprised - " I didn't expect as much for *that price*.") Another example is the much-loved but affordable and cheapo-looking Kel-Tec P3AT.
I approach these discussions as an amateur and I am compared to most of you. I just know what I read on the Internet and there is so much BS on the Internet. I wouldn't want to be a first time pistol buyer using that as a resource. Even gun shops are full of brand bigots (Glock uber alles / Glocks are for people who don't know anything about pistols). I won't even get into gun magazines, which are the equivalent of supermarket tabloids for the most part. Or catalogs.
I would like to see more Consumer Reports-style reports on guns:
(a) Torture tests similar to the famed Glock torture test. You can say what you want about the sensationalism in doing this kind of thing but it does tell you something. If you can drop it from a plane and bury it in sand, I am confident the lint and dust of my environment won't cause any significant problems.
(b) Scientifically controlled reliability tests. FTE, FTFs, etc. 5,000 rounds per gun target ammo + 1,000 rounds each of the top five popular defense rounds. Would like to see at least three guns of the same model tried, because every manufacturer of every product occasionally puts out a lemon. For me, reliability is the #1 virtue of any firearm. I'll even sacrifice accuracy (if it is even a concern - see "C" below) for reliability. The ramifications of trying to defend myself and the gun failing are too scary to even contemplate.
(c) Accuracy test. Is one handgun more accurate than any other, or is it merely a matter of ammunition plus shooter preferences/prejudices? Want to see guns in a Mythbusters-style rig designed to accommodate for shooter deficiencies. Some guy on some forum or in some magazine telling me "this gun is the most accurate I've shot" tells me nothing useful. It is still unclear to me whether one pistol is more accurate than another. People stomp their feet and insist one way or another, but I see no scientific data to prove this. Just measurements of groups the reviewer subjectively shot.
A lot of the ribbing is in good fun but it does dilute the conversation for people really seeking to buy a pistol. The advice for every newcomer is the same: go to a range and find one you can hold and shoot well. That is important but it is not enough. I can *live with* most pistols I've held. I want to know about reliability, endurance, and even things like metallurgy. I want to know where corners are cut.
(*) Who even knows where anything is really manufactured anymore? Designed & engineered, manufactured, and assembled, are three different concepts. Where's the gunmetal come from? Where are the machines that tool the parts manufactured and how reliable are they? Would a factory staffed by mediocre labor in the United States manufacture better guns than committed, prideful artisans in the Third World?
But more than that I wanted to see for myself what the deal with HK was. The same HK discussion plays over and over like a classic rock song. Love it or hate it, everyone knows the words:
[Guy #1]: HK simply makes the best pistols, period.
[Guy #2]: HKs are overpriced and the company is elitist.
[Guy #1]: You get what you pay for. You probably have a Glock!
[Guy #2]: Actually I have a Springfield. I bought a gun which goes bang just like your HK for just over half the price.
[Guy #1]: No way is Springfield or Glock anywhere near on the level of an HK.
[Guy #2]: Just because HK is priced as it is, doesn't mean you get more for your money. I can pay a lot of money for designer jeans but does that mean I get a way better pair of jeans than I do if I buy some cheap Levis?
[Guy #1]: German engineering, the tolerances, THE O-RING MAN, THE M-F'in O-RING, the fact that HK is used by private security forces, military, and law enforcement all around the globe and your firearm is made in CROATIA...
[Guy #2]: Croatia actually has a fine reputation for firearms manufacturing, and....
[Guy #1]: Don't even say Springfield goes back to the Revolutionary War, it doesn't....
[Guy #2]: I wasn't going to say that but I was going to suggest that you are ignorant and of poor character - and that you own an HK because you play a lot of video games and the only reason anyone would pay that amount of money for an HK is because they play a lot of video games and want the tacti-cool stuff they see in video games.
[Guy #1]: The fact remains that I own an HK and you do not. Thou art a cad and a bounder and I bid you good day, sir.
[Guy #3]: SIG ALL THE WAY, THAT IS ALL.
And that is the whole discussion. Sometimes the conversation weaves its way into HK's line of rifles, which have far more critics.
My HK 45C experience so far:
(a) Conceals better than I'd hoped. Good for concealment or open carry. Not too heavy, nor too light. Also feels fantastic in the hand. I like the feel of my HK, a lot. Especially for a compact pistol.
(b) Has yet to choke on a single piece of ammunition I've fed it. It is more reliable than the Jericho but thus far *as reliable* as my Glock 26 (apples to oranges? Different caliber & form factor). Which is probably as reliable as pistols get.
(c) Looks cooler than any Glock. This is somewhat subjective but...if I took a poll, I am pretty sure people would mostly agree.
(d) Can't hit a damn thing with the H&K. I have thus far only run it out in the desert at targets like cans. I can hit almost anything with my Jericho, but the Jericho is not as reliable (occasional F2Es mostly on the Jericho). The Jericho is also not practical for daily carry. I can shoot my Glock, accuracy-wise, midway between the Jericho and HK.
Conclusion so far, subject to modification:
You do not get 2x the gun for HK prices. Right now I'd put the HK and the Glock on even footing in terms of pure utility, even if the Glock is a little plain looking. The XD, which I am not a huge fan of (don't really like the grip personally - have nothing else bad to say about it; just not for me. Even the range XD I've rented a few times, as ill-maintained and mistreated as it is, has not had any failures, at least not when I shoot it), would probably be right in there as well.
If you are a complete pragmatist -- if style and pleasure and the like are not important to you -- if you view guns like the tools in your toolbox, there is probably no reason to spend more than $600 on a gun. This is my amateur, non-professional, subjective opinion. Subject to change.
I don't regret buying the H&K and hope to get better shooting it once I can get some range time with paper targets and can see where I'm screwing up when I shoot it.
I don't play video games. I couldn't even name you a video game where there was one gun or another represented in it, and while I am well aware of the H&K fanboys out there and their...disproportionate enthusiasm for everything Heckler & Koch, the fact remains that from what I can tell, their pistols, at least, are solid. Most - almost all - criticism of H&K pistols surround its price and the company's supposed contempt for civilian gun owners. Having not had to deal with H&K (the pistol works great so far), I will remain open minded about the latter point.
I have to admit, I don't really get the brand bashing. We seem to live in what could only be termed a golden age for civilian gun ownership, not only in the progress we've seen in gun laws (in most places, not all), but in terms of what is available to us on the market. I can understand preference but I don't really get people who bash Glock (I can find nothing bad to say about mine, except that as a subcompact the feel in the hand is a bit weird) given its overall track record. In terms of catastrophic Glock failures, we could probably say there are more broken down Ford F-150s than any other truck too (because it is, last I checked, the best selling vehicle in the world). I've seen maybe a dozen reports of Glock failures. How many are in circulation? Do the reports of catastrophic Glock failures tell us anything useful? We all have pattern recognition: Glock failures are a meme. So when we hear of or see a Glock failure, that part of our brain lights up and says, "oh, another to add to the little compartment in my brain dedicated to the concept that Glocks sometime fail catastrophically.) Would a Sig P220 failing even have a little mental drawer? No - even though they may fail, percentage wise, as often as Glocks. I don't know: it is impossible to come by reliable data. Just anecdotes, which are as reliable as anecdotes about sex on the schoolyard.
The "it is made in Croatia" thing re: Springfield is ridiculous. As if we import so many products from Croatia (as we do Japan and China) that we can have a general feeling about Croatia's manufacturing quality. Springfield could potentially import a gun from multiple manufacturers in multiple countries and slap its name on a pistol. It chose this one for a reason. And frankly if you bash Croatia, you might as well also bash CZ (which few do), since it is in a similar position, manufactured as it is ex-Soviet state (*). Fact: Anyone who buys a Springfield can also afford a Glock, which is Austrian - a country with a well regarded reputation for manufacturing and engineering. People who buy Springfields mostly love them. There is probably a reason for that.
The other thing is you *don't* always get what you pay for. That's reality. There is overpriced crap and there is underpriced gold (a lot of Ruger's products are in this latter category). Another that comes to mind is the Bersa Thunder - a gun everyone seems to be surprised by. I haven't owned one, but in every case I see Bersa getting slagged, it's generally by someone who hasn't owned one. Yet almost all of the time I encounter someone who owns one, the comments are positive and almost surprised - " I didn't expect as much for *that price*.") Another example is the much-loved but affordable and cheapo-looking Kel-Tec P3AT.
I approach these discussions as an amateur and I am compared to most of you. I just know what I read on the Internet and there is so much BS on the Internet. I wouldn't want to be a first time pistol buyer using that as a resource. Even gun shops are full of brand bigots (Glock uber alles / Glocks are for people who don't know anything about pistols). I won't even get into gun magazines, which are the equivalent of supermarket tabloids for the most part. Or catalogs.
I would like to see more Consumer Reports-style reports on guns:
(a) Torture tests similar to the famed Glock torture test. You can say what you want about the sensationalism in doing this kind of thing but it does tell you something. If you can drop it from a plane and bury it in sand, I am confident the lint and dust of my environment won't cause any significant problems.
(b) Scientifically controlled reliability tests. FTE, FTFs, etc. 5,000 rounds per gun target ammo + 1,000 rounds each of the top five popular defense rounds. Would like to see at least three guns of the same model tried, because every manufacturer of every product occasionally puts out a lemon. For me, reliability is the #1 virtue of any firearm. I'll even sacrifice accuracy (if it is even a concern - see "C" below) for reliability. The ramifications of trying to defend myself and the gun failing are too scary to even contemplate.
(c) Accuracy test. Is one handgun more accurate than any other, or is it merely a matter of ammunition plus shooter preferences/prejudices? Want to see guns in a Mythbusters-style rig designed to accommodate for shooter deficiencies. Some guy on some forum or in some magazine telling me "this gun is the most accurate I've shot" tells me nothing useful. It is still unclear to me whether one pistol is more accurate than another. People stomp their feet and insist one way or another, but I see no scientific data to prove this. Just measurements of groups the reviewer subjectively shot.
A lot of the ribbing is in good fun but it does dilute the conversation for people really seeking to buy a pistol. The advice for every newcomer is the same: go to a range and find one you can hold and shoot well. That is important but it is not enough. I can *live with* most pistols I've held. I want to know about reliability, endurance, and even things like metallurgy. I want to know where corners are cut.
(*) Who even knows where anything is really manufactured anymore? Designed & engineered, manufactured, and assembled, are three different concepts. Where's the gunmetal come from? Where are the machines that tool the parts manufactured and how reliable are they? Would a factory staffed by mediocre labor in the United States manufacture better guns than committed, prideful artisans in the Third World?
Last edited: