H&K P2000 in .40 -VS- Glock 23 in .40 for CCW??


PDA






drf
June 11, 2005, 09:41 PM
Which of these two guns do you think are a better CCW piece?
weight,concealability,width,length, and other attributes of both of these pistols?

Notice I didnt mention price! That is a none issue for me so it doesnt need to be brought up.
I already have the P2000 but was thinking of possibly getting the G23 also......Thanks for any replies..drf

If you enjoyed reading about "H&K P2000 in .40 -VS- Glock 23 in .40 for CCW??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Skunkabilly
June 13, 2005, 12:47 PM
I like the ergonomics of the HK more. Haven't shot either.

psyopspec
June 13, 2005, 01:58 PM
I've owned several HK products, though not a P2000, and a few Glocks. Both companies make products that are reliable and accurate, as well as being equally concealable. Weight differences are probably minute. I'd go HK for ergos and a trigger that fits me better. YMMV.

toocool
June 13, 2005, 08:26 PM
I've had the Glock 23 and it's sister, the Glock 19. I currently have an H & K USPc in .40 and a P2000 in 9mm. I prefer the ergonomics of the H & K's better. The grip angle of the Glocks just isn't right for me.

dwestfall
June 14, 2005, 12:25 AM
I've had a 9mm USPc and Glocks 23 and 19.

I think you will find the Glock more concealable. It's slightly thinner, and there are better options for thin holsters as well (Threatsolutions UCR).

You get a longer barrel and longer sight radius with the Glock, a couple extra rounds, and a lower bore axis. I found even the 9mm USPc to have a lot of muzzle whip compared to the Glocks.

That said, I pick up my new P2000 9mm on Thursday!

timothy75
June 14, 2005, 01:28 AM
Their so similar I wouldnt do it. A glock 27 I could understand. Sounds like you just want a new gun if thats the case I would sell the HK first. Unless you collect compact pistols which is cool. I would feel bad and out of controll if I did it.

Curare
June 14, 2005, 01:32 AM
I don't shoot .40, but I did the Pepsi challenge last week with the HK and the Glock. I dropped a few buck at the rental counter.

(The P2000 I used was SA/DA with the decocker next to the hammer).

The HK feels slimmer and more concealable, however, I functionally preferred the Glock.

The two things that absolutely eliminated the P2000 for me were the very long trigger reset and the time back onto target compared to the Glock. The higher bore axis and the slow cycling time of the HK really slowed me up. The Glock's muzzle just stayed on the center of the target.

The front strap of the P2000 is very comfortable. I'm going to reserve opinion on the back strap, however. The trigger reach was way too short for my hands and I feel one of the larger back straps might help with that.

Then there's the issue of long tern reliability. The P2000 is pretty new, and in my opinion unproven.

Hope this helps.

Berg01
June 14, 2005, 02:44 PM
As a carry gun I'd probably just keep the P2000, or maybe consider a P2000SK, these are really cool guns.

If you enjoyed reading about "H&K P2000 in .40 -VS- Glock 23 in .40 for CCW??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!