[Ridgeway]

Avg. USP price @ my local shop is ~$800, while Glocks are ~$500.
(Though both of course vary by model up to ~$100.)

Now my question is: Is HK worth another $300 over a Glock?
I've shot a number of glocks(& a G22 was my first gun), while only handled some USP's.
The USP does feel superior, ergrenomically(sp?), but I'm not sure it feels $300 better.
It just seems like highway robbery for a similar ploymer pistol- now I know they can be found cheaper online, but still their prices far outpace glock prices.

The main guns I've been looking @ are a USP45c, and a Glock 29(yeah I know they are rather different re: 45 v. 10mm & size wise, but what I want to buy next seems to change by the week... :))

[MrAcheson]

The only reason the USP is $300 more than the Glock is marketing. Seriously, HK was offering its pistols at Glock/Sig prices and they weren't making enough money. So they hiked the price and made more money per unit, plus more people started buying because they thought "more money must equal a better gun". Glock uses similar logic to show people that they are "better" than Ruger and other "lower end" manufacturers, even though their per unit manufacturing costs are similar.

Yes the USP is arguably more ergonomic for people that don't like the Glock grip angle. On the other hand if you find the Glock a piece of ergonomic perfection (and some do) then it'll be the other way around. Frankly I find both inelegant compared to the feel of a government model. I know sorry to bring the 1911 into this.

[J.Bourne]

I'm not going to flame HKs, because they are consistently good firearms. They're accurate, reliable and they do have a lifetime warranty.

But to answer your question, my opinion is no, they are not worth a $300 premium over Glock. Also, I actually find the HK to be chunkier and less ergonomically correct, of that's possible, than its Glock competitor. They do tend to have beefier rails and internals than Glock, though. They also have a fully supported chamber in their .40S&W offerings, unlike Glock.

I completely agree with MrAcheson on the marketing issue, too. He nailed it down perfectly. I have found there to be two classes of HK afficianados: Those that love, own and are willing to pay the price for them because they intimately know and trust them. Then there are the XBox HK fans, who will pay anything for a HK because it is marketed as an elite special ops weapon, and is prominently product placed in SOCOM Navy Seals for the Playstation2.

[Black Snowman]

I've owned both and I traded off the HK. Not because there was anything wrong with it, but it just didn't fit any "need" I had and I wanted a new toy.

I don't think either gun is worth what they're charging new. For any Glock or HK I'd recommend finding a used gun. They're both nearly indestructable and if you're getting it to be a shooter a little wear doesn't hurt the performance of either gun.

I'd go with whatever works best. Sure it's going to be more to go with an HK and magazines are harder to find but it's a fine firearm and if you do better with it or are more comfortable with it's controls it can be worth the extra money.

[WonderNine]

This what you're looking for? (http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=13383118)

[mrapathy2000]

cdnninvestments has trade-in HK usp 40's in very good to excellent condition for $399.99. best price I have seen given the condition. though its not uncommon to see hk's in auctions for $500-$600

[Devonai]

I was disheartened to see the current USP prices after moving from MA to NH. I had a USP .40 that I got for $450 in excellent condition back in 1998. All the used USPs in my area are over $575. New, they're over $700. I was waffling over a USP .45 VS a Glock 20, I guess the market made that decision for me.

After owning a Glock 22 and the USP, I honestly like the G22 ergonomics better. The USP still wins on looks, though.

[10-Ring]

Why compare simply because of frame material? Doesn't it make more sense to compare price points? Instead of HK & Glock, wouldn't it make more sense to compare HK & SIG? HK & Kimber? GLock & Beretta? Glock & S&W? Like comparing BMW & Mercedes or Infiniti & Lexus & not BMW and Ford, right?

By the way, I do see the value in the HKs ;)

[Dorian]

DON'T DO WHAT I DID!

I bought my first USP retail and paid 800$ plus tax(RIP OFF) for it!

I bought my second USP brand new online and paid 599$ Plus transfer costs!

Buy a slightly used USP(like new) for less money.

In addition, I would have gotten my second USP for 550$ but I opted for a stainless model which was $50 more.

[only1asterisk]

I paid $489 for my Stainless USP9, I don't know what you guys are talking about. :neener:

IMHO it was worth the $600 I sold it for.

David

[PCRCCW]

Ive seen ALOT of HK usp/uspc's for under 5-600$. Just be patient and youll get the HK at the Glock price......
You get what you pay for.......to a point.

Shoot well........

[New_comer]

What's $300 if it's an HK? :what:

It's only money... :evil:

[Sean Smith]

It's not like it is a P7 or something... :evil:

[Spieler]

I had a USP9 and G17 side by side for awhile. Hk certainly has the 'mystique' and cool factors working in their favor, but I never could get comfortable with USP's grip and mag release. Seemed beefier than it needed to be.

I still have the G17.:p

[New_comer]

It's not like it is a P7 or something...

Nobody said it is... :uhoh:


But we're talking $300, not $1300. :neener: :evil:


Speaking of a P7, if I had the means, what's adding $1300 more... :cool:


As long as I'm happy, that's what counts ;)

[Highland Ranger]

USP has integral frame accessory rail, and numerous variants SA, DA, left handed, right handed, safety, decocker etc.

Have not looked at Glocks in a while but from what I recall, they did not have the same list of features. I know its been debated to death but I still don't like that trigger safety thingee . . . . .

Bought one of the first USP's in 1993 (.40 w/ the 13 round magazines) - still use it, has a few thousand round through it with only one stovepipe jam from some questionable range reloaded ammo.

Other than that, limp wrist it and feed it whatever you want, it just keeps shooting. Its a good gun. Still looks and shoots like new.

[MoNsTeR]

Shoot them both and find out for yourself.
Me, I'd buy the Glock, 5 extra mags, and two cases of ammo.

[SouthpawShootr]

The price on the USP is too high. I got my USPc for $640. Why are H&Ks more? They certainly not better. I would judge them about equivalent to Glocks. No better, no worse. Styling might be a bit more pleasing on the H&K, but if you're buying a defensive handgun, you're not making a fashion statement. H&K, like Beretta, feels that their guns are worth these hefty price. Want sticker shock? Go look at a P7M8 (or even worse, an unfired P7M13).

[Berg01]

The price on the P2000 is way over my head, but I like the gun. To answer your question, I think the HKs (and I'll toss in the Sigs) are worth a premium over many of the Glocks. But if you stay on the the lookout for one that is like new, that premium is nowhere near $300.00

[GySgt]

Is HK worth another $300?

Yes :D

[Boats]

Is HK worth another $300?

Nope.

I love the price point comparison above though. Where do I get an HK with full leather, high intensity xenon headlamps, active suspension, and a resale value with broader appeal to more than a just narrow subset of true fans and SOCOM wannabes?

The implication in that "logic" is that the HK line offers some justification of $100-300 over a very comparable pistol. It is perfectly appropriate to compare a Glock and the USP as being in the same market niche. After all, they compete primarily in the same actual market niche of Mil/gov sales.

I am no fan of Glock, but it does have an integral accessory rail to hang the commando doodads off of. They are both made primarily in injection molds, they both offer poor stock trigger pulls. Full caps for both are either extremely rare, expensive or both to the civilian. The HK can shoot reloads and offers more end user configuration. The last may not be such a draw in a setting where familiarity with a standardized weapon is desirable instead of having to figure out the variant on the fly.

Sorry, I just don't see the HK cachet on the USP and I used to own one.

[Mikul]

The difference in price is due somewhat to hype, but a great deal is also in the currency conversion. All of the H&Ks come from Germany and the US loses out to the Deutchemark or Euro.

The H&Ks are made better. The devil is in the details and that's what you'll need to look at when handling them both.

The one thing I see occasionally is people who shoot Glocks having the magazines fail to fall free. This may not matter to you functionally, but the reason this happens may. It happens because the grip on the frame of the Glock is thinner, or at least more flexible than that of the H&K. Squeeze the Glock too tightly and your mag is stuck. I can do this with an H&K, but it requires me to change my grip dramatically.

Also, have someone at the shop field-strip both guns. The internals of the H&K are almost as nice as the externals. H&K puts a lot of time and care into the fit and finish of it's guns. I believe this is why the USPs are so accurate. The only gun I can shoot tighter groups with than my H&K was a friend's custom 1911 in .38 super. I didn't realize how nice the internals were until a Glock shootier saw me field-strip mine and was amazed.

Not all Glocks have a fully supported chamber. Some of them let the brass hang a smidge above the feed ramp. People may argue whether this is a practical issue or not, but there it is. In high pressure cartridges, it matters to me. For the .45 I could care less.

H&K's fall between factory and custom guns in their fit, finish and attention to detail. What you need to decide is if it's worth it TO YOU to spend the extra $300.

[Rebel Gunman HK]

If in any way you can come up with the extra $300 I say use it. Nothing at all wrong with Glocks, they are just very plain. The HK's are just nicer IMO. The gun will last you and serve you very well, so dying in yer beds many years from now, will you be willing to trade all of this from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to go back to your gun store and tell them that they may take our money... but they'll never take our HK! :evil:

Was that over the top? :uhoh:

[Tamara]

Now my question is: Is HK worth another $300 over a Glock?

Personally? Having owned both, no.

OTOH, if one fits your hand and the other doesn't, then what price compatability?


(Remember, though, sometimes "Teutonic craftsmanship" means "Hans popped the plastic frame out of the mold with his bare hands." ;) :p )

[Highland Ranger]

Do some research, I think I have seen it discussed in a few threads here; not sure what the issue is but apparently some defect that makes some models go "kaboom"

Have also heard of other QC issues with Glock, I think they are well documented so you should be able to steer clear of effected models/versions . . . .

[Ky Larry]

If this gun is to be carried for CCW,money should be the least consideration. My Kimber cost me over $1000 to get it the way I wanted it. That's a lot of money to me but my safety and wellbeing is worth it. If your life may depend on this gun then don't worry about the cost. If you ever have to use it (and i pray you don't), then any amount of money is insignificant. Get what you can trust and depend on.
Shoot well and often.

[tobeat1]

I owned a USP 45 Tactical. Don't get me wrong, it was reliable, extremely accurate and waaayyyy cool. :cool: HOWEVER- It just did not get shot enough. The pistol is too large to really carry, the bore axis is too high for "me" and the grip was a bit large for me. So I sold it and with the money bought a Glock 34, 5 mags, two holsters and an M3. It gets shot every weekend (ammo is cheaper, and I reload) Softer recoil (I have carpal tunnel, although I will say that the HK was the softest shooting .45 I have ever shot)

Bottom line- If it fits you and you like it, get it. I have found after going through dozens of handguns I am only truly happy shooting the ones that fit me just right. (Glocks [except the .45 and 10mm variants] P7M8 which I still have:D and 1911s of all shapes and sizes) Don't buy it just because you think it looks "cool" if it is going to be primarily a shooter. If you are just gonna have a safe queen, by all means get what you want.

[care-less]

Might I suggest an alternative that is just as good, and cheaper than either? Springfields XD!!!!! A grip very reminiscent of the Hi-Power, at least to my hand; as solid feeling as the HK, and a hundred dollars cheaper than the Glock. I have all three, like them all, but the XD feels the best in my hand. Take a look at one, I really think you will be impressed.

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's All-

Most likely! You see, in my experience SIG'S
and H&K USP's are the king's of double-action self
loader's; with the SIG's holding a slight edge. Glock's are
not half bad either; but I tend to think one has to pay for
the fine, detailed craftsmanship of the SIG's and H&K's.
I'm not quite sure the difference should be $300 smack-
a-roos, as that seems kind'a steep? More like $150 more
here in my local shop; depending on model.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[Shake]

The answer to the question depends on the individual (and perhaps the intended purpose).

If you prefer the ergonomics, the shootability, and the manual of arms of the H&K over the GLOCK, it could be worth it (although that price absolutely stinks). If you prefer the GLOCK's ergonomics, shootablility, etc. or even if you have no preference then it isn't.

For many people cocked and locked carry is a big issue if it is, a price difference is worth paying to get what you want.

If you shop, you should be able to get a much better price than what you are quoting. This is common with most guns. I could have paid $850 for a Kimber, but shopped and got the same gun for $730. You shop, you win. You don't, you lose. . .

Shake

[Tamara]

I tend to think one has to pay for the fine, detailed craftsmanship of the ... H&K's.

It's unusual to hear the phrase "fine, detailed craftsmanship" applied to an injection-molded gun. :uhoh:

[Shake]

Would the slide and barrel be injection molded as well? You really don't just look at the frame to determine if a gun has been well made do you?

Shake

[rayjay]

I have had the H&K USP 40 for awhile now. Got it at a good price too $450.00 with tax. If you keep looking you will find one in the $500 range and beleive me they are worth every penny. When I bought mine I used it mainly as a carry gun. One day while shooting an IDPA match my Glockster took a ten count and was OUT! I had to finish with the H&K and it performed outstanding. Now I use the Glockster as an IDPA back up for the H&K, it gathers alot of dust too. I have, no joke, over 40,000 rds thru the H&K and never had a malfunction. Yes the H&K USP's are the SUV's of the handgun world. But the gun is made to last. I'm not knocking the Glocks, they too are made to last and are great weapons. I've had better luck with the H&K's though. I now have a 9mm H&K that is my IDPA back up. The Glockster? It went away for awhile and came back with a new additude.....an IPSC race gun additude:p

[michiganfan]

I had a HK 40 compact. I presently have a Glock 23. I like the 23 better.
Smaller, lighter, and easier to conceal. The HK was beautiful, a work of art.
The Glock a work of simplicity. In this world I enjoy simplicity. They both went bang every time.

[Tamara]

Would the slide and barrel be injection molded as well? You really don't just look at the frame to determine if a gun has been well made do you?

No, Shake, I don't, but neither do I only look at the price tag. And nowhere did I imply that the the USP wasn't "well made", I only questioned the "fine, detailed craftsmanship" bit.

A thought experiment: If you took someone who knew nothing about firearms, but was a skilled machinist (a "craftsman", if you will ;) ), and laid a USP, a P99, a Glock 17, and an XD9 in front of him, all shorn of markings, would he be able to tell you which one was $795 and which was $479 from the craftsmanship alone?

In all fairness, "fine, detailed craftsmanship" is something I don't usually apply to anything that comes off an assembly line in the tens of thousands, regardless of what the frame is made of. Craftsmanship implies a craftsman; a SIG P210-6 exhibits "craftsmanship," while a P220 exhibits "good QC." ;)

[Shake]

I understand. I am in agreement that the USPs are too pricey. I'll pay more for them because I happen to like their manual of arms and ergonomics over any other handgun (currently).

I wouldn't say they are finely detailed, but there is a lot more to them than just a squirt of hot plastic into a mold.

I do have a good friend who is a very skilled machinist. He's looked over my handgun collection and came away favorably impressed with the quality of the machine work on several, notably my USPs. I don't pretend to think he'd be able to judge the exact price difference, but I do think he'd be able to grade them (at least determine which has had more attention to detail) based on their machining quality.

Shake

[caz223]

If you can compare them side by side, pop the slide off, and take a good look at the barrel of a SIG, a glock, and a HK.
HK barrels are definately a cut above.
That being said, my SIGs and H&Ks out number my glocks.
They all make fine guns.
Now if SIG or H&K made 10mm models, maybe I wouldn't even have my G20.
Just thinking of a 10mm USP or a 10mm milled slide P220ST makes my little heart go pitter-patter.

[Tamara]

If you can compare them side by side, pop the slide off, and take a good look at the barrel of a SIG, a glock, and a HK.

Yes, I've done that a couple of times. What am I looking for? :confused:

[LeonCarr]

No. IMNSHO anything with HK on it is overrated and overpriced.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[Tamara]

No. IMNSHO anything with HK on it is overrated and overpriced.

Depends.

Some HK's are "overpriced" due to rarity/fixed supply (HK-91/93/94) or being out of production (HK4/VP70/P9S).

Some are "overpriced" because of limited production and complexity that raises production costs (P7Mx).

Some are "overpriced" because the brand name carries cachet that lets them be priced above similar quality short-recoil polymer guns (USP).

As far as "overrated" goes: If you think they're magic wands, then yes, they're overrated; if you think they're fine pistols that are at or near the top of their respective classes, well then, you're about spot on.

[Erik]

Another $300?

Nope - Having owned and been issued several of both brands at one point in time.

The opening of the new HK factory may bring them back into price point competition, now that they have established they're reputation via marketing. Maybe not, though, considering not may bought them when they were competitively priced along side Glocks...

[Sean Smith]

If you can compare them side by side, pop the slide off, and take a good look at the barrel of a SIG, a glock, and a HK.
HK barrels are definately a cut above.

Gee, I didn't know there were barrel cosmetics snobs! ;)

In that case, I have a Schuemann Ultimatch AET barrel that puts everybody to shame. :evil:

[Sean Smith]

And to answer the question, I would say not really, considering that HK didn't think the USP was worth $300 more than a Glock, until their marketing department realized that people didn't want an affordable HK.

No reason not to get the USP if you find a good deal on one, however.

[wardog]

Around here, USP's are about $200 more than comparable Glocks. If you are happy with the way Glock works, (safe action trigger, no manual safety, etc) then I would say no, it's not worth the extra $200.

OTOH, if you want a gun that offers cocked and locked carry, or uncocked and locked, or uncocked and unlocked, then the HK variant 1 is the way to go. I really like this feature. To my knowledge only HK, Taurus, and CZ offer this.

Also, where the HK really shines is in its versatiltity. It can easily be made DA only, SA only, Traditional DA/SA with decock only, etc, 11 different variations.

[robspmc]

My 2 cents,

I know this is an old post but I must reply. I'm not a glock fan but I do own a few. I also own a few HK's. I think HK's are hands down a better firearm. The tigger could use a good "job" but then again I think the safty/trigger on the glock is a joke. My gun shop (down Range in Ceres CA (209) 556-9728) sells HK he finished USP for $675 and SS HK for $750. I don't know of many Glocks you can buy for $300 less than that. I was able to buy my glocks for $399 on a LE deal and thats the only reason I own mine.

Rob

[harrydog]

I've owned an HK Tactical and a USP9F as well as several Glocks. I'd have to say that they are very comparable guns, but the HK's really do seem to have more attention to detail in their manufacture. Upon close inspection, the Glock seems more crudely made. Function-wise there is little difference between them. I like the recoil reduction spring set up on the HK. It does seem to soften recoil and lessens the impact on the frame, which is probably why HK states that it's OK to fire +P+ with these. Glock says +P is fine but not +P+.
Overall I prefered my HK's to my to my Glocks, but not by a huge margin.
Remember also that a used HK will usually command a much higher price than a used Glock. Even new Glocks can be found cheaply and used ones are a dime a dozen. If you ever want to sell an HK, you'll get that $300 back.
Glock has had some problems with their frames and has not dealt with the issue in the way they should have, in my opinion.
Bottom line...I'm not a huge fan of any polymer gun.

[Beav]

I would say something like $150 maybe $200 more is reasonable. $300 is just too much.

[wardog]

I saw a "new" USP .45 Compact at the gun show yesterday with 5 mags, and a nice leather holster for $595. It looked new, but I wondered why someone would buy 4 extra mags and a holster for a gun and still have it be "new". Anyway, I thought that was a good price.

[Stevie-Ray]

I have both. The HK is worth 100 bucks more, maybe. Is it worth the 280 bucks more I actually paid? No.

[tetchaje1]

I paid no more than $40 for both of my USP Compacts than the going market rate on Glocks in my area. Sure, I had to hunt for a while for the deals, but it was worth it, IMO.

[J.Bourne]

I think whether you should be willing to pay $150-$200 more depends on whether you want to be able to carry cocked and locked (remember, the USP line has a decocker lever that doubles as a safety) and appreciate the ambidextrous controls of the USP.

If you desire and/or need such things, the USP is definitely worth the difference, as you'll probably be carrying or relying on this weapon as a primary defensive firearm.

My Glock 23 is perfect for me because I don't need those items, and it fits my hand perfectly, but I also appreciate the fact that HK engineered those features into its USP line. I also own a HK USPf .45 and HK USP Compact .40.

My biggest knocks against the Glock are the plastic, spongy trigger and stock plastic sights.

As far as reliability and durability, it's a statistical dead heat.

So the definitive answer is: It depends.

[GySgt]

No. IMNSHO anything with HK on it is overrated and overpriced.

Yes. Because glunks not only have horrible triggers, they're just plain ugly!

[LeonCarr]

Hey Gunny,

I have owned or shot most of the autos out there, and the "Glunk" is the only one that has been 100% reliable for me. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and when I hold a Glock it works all the time.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[ACP]

"The one thing I see occasionally is people who shoot Glocks having the magazines fail to fall free. This may not matter to you functionally, but the reason this happens may. It happens because the grip on the frame of the Glock is thinner, or at least more flexible than that of the H&K. Squeeze the Glock too tightly and your mag is stuck. I can do this with an H&K, but it requires me to change my grip dramatically."
____________________________________________________________

Are you sure they're just not shooting NDF (non drop free) magazines?
Glock makes FML (full metal lined) and NFML (non full metal lined) magazines, as I'm sure you know. I believe the gun was originally designed NOT to drop the mags. so that a battlefield soldier wouldn't lose them. This was changed at the request of civilians and/or p.d.? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong...