Is HK worth another $300?

[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. 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 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.

 

[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

 

[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?

 

[LeonCarr]

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

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Tamara]

Leon Carr,

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.

 

[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.