Tell me about H&K Pistols

I upgraded precisely nothing in my Glock. and I got it right the first time with my 1911 magazines.

EVERY Glock I've been in contact has malfunctioned.

Click to expand...

That has sure not been my experience with them and I have no use for Glocks (just ask either of my brothers who have drunk the koolaid). I've not seen a single malfunction across 6 or 7 models I've shot and seen shot. But to me they feel like picking up a 2x4.

When it was all said and done once I picked up the P30 it was all over for me.

Click to expand...

That's how I ended up with multiple 1911s.

And that brings me to my HK advice. I don't think I've ever shot one. DA/SA semi-autos just don't do it for me. I tried a bunch of DA/SA guns and even bought one but in the end sold it and don't miss it a bit. Some guns I realized I wouldn't like before I'd put half a box of ammo through. Others I had to buy before I figured it out. Some I knew I would love before I made it through half a box of ammo.

There's really no substitute for handling and shooting a gun. If you can rent one from a range or go with a friend that has one you can find out if it fits you and if you shoot it well. If the HK fulfills those two criteria and if you handle enough other guns that don't fit or don't shoot well for you, you won't care near as much about the price. But if you find something that does fit and shoot well for half the price you can spend the extra money on ammo.

I own H&Ks (3)
Glocks (4)
Sigs (2)
1911s (3)
bunch of odball one offs, Astra, Walther, etc.
I keep them clean, lube them lightly and keep them maintained.
I can't remember the last malfunction I have had with any of them.

Buy what feels best in your hand and don't worry the cost.

I prefer to carry a Sig, but love the workmanship in an Hk. But I am mainly in love with their rifles. The USP is a tank though. The barrel life in the rifles is where I notice the difference. As I said I was lucky enough to be invited to Georgia (years ago) and see their building. There is this beat to crap Hk 416 that is still in functioning condition. After looking at it it honestly looks like it has been dragged behind a vehicle , beaten, used as a hammer and everything else. It has over 120,000 rounds through it. I am guessing it is a reminder. According to them it still shot well within military specs... That kind of made me a believer in their barrel making process. I will never knock a Hk after that.

Yeah, the MSRP listed in in OP isn't realistic - $1200 for an HK pistol is way too much unless it's a rare or specialized model. They normally go for anywhere from $700-950. Look around and you should be able to find some better deals.

HK had the market cornered on high-end plastic guns for many years, but currently I would think long and hard before buying an HK over a Beretta PX4, Sig P2022, or a few other other poly guns that shoot nearly just as well. The performance vs price difference just isn't there any more IMO.

And for reference, it looks like the gun linked in OP goes for around $840 retail.
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/index.php/cPath/21_47/Handguns/Heckler+&+Koch/page/1/sort/6a

They are nice guns, but that price is really high. I bought my father one new from Gunbroker 3-4 years ago for $750ish

This board has a long-standing reputation of a cheapskate mentality. Some folks are adamant about buying the cheapest possible stuff, only to turn around and have to deal with the stress associated with the issues

Click to expand...

That's a pretty bold statement, considering that some of the posters you're disagreeing with have spent far more than the cost of an HK pistol on optics. Pretty sure a couple of them also have machine guns.

I could buy an HK if I wanted another. I spent more than any of their standard pistols cost on RC cars last month alone. Why don't I? Because they are not only overpriced for what they are, but generally have inferior ergonomics compared to much of the competition. Anyone who knows me also knows that I am no Glock fan, but I can tell you that even my G20 is a more comfortable pistol than the USP I had. It also performs just as well and cost half as much. The Glock represents a good value.

Value is the part of the equation that seems to elude a lot of the fanbois, especially the HK types. It's not that they're not good guns; they certainly are. It's that they offer nothing in the way of durability and performance that you can't get out of a much less expensive firearm, nor does their manufacturing process correlate with the cost. As stated back on page 1, when you pay substantial money for a hand-fitted, machined steel precision pistol such as a top shelf 1911 or Sig P210, you're paying a lot for the labor that went into making it, and for most of us who don't shoot competitively, there comes a point of diminishing returns anyway. I like 1911s, but I won't spend more on Nighthawk that performs no better than a Kimber just to say I own a Nighthawk. Same thing with HK.

As Sam1911 said, if the gun appeals to you in a way that justifies the cost to you, then buy it. But don't buy it just to say "I have an HK", especially if you felt the the M&P, Glock, XD, FNP or some other actually fit you better or had a preferable feature.

HK has really done this to themselves. The standard service handgun market thrives in the $500-$700 range, but tapers off substantially as you approach $1,000. Yet the HK pistols are not competitive with the class of firearms that start at ~$1,000. I have a Witness Limited 10, which presently cost about $1,100. Why would I pay that kind of money for the Tanfoglio firearm and not the HK? Because a USP Tactical or HK45 cannot compete with the Limited in that type of shooting.

Simply put, HK has put themselves in a very strange position where value isn't an attribute. Value is what drives most of us to make purchases, and it is not synonymous with cheap. It simply means getting what you paid for.

boricua9mm said:

Proficiency with a duty/combat/defense pistol is attained through repetition and practice. If you're only shooting 1,200 rounds in a year, then in all likelihood the only proficiency attained is that of hitting a target at a casual snail's pace.

Click to expand...

I'm one of those who significantly curtailed my shooting due to the ammo shortage. Last week I shot for the first time in months with my sister and brother-in-law, ran through numerous drills, was able to keep 8 inch groups - with the occasional flyer - with a fire rate of 15 rounds in under 5 seconds. Proficiency comes in many forms...

boricua9mm said:

This board has a long-standing reputation of a cheapskate mentality. Some folks are adamant about buying the cheapest possible stuff, only to turn around and have to deal with the stress associated with the issues (*cough*Ruger*cough*).

Click to expand...

... and I did it with my Ruger, which has been a flawless gun.

That's a pretty bold statement, considering that some of the posters you're disagreeing with have spent far more than the cost of an HK pistol on optics. Pretty sure a couple of them also have machine guns.

Click to expand...

So then the $400 premium isn't much of an arguing point, now, is it?

I could buy an HK if I wanted another. I spent more than any of their standard pistols cost on RC cars last month alone. Why don't I? Because they are not only overpriced for what they are, but generally have inferior ergonomics compared to much of the competition. Anyone who knows me also knows that I am no Glock fan, but I can tell you that even my G20 is a more comfortable pistol than the USP I had. It also performs just as well and cost half as much. The Glock represents a good value.

Click to expand...

One only needs to detail strip a Glock to see why they are able to be produced on the cheap. You're not exactly telling me anything I don't already know. I've been carrying Glocks for quite some time now. Doesn't take anything away from H&K.

It's that they offer nothing in the way of durability and performance that you can't get out of a much less expensive firearm, nor does their manufacturing process correlate with the cost.

Click to expand...

The very nature of their business and the associated operating costs makes them more expensive. This was clearly outlined in my first post.

As stated back on page 1, when you pay substantial money for a hand-fitted, machined steel precision pistol such as a top shelf 1911 or Sig P210, you're paying a lot for the labor that went into making it, and for most of us who don't shoot competitively, there comes a point of diminishing returns anyway. I like 1911s, but I won't spend more on Nighthawk that performs no better than a Kimber just to say I own a Nighthawk. Same thing with HK.

Click to expand...

HK doesn't make anything in the same price bracket as a top shelf 1911 or the P210. You're comparing an $800 production gun to a $2,000 hand built pistol.

HK has really done this to themselves. The standard service handgun market thrives in the $500-$700 range, but tapers off substantially as you approach $1,000. Yet the HK pistols are not competitive with the class of firearms that start at ~$1,000. I have a Witness Limited 10, which presently cost about $1,100. Why would I pay that kind of money for the Tanfoglio firearm and not the HK? Because a USP Tactical or HK45 cannot compete with the Limited in that type of shooting.

Click to expand...

HK's specialty is not in building game guns. They have some models like the Expert and the Match pistols, but given your comparison to base model USPs and the HK45, I have to assume you have no experience with those models. HK's specialty is building combat grade hardware that works. There is a significant difference between game guns like the Tangfolio and the HK45c that NSW uses. They really aren't even after the same market.

... and I did it with my Ruger, which has been a flawless gun.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm happy for you. Others have had to deal with pain-in-the-neck recalls on multiple models. The point is, Ruger has had multiple recalls in very recent history, yet no one can remember HK ever having one.

It also seems obvious you have never heard of Ruger P series, MK series, or any Ruger revolver.

Click to expand...

Pfft! Please! So you admit to knowing nothing of Ruger's recall troubles?

Any product that costs more money than a similar competitor requires justification. Similarly, what will an Hk do that a Glock won't? Shooting an extra thousand rounds per week doesn't make the Hk a better gun, nor does it widen the gap between the Hk and Glock. Is the Hk better? Yeah, it probably is. It damn well better be. But is it twice as good? I can't see how that would be possible. Therefore, the price isn't justified.

Click to expand...

Glock doesn't make a hammer fired gun with multiple trigger mode options. So, for starters, that's one thing an HK can do that a Glock cannot.

I'm happy for you. Others have had to deal with pain-in-the-neck recalls on multiple models. The point is, Ruger has had multiple recalls in very recent history, yet no one can remember HK ever having one.

Click to expand...

USC/UMP were recalled...

USC/UMP were recalled...

Click to expand...

...which would be great material for the Rifle section.

So then the $400 premium isn't much of an arguing point, now, is it?

Click to expand...

Just because you own expensive things doesn't mean you laugh at spending $400 for no reason. The wealthiest men I know are the tightest with their money. Now if spending the $400 is worth it to you to get the gun you want and that fits you best, by all means spend it. But don't dismiss the extra cost outright.

That said, people shouldn't dismiss what you get for the extra cost. Comparing a Nighthawk to a Kimber... ha. While it's not quite as drastic of a comparison, you should expect a higher quality from a production H&K than your standard Glock or Ruger. Whether that's worth the extra $$$ is up to personal preferences.

Just because you own expensive things doesn't mean you laugh at spending $400 for no reason. The wealthiest men I know are the tightest with their money. Now if spending the $400 is worth it to you to get the gun you want and that fits you best, by all means spend it. But don't dismiss the extra cost outright.

Click to expand...

You are implying that HK makes a $450 gun, then just plops on another $400 "for no reason."

The HK pistols are not as mechanically simple as a Glock. They cost more to make, period.

You boys have fun with your HK hate, ya hear!?

Some pistols cost more than others. It might be interesting to know why, but it's academic - if I like the gun and I'm willing to shell out the cash, why not? I was never much on polymer pistols until I rented a couple of USPs and discovered that I shoot them really well. Now I have a pair (.45 and 9mm) and every time I see a P30 I'm sorely tempted. Some folks trumpet value - less expensive does not equal better value. It isn't a good value if doesn't work for you. Glocks cost less but they don't fit me. H&K pistols cost more but they do fit me. For me, a USP is a far better value than a Glock.

boricua9mm said:

You are implying that HK makes a $450 gun, then just plops on another $400 "for no reason."

The HK pistols are not as mechanically simple as a Glock. They cost more to make, period.

You boys have fun with your HK hate, ya hear!?

Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense. No, I'm not implying that. If you actually read my post, you would know that. I'm saying that...

So then the $400 premium isn't much of an arguing point, now, is it?

Click to expand...

...is a silly thing to say, just because people own some expensive things (optics, NFA items, etc.). Owning something expensive does not mean you should dismiss cost as a factor altogether when comparing two items.

$400 might be an arguing point, if one personally doesn't consider the difference between two guns to be worth $400. This is true, regardless of whether they own a $3000 1911, drive a $60,000 car, or drive an $800 clunker.

My filter for value is 'performance added'. I have fired multiple HKs. I don't shoot them any more accurately than I shoot my Glocks, and I find that the PPQ, Caracal, P99AS, and Ruger SR pistols are marginally easier to be accurate with due to their triggers. I never had an HK fail in my hands, but that's also true of every Glock, SR, Walther P99/PPQ, and M&P I've fired.

For +0 ease of accuracy, +0 reduced muzzle rise, and +0 reliability, I'll save my money and buy something else.

I think Sergi Mosin has the idea with this.

It isn't a good value if doesn't work for you. Glocks cost less but they don't fit me. H&K pistols cost more but they do fit me. For me, a USP is a far better value than a Glock.

Click to expand...

The more I think about it, if I expect a pistol to save my life if needed, shouldn't I choose the one that I shoot best and most accurately, regardless of price? It just means saving longer. My life is worth an extra $400, IF that will get me a pistol I shoot better than another.

If you shoot a less expensive gun just as well, then you are lucky and get to save some money I guess.

So really when we are talking about value, it is a relative thing. Value will exist for some with HK's and not with others...........

I mean really, a $350 Remington 870 may be more valuable to you than a $900 HK pistol.

The difference to me in the HK45 for example is the magazine release type, and the ergos. And even though I own an FNP45, I may trade up in the near future. I need to shoot an HK45 first though. In the hand, it feels more natural.

When HK makes a nice 10mm pistol, I'll consider getting rid of my G29 and G20.

I've been checking out the hk45 for a couple months. Has the features I like and I like the grip feel, mag release, recoil. I keep my pistol collection small so paying a little more is not a big deal. For a polymer 45 it seems like a good option if like me, you're not fond of glocks or the FN. Unless Walther ever puts our a 45. In the end, it's subjective.

Seems the only thing "wrong" with HK pistols is the price

Wow, I certainly managed to ruffle some fanboy feathers, didn't I?

They have some models like the Expert and the Match pistols, but given your comparison to base model USPs and the HK45,

Click to expand...

I checked their site to see what current offerings are, and those are not on the menu. Having said that, the Expert and Match also come up short compared to a number of other pistols built for IPSC type shooting, including but not limited to other CZ based pistols, many 1911s, S&W 945, etc.

You are implying that HK makes a $450 gun, then just plops on another $400 "for no reason."

Click to expand...

I know that wasn't directed toward me, but I've long maintained that HK makes an excellent $500 pistol and sells it for $1,000. I'm also far from the only person who feels this way.

I concur. I like them just fine, I have absolutely no idea what would make them worth so much in comparison to other guns.

Overpriced Euro trash. And this from a guy that loves his HK USC.

If you have the money then buy one, you won't go wrong, everything about an HK is built right. If you don't have the money buy a M&P/XDm or similar. They'll work just as well.

If you don't have the money buy a M&P/XDm or similar. They'll work just as well.

Click to expand...

Let's say they will FUNCTION* just as well. They may indeed WORK** better for you, personally. They do so for an awful lot of people -- people for whom any cost savings is an irrelevancy.


* Function -- feed and eject reliably, achieve fine mechanical accuracy, operate without breakage or undue wear, etc.

** Work -- Enable YOU to make accurate hits as fast as possible. Remember, as long as the guns function, there's really no other goal.