HK drops USC

[Akita1]

Just checked on GB and the USC prices have only gone up a little, much of which is likely the current state of affairs. Wonder if the word's out yet. I won't be selling mine and, in fact, am in the market for a MR556 (except they're $3500)

 

[Sam1911]

As for HK, our U.S. LEOs and spec ops use them a ton (UMP, MP5, 416, etc.)

"A ton?" I don't really see any reason to say that's true. US law enforcement certainly does not use HK products of any kind in large numbers. (Of course, what is a "large" number? 1% of issued weapons? Then maybe I'd agree.) While we don't know any real statistics on what our various SOCOM personnel use for their tasks, I've read probably 15 or so book-length first-person accounts of such activities covering about the last 40 years and HK products are mentioned occasionally, but not predominately or even, really, all that often. Many other weapons were mentioned with far greater frequency.

So, we might more correctly say HK's products are used occasionally, by a very, VERY small portion of our armed personnel. And we don't really know why those few who use them, choose them.

... and while the price tag is not quite user friendly for civs, I must say the two I own have been worth every penny.

Can you explain that more qualitatively? What were the benefits you derived from your HK weapons that were unattainable through other choices? Are they objectively more accurate than other guns? Are you faster at engaging targets? Have you established comparative mean times between failure that exceed what you've experienced with other companies' products?

I know folks who really like HK products (meaning just those folks who actually have experience with them, and still choose them) REALLY defend that choice. I'd like to know why. How does the cost-benefit analysis balance out? What does an HK do, for you, that an AR-15, a Glock, and/or any number of other (less costly) choices could not?

 

[stumpers]

This is just one anecdote, but when I was assigned to an Army SF Group back in 2005-2008, the only time I saw or fired a UMP was during "foreign" weapons training which was basically everything not an M4A1.

I never saw one carried by SF teams or anyone else for that matter. I did see a ton of Colt Commandos/MK18-types though.

 

[SilentScream]

My (actual) theory about H&K is that they were an innovative and dynamic company, who became completely enmeshed with the bureaucratic entities they did the lion's share of their business with, and have become paralyzed with inefficiency within them. You see this trend all the time in military-industrial complex corporations. Why spend so much more money on a new polymer composite that is "better" yet yields no discernible benefit over something practical? Because some requisition somewhere demanded it, was willing to pay for it blindly, and you end up with products very far up the "diminishing returns" slope that sound impressive in Powerpoint presentations to generals. Much like Swiss weaponry in that respect. Very far from the "cheap, easy, and effective" ethos that guided the design of the G3 to quickly equip a post-war military.

I'm really glad you used the word theory, as your assumptions are not grounded in fact. They are in fact still exceptionally innovative, generally they tend to be very far ahead of their time or better stated ahead of the curve so to speak, when it comes to designs and features they incorporate into they're weapons. They usually don't catch on till years later, again I'll use the accessory rail on pistols, yes theirs was/is proprietary (USP) but that was a standard feature in the early 90's. It took almost another 10 years for it to be standard on competitor's guns, and over 10 years before it became standard across the board for all pistols. Another one is the polymer magazines, yes they've been around since the early 80's if not earlier. But I would say HK & the G36 perfected it. One only knows what's on the drawing boards today. I'm not here to shill for HK but I also believe in giving credit where credit's due.

 

[k_dawg]

I would say that for the US Civilian market, H&K rifles are fairly 'obscure'.

 

[Sam1911]

They usually don't catch on till years later, again I'll use the accessory rail on pistols, yes theirs was/is proprietary (USP) but that was a standard feature in the early 90's.

You mean the modified Weaver / Picatinny 1913 rail itself? Or the idea for putting one of the bottom of the gun? Or just on pistols?

 

[barnbwt]

They usually don't catch on till years later

Yeah, that's not a sign of "innovation," but rather lack of ability to bring a product to market and sell it effectively--a big part of that being offering it at a price commensurate with the worth derived from the product. A rail on a pistol is clever; it's not what I would call "innovative" since stuff's been mounted out there in other ways before for years--it's also not very expensive to do so, either. It's possible other companies didn't adopt this because contracts did not request it, or because H&K was sitting on patents that prevented them from doing so.

H&K does do some very cool R&D (the G11 boondoggle being a very cool example, that at least for posterity and the engineering challenge, I'm glad they found someone to waste money on ) but we don't seem to see it here. I'd have to say that FNH seems to be taking the lead on "innovation that I've actually seen/touched here in the States as a mere civilian," and I think that's cool, so if H&K is putting out even cooler stuff, I'd sure appreciate the chance to check it out. But I don't understand paying 2X top dollar for a last-last-gen platform like the USC--even if it is well executed.

IIRC, H&K makes (or made) a neutered version of the G36. Are they still planning to keep on making that model?

TCB

 

[TCBPATRIOT]

Perfected the polymer magazine eh? Especially with the G36 mag? I don't buy that one bit. Those interlocking coupling lugs are so brittle. I'm a fan of HK designs well as far as their long guns go. But I dare question your reasoning for saying they perfected the polymer mag. They may have a cool design but that thing is nowhere near perfection in both performance , application, and marketing.

 

[browningguy]

Are they objectively more accurate than other guns? Are you faster at engaging targets? Have you established comparative mean times between failure that exceed what you've experienced with other companies' products?

Yes, yes, can't establish a MTBF since my HK USC has never had a failure of any kind. And over the years I have let dozens of people shoot it with every kind of ammo you can think of.

How does the cost-benefit analysis balance out? What does an HK do, for you, that an AR-15, a Glock, and/or any number of other (less costly) choices could not?

There is no cost/benefit analysis, my life is worth whatever I spend, no matter how much. I also currently own 4 AR's in .223 and 5.7x28, I've owned KT Sub2000's (sold the last one during the December madness because someone wanted it for $600), I have 3 Springfield XDm's, 4 BHP's, and any number of firearms ranging from inexpensive to pretty darn expensive. And I don't own, and never would own, a Glock of any size or caliber.

If anyone thinks their KT or other inexpensive PCC is "just as good as" a USC, they simply don't know. I've owned the others, shot them, and recommend them to someone on a budget, but the USC is demonstrably better in every way (except mag capacity) than those inexpensive PCC's. Some people only buy the best built cars, and other people are perfectly happy with a 1980's Chevelle, to each his own and I don't think we should be trying to make people justify why they buy an expensive gun, just reverse snobbery (or possibly gun envy) as far as I can tell.

In short, if I can afford to buy whatever I want it shouldn't matter a whit to anyone else, maybe one day they'll get lucky and can afford whatever they want too.

 

[David E]

that thing is nowhere near perfection in both

1) performance

2) application

3) marketing.

You know, there are 3 kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't...........

 

[TCBPATRIOT]

Its that TN education for you.

 

[SilentScream]

Perfected the polymer magazine eh? Especially with the G36 mag? I don't buy that one bit. Those interlocking coupling lugs are so brittle. I'm a fan of HK designs well as far as their long guns go. But I dare question your reasoning for saying they perfected the polymer mag. They may have a cool design but that thing is nowhere near perfection in both performance , application, and marketing.

Granted the coupling lugs may be a weak point in the design, However I think you missed the point on that one. Until the G36 mags showed the way, the only other polymer mags I can think of that were also around at that point are the Thermold, & there's another that escapes me at the moment. Neither of which have had anything but mediocre reviews.

 

[SilentScream]

Yeah, that's not a sign of "innovation," but rather lack of ability to bring a product to market and sell it effectively--a big part of that being offering it at a price commensurate with the worth derived from the product. A rail on a pistol is clever; it's not what I would call "innovative" since stuff's been mounted out there in other ways before for years--it's also not very expensive to do so, either. It's possible other companies didn't adopt this because contracts did not request it, or because H&K was sitting on patents that prevented them from doing so.

I have to point out that if putting an accessory rail on a pistol were merely "clever" why then was it adopted by everyone? And the thought of producing a mid to full size handgun without one is pretty well unthinkable these days.
As far as FNH goes, I like a lot of the stuff they make. However everyone chimes in on how innovative the SCAR is, when in reality it's simply a Stoner AR18 with rails and some other improvements, just like the HK416 is basically an M16/AR18 hybrid as well.