HK USP 45 V.1 vs. Glock 21 Gen. 4

[tacstar]

I'm in the market for a .45 ACP. I'm debating between the full size HK USP Variant 1 & the Gen.4 Glock 21.

According to what I have read many Glock aficionados were not impressed with the Generation 4 Glocks & there were various issues associated them. According to Glock's marketing dept. the recoil on the Generation 4 has been dramatically reduced.

Recoil was an issue for me with the Glock 21SF I rented @ the range which is why I was reluctant to purchase one.

By all accounts is the HK USP 45 Variant 1 is a high quality firearm with minimal recoil for a semi-automatic pistol chambered in .45 ACP.

Has anybody had any experience with the Gen.4 Glock 21? It seems as though the Glock only has the HK beat in one category which is price but is it worth it to sacrifice quality to save a few dollars?

 

[Paincakesx]

My understanding is that the problems with the Gen 4 Glocks was limited to the 9mm models. In addition, I asked a similar question when I got my Gen 4 Glock 19, and apparently the problems with those have been resolved as well. Not sure about the Glock 21, but I would guess that not hearing much about them means that it's probably fine.

That said, I've shot the USP .45 numerous times, and it's got very low recoil. I also own a USP in 9mm, and while it's slightly different, it's really an awesome gun. Haven't shot the Glock 21, but I can recommend definitely recommend the USP.

 

[jmr40]

No experience with a Gen. 4 Glock, but I'm quite pleased with the Gen 3 version. I did briefly own one of the HK's and was disappointed. I liked all the features on the HK, but mine did not shoot as accurately, nor as reliably as the Glock I own. It could have just been 1 lemon, as the HK guns certainly have a good reputation.

I recently tried one of the FN 45 pistols. It is very similar to the HK, and the one I own has been very impressive. For me, it is a better choice than the HK, and priced about the same as the Glock. Not trying to talk you out of either the Glock or HK, but if you have not considered the FN, at least give them a look.

 

[CZ57]

I would recommend you check out the SA XDm .45 ACP. If you plan on shooting cast lead bullets it is conventionally rifled with a match grade barrel. Unlike the Glock 21 the ejection port is relieved and cases extract uniformly. With the interchangeable back-straps you can fit the pistol to your hand. Mine is match accurate.

 

[Carter]

Lets see here...with the h&k you get: more expensive magazines, less holster options, more expensive parts, and pay A LOT more.

I'd go for the glock.

 

[LeonCarr]

Glock

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

According to what I have read many Glock aficionados were not impressed with the Generation 4 Glocks & there were various issues associated them

the only gen4's that ever had issues were a minority of the model 19 and 17's. all others were good to go out of the gate.

 

[481]

As much as I like my Glocks (17s, 19s and 17Ls), I find that the Gen. 4 G21s mitigate felt recoil less than my HK USP45s (V/1). As a result, I ended up with the HK. After you get an extra two or three magazines, there is not much else to do and the "expense" stops there...well, not really....now I buy and shoot more .45 ammo than I have in the past.

If you've only fired the G21 so far and find it objectionable in terms of how it recoils, I'd encourage you to give the HK USP45 a try and see if it makes a difference for you. It did for me.

BTW, with a little shopping around you can find the USP45 at prices much lower than MSRP. I got mine brand new for less than $700. It is your comfort though and only you can decide how much that is worth.

 

[raze]

I recently tried one of the FN 45 pistols. It is very similar to the HK, and the one I own has been very impressive. For me, it is a better choice than the HK, and priced about the same as the Glock. Not trying to talk you out of either the Glock or HK, but if you have not considered the FN, at least give them a look.

x2 I got the fnp 45. I really like it i tried it out next to a glock 21 and it was a lot more comfortable, break down is the same 15+1 capacity was nice, plus it comes with 3 mags. It has a very natural point of aim. I would not count the fn out until you tried it

 

[Paincakesx]

Lets see here...with the h&k you get: more expensive magazines, less holster options, more expensive parts, and pay A LOT more.

I'd go for the glock.

It is true that the HK costs more, as do the accessories. If you just want a gun to shoot and carry, then the Glock is a fantastic value. To be fair, though, the higher price you pay for the HK isn't just for the brand name - HK's tend to be more innovative and have a better build quality. Whether that slight increase in quality is worth the extra $300 is your decision.

And I'm saying this as someone who loves his Glock 19 as well as his HKs.

 

[Inebriated]

You say the Glock has the HK "beat," but that's not really the case. Once you are talking about high quality firearms (USP, Glock 21, Sig P220, quality 1911's, XDm 45, etc), you are pretty much talking preference. Not "which is better."

So go handle them, man. They'll both perform great. Just comes down to what fits you better, which trigger you like, the weight, etc. I personally prefer the P220 > both, but between the two, I'd happily take the USP. I like DA/SA.

 

[miles1]

Tacstar i would ask that you look at the smith M&P as well as the springield XD 45 if your considering a poly gun.There definelty worth a look.

 

[HKGuns]

HK of course.

 

[thefamcnaj]

I own the 21 sf and I did own the usp 45. Usp is gone now with know regrets. The only thing the usp beats the 21 is in ergonomics. However with the interchangeable back strap on the gen 4's that may no longer be the case
For me personally when I shot them at the range, I was way more accurate with the g21. To me the felt recoil was the same. I prefered Glocks consistant 5.5 lb. trigger pull to the hk's DA/SA. The hk had failure to feeds out of both mags, while the Glock was and continues to be 100%. Just my .02.