Im loving my 1911 but I'm becoming more and more interested in buying a carry gun that's extremely reliable, has higher mag capacity, and somewhat smaller than my 1911 (yes, these 2 are still large - I know). Only interested in .45 ACP tbh.
I am extremely interested in a USP, but I know Glocks are just as good overall if not better in some respects (opinions differ, yes). The main reason I am posting this question is obviously in regard to recoil between the two. I love the .45 ACP round; it is awesome to shoot - just feels "right." However, I frankly do miss the easy target reacquisition that my 9mm's offered under speed. So basically, I'd like to regain a little bit of the speed-friendly accuracy that I enjoyed with my 9's on my next .45 purchase, as much as possible anyway.
So, with that goal in mind, it should be obvious why I'd be considering the 21C and the USP with it's "recoil reducing" double spring system. I guess a fundamental question I have here is - just how "good" is the USP recoil reduction? Is the USP system more effective at controlling flip than the compensated Glock 21C?
I know Glocks are very light weight for their size, and I am kinda turned off by this honestly. I shot a Glock 17 the other day for quite a while, and it was (at least in my opinion) all over the place for a 9mm. Coming from heavy Beretta 92s, the Glock just seemed very hard to control when shooting fast. So yeah, naturally, I'm kinda hesitant to try a Glock in the mighty .45. How well does the integrated compensation help on the 21C's?
Anyone have a decent amount of experience with both? I'd love to get opinions on which one shoots "softer." Obviously, the more time I spend shooting whichever of the 2 guns I decide to buy, the more adept I'll become at shooting it fast & compensating for recoil with muscle memory to get back on the target immediately (exactly what you said).
All I'm asking for is an "outta the box" comparison between the 2 so I can make a purchase decision. I just wanna know which gun the community here feels is more inherently/outta the box/whatever-you-wanna-call-it friendly to rapid fire accuracy. I realize that mastery of the skills I want will come only with a lot of practice with whichever gun I buy - I'm just looking for as much natural edge as I can get, mechanically speaking, before I throw typical human shooting factors into the equation.
Make sense? As always, thanks for your time guys.
:: EDIT ::
(P.S. Yes, I'm trying desperately to find a way to get my hands on both of these guns at the range for some test firing before I buy. They aren't available for rent, so wish me luck on finding a couple nice guys who might let me handle theirs)
I am extremely interested in a USP, but I know Glocks are just as good overall if not better in some respects (opinions differ, yes). The main reason I am posting this question is obviously in regard to recoil between the two. I love the .45 ACP round; it is awesome to shoot - just feels "right." However, I frankly do miss the easy target reacquisition that my 9mm's offered under speed. So basically, I'd like to regain a little bit of the speed-friendly accuracy that I enjoyed with my 9's on my next .45 purchase, as much as possible anyway.
So, with that goal in mind, it should be obvious why I'd be considering the 21C and the USP with it's "recoil reducing" double spring system. I guess a fundamental question I have here is - just how "good" is the USP recoil reduction? Is the USP system more effective at controlling flip than the compensated Glock 21C?
I know Glocks are very light weight for their size, and I am kinda turned off by this honestly. I shot a Glock 17 the other day for quite a while, and it was (at least in my opinion) all over the place for a 9mm. Coming from heavy Beretta 92s, the Glock just seemed very hard to control when shooting fast. So yeah, naturally, I'm kinda hesitant to try a Glock in the mighty .45. How well does the integrated compensation help on the 21C's?
Anyone have a decent amount of experience with both? I'd love to get opinions on which one shoots "softer." Obviously, the more time I spend shooting whichever of the 2 guns I decide to buy, the more adept I'll become at shooting it fast & compensating for recoil with muscle memory to get back on the target immediately (exactly what you said).
All I'm asking for is an "outta the box" comparison between the 2 so I can make a purchase decision. I just wanna know which gun the community here feels is more inherently/outta the box/whatever-you-wanna-call-it friendly to rapid fire accuracy. I realize that mastery of the skills I want will come only with a lot of practice with whichever gun I buy - I'm just looking for as much natural edge as I can get, mechanically speaking, before I throw typical human shooting factors into the equation.
Make sense? As always, thanks for your time guys.
:: EDIT ::
(P.S. Yes, I'm trying desperately to find a way to get my hands on both of these guns at the range for some test firing before I buy. They aren't available for rent, so wish me luck on finding a couple nice guys who might let me handle theirs)
