Anybody know why HK typically has a lower capacity?

C

cslinger

New member
I am not a capacity snob by any means. I could care less if a gun hold 13 rounds or 17 and honestly over 10 or 12 don't think it means much. That being said I have always wondered why HK seems to traditionally be down a couple to a few rounds vice the competition.

Does it have to do with building hell for stout mags? Local/German laws?

Has always been a curiosity to me as it seems like a marketing mis-step.
 
I had thought of that as well as the fact that you simply cannot stuff more cartridges in the magazine when they are backwards but I feel there could be more to it. :D
 
HK typically designs their guns to meet the requirements of a tender or open bid of a law enforcement or military entity, so if the bid asks for a 15 round mag, they give the gun 15 rounds, not 17.

German laws have nothing to do with it, as the customer mil/LE is exempt from civilian gun laws.


HK doesn't really do marketing as we typically understand it at the consumer level either, so I don't think they are screwing up anything there.


More rounds is always better, but I don't think HK is losing any sales because the VP9 only holds 15 instead of the 17 it's competitors hold. The folks complaining were just looking for as many perceived faults of the VP9 as they can find, so they can can validate their brand of choice.
 
While I'm not familiar with the rest of HK's lineup,at least as concerns the VP9, it is comparable in barrel length and overall length to the G15...and their capacities are identical. Now if HK were to come out with a "VP9L", I certainly would expect a 17+1 capacity...comparable to the G17.

EDIT...
Sorry, I meant to say G19:)
 
Last edited:
While I'm not familiar with the rest of HK's lineup,at least as concerns the VP9, it is comparable in barrel length and overall length to the G15...and their capacities are identical.
Click to expand...

Its grip length is closer to the G17 than the G19, which is typically the dimension most folks pay the most attention to because it relates the most to printing. Many people will say the VP9's height is inbetween the G19 and G17, but stood on a table and the VP9 is the same height as a G17 as far as I can tell. I have the video below linked to the right time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n_VSwSlKts#t=4m50s
You'd also expect pistols of the same height to have the same capacity. But the VP9 uses P30 magazines and those never really pushed capacity. The magazine bodies themselves are notably longer than a G19 magazine yet hold the same number rounds. Part of it is HK typically uses staggered magazines that are a bit more narrow than a true double stack.
 
Last edited:
AFIAK, HK has been using the same basic magazine design for over 20 years. Every pistol since the USPc has been designed to use either USPc magazines or longer or shorter versions of USPc magazines. They seem to have decided to focus on cross compatibility of magazines across their handgun line over designing new magazines to try and squeeze in one or two more rounds.
 
Sig P320 Compact - 15 rnds
Walther PPQ - 15 rnds
Glock 19 - 15 rnds
HK VP9 - 15 rnds
Click to expand...

The lengths of the magazine bodies for those different pistols are not the same with the P30/VP9 being longer yet holding similar as those mentioned. This gives the VP9 a bit longer grip length than some other models. I don't say it's critical, but from owning all of those on your list it is definitely noticeable visually.
 
Going for the ultimate in capacity for a given size means compressing the springs all the way to the max when the mags are full. That incurs several penalties.

First of all, it's hard on the springs to compress them as far as absolutely possible. Beretta acknowledges this in their 92 series manuals when they half-heartedly recommend against carrying the guns in +1 configuration because it compresses the springs even more to insert a full mag into the gun with the slide forward.

Second, if you really max out capacity, it gets hard to insert a full magazine with the slide forward. I've owned at least one gun that had this problem so badly that I finally stopped trying to load the mags all the way to the specified capacity.

Third, it can cause feeding issues with the first round out of a full mag. Because that round is jammed in there so hard it takes more force to feed it than normal.

Finally, it makes it harder to load the mag fully. Again, I've guns that are so hard to load to capacity that I finally stopped loading them all the way full.
 
It's because of the same reason that you can buy Sig 226 and Beretta m9 mags with more than the standard 15rds, in a flush fit mag... And that there are 8rd flush fit 1911 mags...

These guns are designed with military and police use in mind. Military and police tend to be harder on equipment, and demand longevity despite that. And the tendency for these agencies to not do preventative maintenance on firearms, they tend to fix only after a hard failure. "Sir, my magazine keeps causing jams." "Well it looks OK to me son, so it can't be the problem, you must not clean your rifle enough."


It boils down to the magazine reliability and the mag springs.

While cycling springs wears them, and just sitting compressed does not... Pushing a spring past its elastic limit does damage the spring, and simply pushing a spring close to its elastic limit during repeated cycling wears them faster than a spring that is loaded less during cycling.

So the mag springs work harder in the higher capacity mags, between two otherwise identical mags. This means the lower capacity mag will be reliable for longer.

Reliability due to increased spring pressure is also a possibility. Reduced capacity prevents this.

So, while Hk, Sig, and Beretta CAN shove more rounds into their mags, they choose not to for the reasons I described above.


I read about this purposeful design decision somewhere a few years back, but I can not remember where.
 
Water-Man said:
TunnelRat,



The OP was asking about the capacity of the mags, not the physical size of same.
Click to expand...


Actually the OP asked why they often hold fewer rounds than similar pistols. The physical dimensions of the magazines, in this case width and the use of staggered vs. a double stack design, are key factors in that comparison.
 
One of the reasons is because your typical HK mag begins to narrow to the single feed earlier than some other double stacks. Beretta mags also do a more gradual narrowing on up to the feed lips. I always figured it aided in making feeding more reliable and consistent, although Glocks are pretty reliable too. That elongated narrowing may cost a round or two.
 
HK makes their own magazines they do not use Mec-Gar.

In general the reason magazine capacity has increased by a couple of rounds lately is that Mec-Gar came up with a new follower and spring type.

traditional types
image006.jpg


newer Mec-Gar type
image010.jpg


The newer style allows the follower and spring to compress lower in the magazine freeing up space for another round or two.
 
Thanks all most of what has been suggested is what I have surmised except the MecGar angle that does make quite a bit of sense.

As to the questions above, like tunnelrat said I meant like for like. For example the VP9/P30 is damn near identical to a Glock 17/SIG 320 etc. The P2000 is a Glock 19 analog and the 2000sk a G26/27 analog etc.

Just a curiosity. Thanks all.

Chris
 
Maybe the HKs are "down" capacity for the same reason that the standard Beretta 92FS and Sig P226 "only" hold fifteen rounds—relatively massive anti-tip magazine followers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top