In over a dozen HKs I can tell you they are not. They are as long and more often even longer. They are slightly narrower and as mentioned above taper much sooner than other mags
Anybody know why HK typically has a lower capacity?
- Thread starter cslinger
- Start date
In over a dozen HKs I can tell you they are not. They are as long and more often even longer. They are slightly narrower and as mentioned above taper much sooner than other mags
Limnophile
New member
Seems like you are confirming that the interior volume of an HK mag is indeed smaller, as confirmed by the smaller round capacity.
You never said volume originally. You simply said "smaller". We both know there are multiple means of measure for a three dimensional body. I actually am admittedly not sure about volume. That may well be the case but I think follower design is a factor too.
Edit: I'm not trying to argue semantics with you, I just think saying smaller is too vague in this case.
Last edited:
stangbangr
New member
I don't compare the VP9 to the G17. I compare it to the G19 since it has 15 rounds and it's way bigger.
For me it wasn't really just the size/capacity that didn't thrill me. I'd choose my PPQ, G19 and Steyr M9-A1 over my VP9. Having said that the VP9 is a fine gun. I've put 600 assorted rounds through it without issue.
15 rounds seems pretty standard for most modern 9mm pistols. I like 15 as the base line and any thing above that is just a bonus. I also like flush fitting magazines.
How is the 15 rounds of the Glock 19 more than the 15 of the VP9/P-30 (9mm)? It's not only the body length that needs to be taken into consideration, but their base plates as well. Glocks have a good amount of base plate below the bottom of the grip.
I find the HK VP9/P-30 (9mm) magazines to be pretty thick. In fact my P-30 mags will not insert into any of my other 9mm's. All four other models mags (9mm 15 rounders) easily slide into the mag well of the P-30. The length of my P-30 mags are slightly shorter than my Sig 226 mags, with the other three being shorter. The taper measured from the top on my P-30 is the same as my Sig 226 and Walther PPQ. The Sphinx SDP is longer and the Steyr is shorter. The Steyr is the second thickest mag, but the shortest of all five.
How is the 15 rounds of the Glock 19 more than the 15 of the VP9/P-30 (9mm)? It's not only the body length that needs to be taken into consideration, but their base plates as well. Glocks have a good amount of base plate below the bottom of the grip.
I find the HK VP9/P-30 (9mm) magazines to be pretty thick. In fact my P-30 mags will not insert into any of my other 9mm's. All four other models mags (9mm 15 rounders) easily slide into the mag well of the P-30. The length of my P-30 mags are slightly shorter than my Sig 226 mags, with the other three being shorter. The taper measured from the top on my P-30 is the same as my Sig 226 and Walther PPQ. The Sphinx SDP is longer and the Steyr is shorter. The Steyr is the second thickest mag, but the shortest of all five.
Oops, make a typo. Meant same as. Getting old.
No more so than a VP9. In neither case does the base plate really hang down, it's that it curls back up unto the magazine body. On a Glock it's more noticeable as the magazines aren't flush. Even despite hanging down the Glock 19 is notably shorter than say a VP9, but the bore axis on the VP9 is a little bit higher so that will take up some of that overall height. Still, put the magazines side by side and see for yourself.
You're sure this is entirely due to thickness? I don't remember the magazines on the 2 P30s or VP9 I owned being notably thicker. Is part of the thickness the thickness of the metal walls as well? Those Obendorf elves.
I can guarantee you though that the taper on the P30 magazines is more notable than that of say a Glock or even somewhat more than an M&P. Those were more what I had in mind and are often brought up as capacity comparisons. You are right though that other magazines are also tapered.
This is sort of interesting to hypothesize but frankly neither I nor anyone else here to my knowledge work for HK. You'd have to go to the source for the real answer (could call HK CS). Even if we had an answer, it wouldn't change the current situation. Other pistols of similar height and other magazines of similar length hold more cartridges in a number of cases. Whether it's the overall shape and construction of the magazine combined with the follower design or any other reason, it is what it is. It didn't stop me personally from trying a VP9, but nor do I think it's out of line to point out. 2 more rounds is 2 more rounds. If we want to argue about whether we "need" them we can go that route, but capacity is typically one of the reasons a lot of people choose 9mm. All things being equal, I'd rather more capacity. Now determining if they're equal, that's the sticky wicket.
Someone should do an epic magazine reliability test with all current production pistols. Brand new magazines, and then see which springs or design fail first and how much longer the other designs last and how many failures in a set number of rounds. We will need a ludicrous amount of ammunition though. Maybe Lucky Gunner will sponsor it or something?
Last edited:
marine6680
New member
Long term reliability, and reliability in general are the main reasons.
Slight dimensional changes are not going to make a huge difference.
As an example, lets look at factory Sig 226 mags, and compare them to the Mecgar flush fitting mags.
The Mecgar holds more rounds, even though they are the same size as the factory mags. (Mecgar was even a supplier of those factory mags at one point)
Its usually the follower design that makes the difference in these cases. Someone posted pics showing follower differences within a group of mags for one pistol.
Increasing spring life, and reliability by balancing spring pressures when fully loaded, is the big reasons why despite similar sized mags to other pistols with higher capacity, the HK, Sig, and Beretta have 15 round capacity.
Slight dimensional changes are not going to make a huge difference.
As an example, lets look at factory Sig 226 mags, and compare them to the Mecgar flush fitting mags.
The Mecgar holds more rounds, even though they are the same size as the factory mags. (Mecgar was even a supplier of those factory mags at one point)
Its usually the follower design that makes the difference in these cases. Someone posted pics showing follower differences within a group of mags for one pistol.
Increasing spring life, and reliability by balancing spring pressures when fully loaded, is the big reasons why despite similar sized mags to other pistols with higher capacity, the HK, Sig, and Beretta have 15 round capacity.
This is exactly what I would love to test somehow. I agree with you that it was likely part of the decision, but in the real world how long would it take to notice? Glock magazines are typically regarded as reliable despite the fact that they hold the equivalent number of rounds in a smaller package. Like I said we need a lot of ammunition and maybe time as well as some will argue that time is also a factor.
That's funny. Pity the AA dates, or do they take shot shells?Hey, aren't we all!
Thanks for clearing that up.I don't have any 19 mags to do a side by side. I'll take your word for it though. If you put them back to back with their base plates on an even surface is there much of a length difference.
100% sure. The HK's don't look to use a thicker metal. They are just plain wider at least in the examples I have. They may be thinner than some other brands/models that I don't have.
The 18 round Mec-Gar 226 magazines are not really flush mount even though that's what they are called. The whole base plate is below the grip unlike the factory mags that are truly flush. It's not a huge difference, but a noticeable one as soon as you insert and lock one in. I like the extra capacity of my Mec-Gars for my 226 but prefer the look of the factory 15 round mags.
marine6680
New member
The thing with mecgar mags being a little farther exposed vs factory mags...
That is more down to the fact that mecgar uses a plastic base plate vs a thin steel one on the factory mag. The plastic base plate needs more material to be strong enough.
And 1/8 inch of protrusion does not account for 3 extra rounds.
That is more down to the fact that mecgar uses a plastic base plate vs a thin steel one on the factory mag. The plastic base plate needs more material to be strong enough.
And 1/8 inch of protrusion does not account for 3 extra rounds.
Limnophile
New member
Well, internal volume is the only volume of interest to this subject.
Given that the internal volume is smaller, the next question is "Why?" A larger follower or larger spring (when compressed) is the likely answer. The next question becomes "Why did the designer opt to do that?" Longer spring life, more reliable feeding perhaps, ease of mag loading, and others have been brought up.
The designer made a tradeoff between capacity, an important point for many buyers, and presumably reliability. My question is, How much of a reliability gain is achieved by decreasing capacity? If it's a matter of increasing spring lifespan, I'm not impressed, as a replacement spring is not expensive or hard to install. If it's a matter of improving feeding, whether the tradeoff is worthwhile depends on how much feeding reliability is improved. Has HK ever made this a selling point?
I think you want to say usable/available internal volume. Without the magazine spring and the follower the volume of the magazine body itself might actually not be smaller than the competition. Or maybe it actually is and the follower/spring compound the problem further.
It seems to me this would be pretty easy to get to the bottom of. Can someone simply disassemble a P30/VP9 magazine and post a photo so we can see the follower and spring?
Last edited:
Maybe it's a good time to also address why HK's slides and frames are so needlessly blocky and their triggers are sub par (except for the match models).
I often wonder if HK is even better than Glock or other guns at all, and not simply perceived to be better because of the marginally higher price. I wonder if glocks sold for $800, if consumers wouldn't automatically segment the market on their own and assign a greater perceived market value to glocks....
We are talking about mass produced piles of plastic here........not a wilson combat vs les Baer.
I often wonder if HK is even better than Glock or other guns at all, and not simply perceived to be better because of the marginally higher price. I wonder if glocks sold for $800, if consumers wouldn't automatically segment the market on their own and assign a greater perceived market value to glocks....
We are talking about mass produced piles of plastic here........not a wilson combat vs les Baer.
I wouldn't consider the P series HKs overly block, though their triggers aren't anything special for sure. The VP9 would seem to conflict with both of your claims.
Maybe. I do know I have gone thousands of rounds between failures with the HKs I had. I have not been able to say the same with Glocks, especially the new Gen 4s I had when they first came out. That said I now own 2 Glocks and only have my HK 45c left. The P series HKs have surprisingly few parts for a DA/SA gun and were very reliable for me. But I'm a sample of one.
True, though at the same time I don't think only the most expensive of products show differences in their quality. I think the build quality on VW is better than that of Honda for instance, and neither of those are top end cars. Look hard enough and you can always find differences. Whether those differences "matter" in the long run is always debatable, and I'd say the same about Les Baer vs Wilson Combat.
The same can be said for almost anything, even outside of the realm of guns (real estate, guns, clothes, etc.). For the record I think HK are a good purchase. I bought a P2000sk, and put 400 rounds through it with zero failures.
I picked up a Glock 26 a few weeks later, and had 8 failure to feeds within the first 120 rounds. I also put 88 rounds through a new Glock 42 without a single issue. Two of the Glock 26 magazines I have are SUPER tight, and it was a pain loading nine rounds in one of them... Got ten to fit each time though.
Failures aside, I still had a good time shooting the Glock (more fun with the 42 of course). I haven't given up on it, and intend to go back to the range next weekend. Even if it ran 100%, I'd still say that HK's are a whole different breed. After taking it down and comparing the two, I can say it is a matter of fit and finish, along with feel of the weapon. YMMV, but that is why it is nice to have options.
TR I don't have enough time with the VP9, just the pistols prior to that going back to the P7. From what I have seen, it is an improvement. But the P30, P2000, USP hadnt moved my meter. Most time spent on USP-9's and a P30. The P30 felt good, but that doesn't translate into accuracy, controllability, or speed, at least for me.
Concur that the early Gen 4 Glocks were a head-shaker.
At the end of the day, I feel that HK is catching up in the areas they lacked before. There is no question they are robust and well made, but so are others. The vp 9 pricing also Very fair as well IMO.
Concur that the early Gen 4 Glocks were a head-shaker.
At the end of the day, I feel that HK is catching up in the areas they lacked before. There is no question they are robust and well made, but so are others. The vp 9 pricing also Very fair as well IMO.
I actually liked my P2000/sk better than the P30. I found them very accurate and controllable, but compared to pretty much any pistol the reset feels a mile long. I always hope that one day we'll see a match trigger kit for the P series HKs, but with the VP9 now I really doubt it.
Agreed. In the 70+ handguns I've owned HKs have been the most reliable for me and I have most of my shooting time on them than the others. That said, Iin my experience the majority of the other pistols I owned were also reliable. With so many similar designs with roughly equal reliability it seems like a pricing game these days.