Glock 23 (.40) vs. HK USP .40?

T

twoblink

New member
I'm sure I'm opening up a can of worms here, but I'm fairly new to the gun world so please bare with me. From all the shootings, I like the .40 caliber, so I'm looking to buy one. I like the feel of a SIG, but I hear so much about durability as an issue. I have narrowed it down to a Glock or an HK, and so now I need a little bit more info.

Which do you people on this forum recommend?

I think neither has any problems with reliability and durability. HK seems to have a better safety system. I'm left handed, so I'm looking for one that's more left-hand friendly. Any pros/cons I should know about?
A friend says that Glocks aren't as good as HK's because of the safety systems issues, also I read that HK has a hex barrel which is more accurate.

Any and all help is much appreciated.
 
I own, have carried and still regularly shoot both (a G23 and V1 USP40F).

The G23 is easy to get into action as well as render 'home safe', fits my hand better, is lighter and more compact than my former service pistol. I don't shoot as accurately with it and in the hands of others, who've shot it with an 'unlocked' wrist, it has been prone to stovepipe and double feed stoppages. I do not believe it possible to shoot through it the variety of ammunition types that I can in my USP.

My USP has been a reliable, extremely accurate and durable pistol that I carried in conditon 1 as a SWAT officer. It is heavy and bulky by comparison to the G23 and not my preference for a CCW pistol.

With the G23, being left handed doesn't matter. With the USP, you can get a DAO only or one of the variants for lefties. USPs do have barrels with polygonal bores which is said to increase barrel life and account for better NIB mechanical rest accuracy.

Finally, as you probably know already the G23 costs less. So for CCW, the G23; for 'heavy duty' use and shoooting, the USP40F.

[This message has been edited by SKN (edited December 23, 1999).]
 
One thing about these new Glocks - they have those finger grooves molded on the frame. These aid many folks in getting a good grip.
For others - myself included - these grooves hinder a good grip. I hate those things. I would much rather have the older style Glock and if I wanted finger grooves I could use a Hogue Handall slip on... Then if I wanted - I could slip it back off.
Being able to change my mind is important to me.

------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
 
I am licensed to carry both The G23 and the USP-40 in Nevada. I started carrying the USP, but very quickly I swithced to the G23. It is lighter, and conceals very easily in an IWB holster. While I find it harder to shoot accuratly all day than my USP, it is still plenty accurate in my hands. I recently bought a G-22 to use as my general purpose pistol and to replace my USP as alternate carry pitol. I did this just to have a standard manual of arms between my two carry pistols. If I had it to do over again, I would shoot a USP Compact to see how it compares to G-23. That is an other option to look at. Also, the durability issue of Sigs seems to be blown out of proportion especially with the stainless slided 40s. If sig is your favorite, get it.
 
I own both a USP40C and a Glock 23. They're both good. The stock USP has an ambidextrous magazine release, so dropping a mag being a lefty is no problem. The stock Glock has a mag release that favors the right-handed. On both guns the slide lock release is on the left side. The safety-decocker on the USP can be moved to the right side for lefties.

The Glock is simpler to bring into action, no safeties and all trigger pulls the same. I still prefer the USP because I am more accurate with it and like the extra margin of safety of a DA first shot. With practice the transition to SA for subsequent shots is easy to learn.

------------------
 
Twoblink,
Who ever told you to question the durability of a Sig is crazy!. Personaly, I'm a Glock fan and would recommend it.(G-23 for a .40) However, the Sig is one of the most durable guns you can buy. If your gonna narrow it down to some name brand guns, dont discount the Sig. Its one of the best!
 
The INS/BP is issuing the compact 40s to it's plainclothes agents (about 2000). Did better in the reliability dept than the Glock in their Glock test and DEA tests of both.

Both are great guns, the USP is better for lefties IMO.

SIG toughness?

From the first M9 pistol trials:

Endurance testing:

S&W 459 developed frame crack between 4.5k and 5k rounds; another developed frame crack at 6.5k rounds.

SIG P226 developed frame crack at 6,523 rounds; another had a crack discovered at the end of the 7k test.

All three Beretta 92SB-F guns and all three H&K P7M13 guns made it through with no problems.

FBI FTU, DEA, USSS, etc saw numerous SIGs crack frames under 10K rounds. I know of several PDS that have had probs w frame, slide and locking block insert cracks, broken trigger bars, trigger springs, etc.

SIGs are reliable and accurate, but they ain't as tough as some of the the others. Are they tough enough for you is all that counts? Even w a cracked frame/slide, they still work reliably BTW. They aren't still the overwhelming favorite of most federal agencies for nuthin'!

I have 3 P228s BTW, and love em! :)

------------------
>>>>---->


[This message has been edited by BrokenArrow (edited December 23, 1999).]
 
I have experience with the Glock27 and the HK USP40. They are both excellent pistols. IMO, the HK's main advantages are:

1. variants available. DA/SA, DAO, SAO, left/right/ambi handed. The only more you could ask for would be totally orthogonal DA and SA modes like the Mark23 has (if cocked-and-locked -> cannot be decocked. if decocked -> safety cannot be engaged).

2. very good at "reducing" felt recoil

3. slide mechanism. this is highly subjective - I just prefer the design and action of the slide on the HK.

The Glock's finish is much lower maintenance. However, to field-strip a Glock, you are required to pull the trigger. This might make some people uncomfortable.
 
Having been a fan of the Glock for many years and having owned them I can honestly say that they are great weapons. Their track record by and large speaks for itself.

The HK? Well, this is now my weapon of choice for carry. But...I agree that the std. USP40 is a bit large for most concealment needs. This is why I chose the USP40C.

Much easier to work with and a bit lighter as well. Durability, function, quality and terrific accuracy are inherent in this pistol. My hands are quite large but the 40C with the extended finger grip floorplate mag is a perfect fit.

I'd say you would not go wrong with this one.

[This message has been edited by X-KILL (edited December 24, 1999).]
 
Both excellent pistols. Your friend is full of it in regards to the Glock...there's nothing unsafe about them. They also both have hammer-forged polygonal rifled barrels, accuracy is the same in both. Rent them at a local range if you can, see which one you like better and go with it. Can't go wrong with either.

BUT- something to consider...I dont think you can get hi-cap mags for the HK, while 13 round hi-cap mags are availible for the Glock. And the Glock is cheaper.


[This message has been edited by BB (edited December 24, 1999).]
 
I don't own either. However, my dad owns a glock .40 and i've fired it at the range. Also, a friend of mine owns a HK 45USP Tactical. I fired this one as well. In all honesty, i felt the HK45 outshot the Glock all around, though it is indeed more bulky even in 40 calibre.
Understand that when i say the HK outshot the Glock that does not imply whatsoever that the Glock is not a great pistol. I love my dad's Glock .40, it shoots well and is low in recoil so that staying on target is no problem. I just think the HK is even better. If money and what you get for it is an issue, certainly the Glock is an excellent choice. Still, you can't go wrong with an HK - VERY well made.
 
Hi twoblink;
I'm left-handed.
I own the Glock 23 and the H&K USP .45 Compact. Before anyone gets upset at my opinions, let me say that I own, and have owned, multiple examples of the guns to be mentioned (H&Ks, Glocks, SigSauers).
The USPs I have are in Variants 2 & 10, making "cocked & locked" carry an option for us southpaws, without the necessity of an ambidextrous safety. It works as designed. The USP's mag release is ambidextrous, not that it matters. (The typical position for the mag release button on most semiauto pistols, on the left side of the frame, has never been a problem for me, and I find it easier to depress this button with my left index finger than most right-handed people do using their right thumbs.)
I'd definitely consider the Compact USP .40 S&W over the full size version, for CCW.
Both guns are more hardy & durable than anyone could need. Both are reliable. You can strip the Glock down to the last pin & spring easily, yourself, while the USPs are very difficult to take down beyond the "field-stripping" level.
The Glock has an "always-the-same" trigger pull, which is easily handled. The USP has the traditional DA-first shot, subsequent shots SA setup in most variants, with the option to carry cocked & locked, as noted above. The DA pull is not especially smooth or short, and is inferior to that found on most SigSauers, IMNSHO. It can also be had in DA-only form, but who'd want such a thing?
Frankly, unless your specific intent is to carry cocked & locked, I'd go with the Glock. Fighting that first-shot DA trigger pull on the USP is NOT conducive to an accurate first shot, and then you have the transition to SA to contend with. I know that may not seem important, but if you run speed & accuracy drills, you'll find it makes a big difference.
Another point has to do with the height of the bore axis above the hand. The USPs, like the SigSauers, have an exagerratedly-high bore axis relative to the position of the shooting hand, making for enhanced muzzle flip, due to the larger moment arm. The Glock sits lower, and the improvement in muzzle flip, and therefore in speed of follow-up shots, is certainly noticeable.
You can purchase "pre-ban" (13-round) mags for the Glock 23, if desired, at a modest cost, and standard 10-round mags sell for much less than the standard USP mags (around $40-50).
The barrels of BOTH guns have polgonal rifling, though the twist rates probably aren't identical. Good examples of either gun are highly accurate, without a discernable difference in my hands.
Next there's the finish to consider. The H&K USP "Hostile Environment" finish on my USP slides isn't all that tough, and shows considerable holster wear at "high points" with only a little carrying, and in spite of assiduous care. The Tenifer finish on the Glocks, on the other hand, is almost impervious to wear, and even the phosphate finish covering the Tenifer wears well. My 15 year-old Glocks still have almost all their phosphate finish, and the slight wear evident at high points adds character.
On the other hand, I know people with smaller hands, for whom the USP Compacts are a perfect fit, while the Glocks are just too large. Obviously, if one pistol really fits your hand well while the other doesn't, your choice is made. If there's no big difference, I'd recommend the Glock.
Best of luck in your choosing.

------------------
"Potius sero quam nunquam."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top