HK USP COMPACT IS BULKY?

C

Curuzer

New member
I have read many posts recommending Sigs and Glocks and Berettas over the HK USP Compact because they are less "bulky". Here are the stats as I could best gather them:

1) HK c40 6.81x5.0x1.14 (27.2 oz)
2) HK c45 7.0x5.06x1.3 (29 oz)
3) SIG P239 6.6x5.2x1.2 (29.8 oz)
4) Bta8040 7.0x4.5x1.5 (30 oz)
5) Glock 30 6.77x4.76x1.27 (26.5 oz)

While some may say I'm comparing apples and oranges, these were all recommended for CCW in previous posts OVER the HKc40 or HKc45 because they were less "bulky". I would say the difference is mostly psychological. Comments? I would welcome corrections to the numbers (they all come from other internet sites).
 
A friend picked up a USP40C a few months ago. He wanted something "small" like the *&* 640-1 snubbie he`d been carrying and we checked out the H&K as a "larger" option. We where shocked when we put them side by side and the H&K was just as small! Most folks think all Ruger autos are really big,that`s not true either. Looks can be decieving. :) Marcus
 
The compact HK USP 40s and 9s are the almost identical in size to the Sig P239 and the Glock 19/23. There may be a little more bulk in the frame below the end of the barrel where the accessory rail is, but other than that, the key external dimensions are essentially the same. -sleepy
 
I have to disagree... and agree...

Yes, the external dimensions are similar, but the overall feel and flow is not.

Now, I recognize that this is only my personal opinion, but I have fired both the Sig 239 and the HK USP40c and the HK felt quite a bit more "bulky" than the sig. The sig *felt* compact. It felt smoother too, the controls were less obtrusive.

Again, that was just *MY* opinion. The subjective issues that made me feel that way might not bother another person.

Either way they are both well made firearms and would neither be a "bad" choice.

My preference? Full frame HK's... but thats just me! :]

J.T.
 
The reason H&Ks get called bulky is that like Glocks, the slides are square and boxy, whereas the SIGs are curved and radiused around the barrel, giving the illusion of less mass and more flatness, especially when viewed from the busness end (unloaded, of course). OTOH, the H&K (and Glocks) have a fair amount of intimidation value, IMHO, because of this. Pragmatically, thinness contributes more to concealment than roundness, while roundness helps in the 'snag-freeness'. YMMV. M2
 
Yes, the HK USP Compact is bulky. So is the Sig P239. Compare either of them to a Kahr K40, or even better, a Kahr MK9.

Jared
 
If a weapon is concealable, is "bulkiness" bad? I don't think so. In fact, bulky handguns -- like the H&K USP .45 Tactical -- feel better to me (individual opinion only) and I also prefer the perceived solidness and mass.

[This message has been edited by RWK (edited September 07, 2000).]
 
Good question.

Well, I a mwith you on the solid and secure feel of the squarish grip on the HK. After all, I did buy a full size .45 USP. I like it a lot.

But if the goal is a concealable 9mm... well, I think the HK does not shine so bright in that arena. Kahr, Sig, S&W and even Ruger make more svelte offerings, at least to touch.

J.T.
 
They both feel top heavy to me so that fits a bulky in my hand or belt. :) Inches do not always mean a lot with big steel slides and light weaght frames. The feel factor comes into play also. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top