"Conclusion... HK USP is a good commando wannabe gun, but it isn't field proven like Glock or 226."
...Does that mean you bought your USP because you're a commando wannabe, or did you mean something else ?
--
I bought my USP because of the HK's strong reputation for accuracy, durablity and advanced engineering. I have become somewhat disillusioned with the mediocre trigger, and what I've seen as surprising and major reliability problems. Yes things break, but a slide shouldn't crack in less than 2000 rounds.
By contrast I have complete confidence in my classic Sigs and Glocks. Both those brands have lengthy and stellar performance records in the hands of LE and military over decades. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on the USP. Bundeswehr notwithstanding, the USP is certainly not field proven in anywhere near the manner Glocks and Sigs are.
Regarding the ad hominem "mall ninja" flame--grow up. The purpose of this thread was to discuss reliability issues befalling the HK USP. I had two USPs. Both failed catastrophically before they reached 2000 rounds. This is noteworthy in my mind, and worth sharing. That a simple firing pin break could result in unrepairable frame damage is evidence of a basic design flaw--something every potential buyer should know.
The USP remains a good firearm, better than most $600 guns. My experiences may have been unusual, but they are certainly not unique. Firing pin failures have been well-documented. The HK smiths admitted to me a production problem involving heat treatment. The poor trigger pull is an issue that HK has been trying to rectify since the USP was introduced-- with only limited success.
"Only for commando wannabees"... well maybe that line was a bit flippant, but after 3 years of USP ownership, I've concluded that the USP lacks the reliability of a Glock, the build quality of a Sig, and the ergonomics of a 1911. It's principle advantage, then, is that the styling appeals to those enamored of the Socom MK23.
...Does that mean you bought your USP because you're a commando wannabe, or did you mean something else ?
--
I bought my USP because of the HK's strong reputation for accuracy, durablity and advanced engineering. I have become somewhat disillusioned with the mediocre trigger, and what I've seen as surprising and major reliability problems. Yes things break, but a slide shouldn't crack in less than 2000 rounds.
By contrast I have complete confidence in my classic Sigs and Glocks. Both those brands have lengthy and stellar performance records in the hands of LE and military over decades. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on the USP. Bundeswehr notwithstanding, the USP is certainly not field proven in anywhere near the manner Glocks and Sigs are.
Regarding the ad hominem "mall ninja" flame--grow up. The purpose of this thread was to discuss reliability issues befalling the HK USP. I had two USPs. Both failed catastrophically before they reached 2000 rounds. This is noteworthy in my mind, and worth sharing. That a simple firing pin break could result in unrepairable frame damage is evidence of a basic design flaw--something every potential buyer should know.
The USP remains a good firearm, better than most $600 guns. My experiences may have been unusual, but they are certainly not unique. Firing pin failures have been well-documented. The HK smiths admitted to me a production problem involving heat treatment. The poor trigger pull is an issue that HK has been trying to rectify since the USP was introduced-- with only limited success.
"Only for commando wannabees"... well maybe that line was a bit flippant, but after 3 years of USP ownership, I've concluded that the USP lacks the reliability of a Glock, the build quality of a Sig, and the ergonomics of a 1911. It's principle advantage, then, is that the styling appeals to those enamored of the Socom MK23.