How do HK and CZs compare to Glocks, SIGs & Berettas?

J

J. Fielder

New member
I am very familiar with Glocks, SIGs and Berettas, but have no experience with HKs and CZs. A recent post in another talk forum indicated that lots of people thought HKs (and CZs, to a lesser extent) were -- at least -- in the same league as the three I am familiar with in terms of quality, reliability and accuracy. What's your opinion? How much do they cost?

Thanks for the input.
 
I haven't owned an H&K, but have owned multiple copies of the rest.

Beretta is rock solid (had a 92 and 96), but on the big side. My 96 was accurate with the right ammo, but it was picky. The 92 was okay, but nothing to brag about.

I had a SIG P-220 and P-239. Both were accurate, well-made and reliable. I don't like and could never really master the double-action to single-action transition in either of those guns. (The P-239 proved to be just a bit small for my hand, even with bigger Hogue grips). Sold them both, as I sensed something missing. (I still have a SIG P-210. It is, to my mind, the finest 9mm semi-auto service pistol made. Period.)

I had an excellent Glock 17, with minor enhancements(adj. sights, extended slide release, 3.5 lb trigger). Nice gun. Very reliable. Very accurate. Just didn't like it, but that wasn't the gun's fault -- as it didn't fit my hand quite right.

Had a CZ-75B and later bought a CZ-85 Combat. I've been shooting IDPA for about a year and a half, and when I started shooting the CZ's my scores improved dramatically.
(I had trigger jobs done on both of the CZs -- but trigger wasn't that bad. I'm just picky.) Later sold the CZ-75B to buy a collectible rifle; I wasn't shooting it, anyhow, since I had fallen in love with the 85 Combat. (Pimped out in a nickel finish.)

All of them are fine guns; all seems to be made of good stuff, and all are reasonably accurate. I think it more a matter of ergonomics (how well they fit YOU) than anything else. The CZ fits me better than any gun I've shot. And I shoot it better than any gun I've tried (except the P-210.)

Your mileage may vary.
 
Have a full size USP9 and a sig P228. Bought both used, so no real knowledge re. number of rounds through the bore.

Both cost me around 550$
Accuracy is better on the sig, but only by a slim margin, (thinking about getting a recount at the range today!)

Sig is easier to clean, again by a slim margin. On the other hand, the sig needs alot more TLC then the HK.

I like the feel of the sig a little better,( HK USP frames are made almost exclusively of non-metal material.)

HK safety features are alot better: The sig requires the shooter to keep finger-off-trigger until firing. A little personal responsibility, and a basic firearm safety rule, but it can promote accidents. No additional external safeties. HK uses a safety lever, mounted on the frame.

Trigger's a little lighter on the sig. Good and bad, (see safety above).

No misfires on either, (resultant from weapon malfunction: hey, mags and ammo are a totally different story).

Love them both, but if I had to choose, it really would be the HK. As accurate as it needs to be, low maintainence, and a little more stress-proof if something goes bump in the night.
 
Hi Fielder,

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents.. I have 3 HK USP's. I freely admit that this is just my opinion ok, no flames or digs intended here. I think in terms of accuracy, quality, and shootability, the HK's are at least equal to Sig, Glock, and Beretta. I think they are just as reliable as the others and can probably take more abuse than Sig or Beretta. I'm an "old school" 1911 guy, so I'm not a fan of DA/SA trigger set ups. The USP provides all the advantages of newer technology, (polymer frame, easy to field strip, easy to service, good trigger, etc) with the abiliy to carry cocked and locked, giving me the same trigger pull, first shot to last. The accuracy of the HK's is excellent, and very close to my custom 1911's, especially with the HK Expert. Now, I also own and shoot Glocks, so when compared specifically to Glock, it gets real close. Glocks also, are very accurate, and they have the same trigger pull for every shot too. And they are probably easier to field strip and disassemble than HK's. But, I feel my HK's are more reliable than my Glocks, because they'll shoot any bullet I load, whereas my Glocks will not feed semi wadcutters or any other bullet with a hard shoulder for that matter. I like the pointablity of the USP's and the recoil, at least in the .45's is very managable. On the negative side, HK's have apparently had problems with weak firing pins. I personally don't know of anyone who's had that problem, but I've read of it several times on various boards. I don't dry fire without a snap cap and leather pad anyway, but I'd say use a snap cap at least if you dry fire your HK. I guess the bottom line is try to get out and shoot one. Then if you like it, I'd say go for it.. I doubt very much you'll regret it. Anyway, good luck and good shooting,mavrick
 
Just tossing my .02 in here. I've shot several type Glocks, the Beretta 92, and USP .40 along with other handguns, but we're not talking about others right now. These are fine pistols to which everyone has an opinion on. I like the USP over the Glock and Beretta. Fit and feel are primary reason, reduced recoil and frame mounted safety the other reason. Don't get me wrong I love shooting them all, but when they're laid out in front of me I reach for the USP first. It comes down to what features you like and what feels comfortable to you. Go out and try them all. The worst than can happen is you have a little fun.

Flattop
 
Love them all, have a few glocks(17,20,30), a Beretta 96 and a H&K P7M13. The H&K will out shoot the rest hands down. The fixed barrel and low slide help greatly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top