Rickmeister
New member
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Or at least that's what they say.
I am willing to argue that there are certain parameters in our brain that---vague as they may be---have a somewhat common effect on our collective aesthetic judgment, and that at least some things are not just circumstantially pleasant or unpleasant to behold.
This does not mean that you and I cannot disagree on what we define as "beautiful". What I am saying is that if you and I scratch eachother's neurological surfaces, so to speak, we might find more underneath that we agree upon than don't.
Straight to the point.
I'm thinking of adding an HK USP40/45 to my collection. Yet there is a niggling thought in the back of my head that says I should go for a Beretta 96FS instead. Some die-hard HK enthusiasts on this board will concede that the 96FS has better lines and that it outperforms the USP at IPSC and IDPA matches. Well, I have casually fired both, and, unless I repeatedly invoke the spiritual mantra that says "German technology MUST be better, and I am 1/4 German myself---hence, I should buy the German gun", I would probably go for the Beretta.
Although appearance and functionality are scarcely related, they do occasionally relate. Sometimes the "more graceful" design of an object has a better effect on it, opposite a clunkier one. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that, at least in some cases, what looks better actually is.
So my question is: Is the Beretta ultimately better on the whole? Or do I follow the little teutonic voice in my head that tells me not to fret over the blocky slide, hip-flask grip, sinewy trigger pull, and bizarre mag release of the USP?
Or at least that's what they say.
I am willing to argue that there are certain parameters in our brain that---vague as they may be---have a somewhat common effect on our collective aesthetic judgment, and that at least some things are not just circumstantially pleasant or unpleasant to behold.
This does not mean that you and I cannot disagree on what we define as "beautiful". What I am saying is that if you and I scratch eachother's neurological surfaces, so to speak, we might find more underneath that we agree upon than don't.
Straight to the point.
I'm thinking of adding an HK USP40/45 to my collection. Yet there is a niggling thought in the back of my head that says I should go for a Beretta 96FS instead. Some die-hard HK enthusiasts on this board will concede that the 96FS has better lines and that it outperforms the USP at IPSC and IDPA matches. Well, I have casually fired both, and, unless I repeatedly invoke the spiritual mantra that says "German technology MUST be better, and I am 1/4 German myself---hence, I should buy the German gun", I would probably go for the Beretta.
Although appearance and functionality are scarcely related, they do occasionally relate. Sometimes the "more graceful" design of an object has a better effect on it, opposite a clunkier one. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that, at least in some cases, what looks better actually is.
So my question is: Is the Beretta ultimately better on the whole? Or do I follow the little teutonic voice in my head that tells me not to fret over the blocky slide, hip-flask grip, sinewy trigger pull, and bizarre mag release of the USP?
Last edited:
choice - buy the USP 40. Reason is this model is the benchmark of the HK USP line. It was initially designed as a 40 caliber gun. Beretta's benchmark gun is the 92 FS chambered for the 9mmP. I always avoid buying "beefed up" 40s and 357 SIGs that were initially released as a 9mm.
