Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 6/1/2008 8:37:03 PM EST
I had a brain fart and posted in GD.

This is for a Iraq/Afghan vet.
Link Posted: 6/1/2008 10:00:08 PM EST
M&P>HK USP.
I own both and the Smith is a better weapon....at least in my dealings with them.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 12:31:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Face_Stabber:

This is for a Iraq/Afghan vet.


What difference does his military service make? The question is, does he have any handgun experience OR is he of capable ability to handle a .45 with a little practice?

I've owned USP's and am about them, but I really like the feel of the M&P. I've seen some models with the frame mounted safety (that is important to some folks).

Basically, it comes down to which one fits his hand better... oh, and how much he can afford for spare mags.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 1:36:36 AM EST
For a first (centerfire) pistol, I would suggest either an M&P 9, an M&P 45 or a Glock 19.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 4:23:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Face_Stabber:

This is for a Iraq/Afghan vet.


What difference does his military service make? The question is, does he have any handgun experience OR is he of capable ability to handle a .45 with a little practice?

I've owned USP's and am about them, but I really like the feel of the M&P. I've seen some models with the frame mounted safety (that is important to some folks).

Basically, it comes down to which one fits his hand better... oh, and how much he can afford for spare mags.


I made the mistake of posting the first thread in GD and someone thought that a .45 wasn't good for a first handgun.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 6:05:21 AM EST
6 of one, half dozen of the other.

M&P advantages:

Simple trigger system
Ergonomic
Reasonably priced
Low bore axis

USP advantages:

Cocked & locked option
Proven platform
Better trigger in SA mode
Capacity
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:02:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Face_Stabber:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Face_Stabber:

This is for a Iraq/Afghan vet.


What difference does his military service make? The question is, does he have any handgun experience OR is he of capable ability to handle a .45 with a little practice?

I've owned USP's and am about them, but I really like the feel of the M&P. I've seen some models with the frame mounted safety (that is important to some folks).

Basically, it comes down to which one fits his hand better... oh, and how much he can afford for spare mags.


I made the mistake of posting the first thread in GD and someone thought that a .45 wasn't good for a first handgun.


Well, it probably isn't.

I'm an Iraq vet and my whole platoon had sidearms but that didn't mean that any of us could use them...Just that we carried them.

If he (or you, depending on who it is) develops a big flinch then he'll have a lot to work through/over. I know because the day after I got back from Iraq, I bought a 1911 in .45.

9mm is excellent to learn to shoot with (22 is of course better), is cheaper, and will do its part with good quality hollowpoints such as Winchester Rangers or Federal HSTs. They are a far cry from 124gr NATO ball.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:41:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By ken_mays:
6 of one, half dozen of the other.

M&P advantages:

Simple trigger system
Ergonomic
Reasonably priced
Low bore axis

USP advantages:

Cocked & locked option
Proven platform
Better trigger in SA mode
Capacity


The USP has a larger capacity? I thought they were the same...
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 9:40:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Face_Stabber:
The USP has a larger capacity? I thought they were the same...


S&W's website says 10+1.

I believe the HK USP is 12+1. The new HK45 is 10+1.

I never owned either in .45, so I can't speak from experience.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 9:53:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 12:55:38 PM EST
Well, you're talking to a dumbass whose first gun was an S&W 500. So expensive ammo and fear of flinching aren't too high on my personal list.


And for arguments sake, what's the difference between a USP and a Mark 23? And which would you recommend over the other?
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 1:08:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Face_Stabber:
Well, you're talking to a dumbass whose first gun was an S&W 500. So expensive ammo and fear of flinching aren't too high on my personal list.


And for arguments sake, what's the difference between a USP and a Mark 23? And which would you recommend over the other?


If you want the threaded barrel, get a USP tactical.

How accurate are you with a handgun?
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 1:12:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By 87GN:

Originally Posted By Face_Stabber:
Well, you're talking to a dumbass whose first gun was an S&W 500. So expensive ammo and fear of flinching aren't too high on my personal list.


And for arguments sake, what's the difference between a USP and a Mark 23? And which would you recommend over the other?


If you want the threaded barrel, get a USP tactical.

How accurate are you with a handgun?


Well, it's not for me, but I'm fairly accurate. I no longer have the money to be punching holes in paper with any of the guns I own beyond my Walter P22. But, I don't believe the high powered rifle in a handgun form screwed me up so much.

Hell, I'm probably most accurate with the 500...
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 2:34:32 PM EST
Why not a 1911? Or an offerinf in aless price rpaing caliber?
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 3:36:56 AM EST
Don't waste your money on a MP or a Sigma

HK is the far better weapon of the two
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 5:13:00 AM EST
If no experience, I would suggest a wheel gun in .38/.357.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 1:55:54 PM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By bshizzle:
Don't waste your money on a MP or a Sigma

HK is the far better weapon of the two


+1
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 3:48:53 PM EST
I have a HK USP .45 Fullsize. It's made well, but the trigger, balance aren't very good. The slide is too tall and causes too much muzzle flip than I care for.

I've shot an M&P in .45, it feels good in the hand, is balanced fairly well, and doesn't flip that bad for a polymer framed pistol. Besides that, the trigger feels a little weird. It doesn't have that distinctive break that I feel on other striker fired guns. I also had a hard time feeling the reset. I like how it feels and points over a Springfield XD. I like the trigger better in my glocks.

Why not consider a 1911? Like a Springfield Loaded Full Size Parkerised?
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 4:20:50 PM EST
Being a vet I can tell ya, a 1911 Speaks volumes. 96% of the time if a vet is honored with a pistol it's a 1911. A true piece of military history no other can match at any price.
To me it would mean the most to the person it was given to and would reflect on the thought given in it's choice.



Cant argue with that can ya boys. Nope...not a chance. This is about Honor, Tradition, and service to the American people. Your giving the man something you want him to keep for the rest of his life.

Your HK or Sig or what ever isn't qualified if ya get my meaning.

Get the man a 1911 my friend, the look on his face will be "priceless".

But hell if ya want a plastic gun I'd go with the S&W M&P .45 in a heartbeat.



Link Posted: 6/5/2008 4:45:28 PM EST
HK IMO is the better handgun.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 5:44:02 PM EST
of the 2, HK
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 6:05:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/5/2008 10:52:18 PM EST by rockstar4960]

Originally Posted By bshizzle:
Don't waste your money on a MP or a Sigma

HK is the far better weapon of the two


+1

ive owned all 3, kept the HK

(i vote 1911)
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 6:18:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/6/2008 6:48:30 PM EST by flyboy1788]
Please elaborate, or are you just an HK fanboy/coolaid drinker. I can see why you are not a fan of the sigma, seeing as i owned one and it wasnt exactly the BEST gun ever made by any means, but whats with the dont waste your money on the m&p garbage. Which comes first, buying an HK or being smug? Because it usually seems if you have one of these, you will get the other eventually.

Originally Posted By bshizzle:
Don't waste your money on a MP or a Sigma

HK is the far better weapon of the two
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 6:57:33 PM EST
Out of the two you mentioned I would go with the USP.
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 7:52:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/6/2008 8:02:40 PM EST by MaverickH1]
Of the two, I would (and did) go with the USP also.

My memory isn't always accurate, but if I remember correctly the M&P isn't fully ambidextrous friendly. The mag release is reversible, but no ambi. The slide stop/release was harder to use. It wasn't capable of all of the different variants that you can get with the USP series. It wasn't as amazingly ergonomic as Smith and Wesson promised it to be. It holds two less rounds than the USP, even while the M&P is a bigger and heavier gun on paper.

And the only two I had seen used in person were choking on two different kinds of ammo. The one I most frequently saw was a guy's who was practically at the range every day I was there. I think he sent his gun back to S&W once for a problem and got it back and it had the same problem. Let it be known that any gun can have a lemon, it's a luck of the draw thing. But when you see two examples fail, it just kicked my mind into "don't buy" mode. Especially since the M&P was still relatively new back then. That didn't keep them from dubbing the M&P "the new standard in reliability" though... I always enjoyed that. Kind of like how Hummer's slogan is still "LIKE NOTHING ELSE..." except the Tahoe... and except the Yukon... and the Trailblazer... and the Escalade...

That's what turned me away from them. Mostly, it just didn't fit what I was looking for in a handgun.
Top Top