Posted: 6/29/2005 1:04:15 PM EDT
|
I've finally scraped up enough dough to buy a mk23, almost. I have a few questions first though. 1. The trigger. Is the double action pull better than the standard USPf? I hope the hell so. 2. Size. My USP45f fits my hand just fine and I don't have any problems hitting a target even during more "rapid" fire. Is the mk23 roughly the same grip size as my Usp? 3. Life. I'll probably never fire more than 6-9,000 rounds out of the pistol. Will it show alot of wear? Also, what parts will I have to replace and at what intervals? I really appreciate it guys. This is alot of money for me and I want to be sure I want this pistola. 
|
|
Hey, I own a Mark 23, but have never fired a USP45, so my experience is limited. The trigger is pretty nice, in my opinion. It's not a nice 1911, but the SA pull is still pretty crisp and light. Double action is smoother than a Beretta 92's, but it's still a double action pull. The Mark 23 is quite a bit larger than the USP. Someone a while ago posted a picture of where his trigger finger laid on the trigger for a USP, Mark 23, and (I believe) a USP Compact. While he could reach the trigger with the pad of his finger, the Mark 23 was a longer reach for him. As far as wear items, I don't think that you will wear out much. The manual ought to list wear items - I can look it up if you wish. However, the finish will wear on the top of the barrel above the chamber and near the muzzle.   It doesn't affect anything except appearance, but I guess a lot of new Mark 23 owners freak out about it. It just happens, but the metal is still protected against rust. All in all, I like the Mark 23. I paid $1200 for mine (used), though - I don't think I would pay $1900+ for it. 
|
|
The double action pull on the MK23 is around 13 lbs. It is smooth, but you have to totally muscle it. I guess the military was more concerned with safety in DA mode than accuracy. The SA trigger of the MK23 blows the regular USP out of the water. It even gives the USP Tactical trigger a run for the money, even though it is not adjustable. The grip on the MK23 is very slightly wider than the USP45, but feels about the same. It just has the long slide and huge trigger guard that makes the gun look much bigger than the USP. The gun really shines when suppressed however. When I put my HEMS45 suppressor on it and the USP Tactical I used to own, there was no comparison. The 23 was easier to balance, because of wider grip and didn't feel as front heavy as the Tactical. The sights on the 23 are far better than the factory black-on-black target sights of the Tac as well. If you want 3 dots, be prepared to pay extra money to have Heinie or Meprolight sights installed on your Tac. |
| IMO...and I fully realize many will not agree..,I cannot for the life of me see the allure in this oversized, overpriced handgun! (Even the military guys who have them do not like them) I would take two or three USPf's any day of the month over one of these...and they are not holding their value either (at least here)...I have seen two at $1200-1300 at gun shows that no one would even seriously ask about...neither sold. If you just have to get something beyond the standard USP, try the Tactical...a very nice package for much less money. |
| Yep, this thing is pretty much detested in the units Ive been in. I saw exactly one carried in Afghanistan, by a SEAL Lieutenant in a Safariland 6004 holster. Dang that looked like a big uncomfortable firearm. The only 45s I saw carried in the field were 1911s(privately owned..). General consensus was the Mk 23 was way to big, more of a staff officer's creation... |
|
Its not that much heavier than my 1911... the grip isn't that much bigger than a USP .45 (atleast not much more than my TAC), and I wouldn't trade it for 2-3 USP .45's, simply because I can't shoot them all at the same time, so I might as well own one gun thats much nicer :) I own one, and I love it. Can't figure out for the life of me why big bad Navy Seals have such a hard time carrying one around. Its not that much heavier than most other full size .45's, maybe a quarter of a pound? Everyone says the TAC is alot more shooter friendly. After owning both, I'm still trying to figure that one out. I wish I found one for around 1200 bucks...I'd buy another one. |
|
The Mk23 was designed for specific offensive purposes, not as a defensive sidearm. It's not that much wider than a USP45. You can carry it cocked and locked, or in DA w/o safety. The safety will NOT engage if the hammer is down. The DA pull is not that bad, I fired about 500 rounds during an MP5 course when I used it as my sidearm. The recoil is very manageable due to it's size and recoil assembly. As far as 1 being used in Afghanistan, Frogman at Tactical Forums indicated that they were in use after the SIG magazines were found to be jamming because of the sand. After the SIG mags were re-finished with some slicker material, I assume they went back to the SIG, but the Mk23 was in use obviously. As far as people not liking the Mk23 and it's a "staff person's creation", that's just nonsense. The suppressed Mk23 can be broken down into the pistol and suppressor for easy carry. I've seen gun writers say "I'd rather carry a suppressed M4 rather than the Mk23 w/ supressor". I dont know what world they live in but the there is no way a suppressed M4 will EVER be as quiet as a suppressed Mk23. The bottom line is tha tthe Mk23 has specific purposes and in those specific purposes. If you feel it's overpriced, over hyped, too big, or whatever, that's fine, dont buy one. For those of us who do have them and like them, we know how good they are. And here's a size comparison of the Mark23 and USP Tactical. http://www.peonyland.com/Mark23USPTactical.jpg |
Well said |
Yep. I love mine. |
|
MV pretty much nailed it. The MK23 is a highly specialized weapon, and as such its size was acceptable in order to meet its operational requirements. Primarily to maintain superior accuracy and reliability in hostile environments, while digesting huge quantities of .45+P without stressing the platform. I was fortunate to go on a training trip to Crane while the selection and testing phase for the SOCOM pistol was going on. Got to check out the prototypes and get some details on the systems. The MK23 is as far as I'm concerned a superior handgun, for its purpose. That being said, it is a huge handgun. It's not really heavy, especially for its size. 13 rounds of .45 adds to its percieved weight. For the vast majority of shooters, a USP Tactical will do everything that a MK23 will do, in a resonably sized handgun. I attended a SEAL reunion a few years ago, and there was talk of using USP's as a standard issue handgun, to have more commonality with the SOCOM. I don't know how far that got. Either way, you can't really go wrong. At least as long as you're not carrying concealed! |
| I would actually consider the fact that it is huge as a selling point. I have a USP .45f and a .45 Match. I recently got to shoot a Mark 23, and was impressed by it. The grip was noticeably wider to me, but otherwise, it was fantastic. Recoil was considerably less then the regular USP, and on par with the Match, with it's big honkin weight on the front. Another factor in it's favor for those of us who aren't very tactical is that it looks just plain cool. If I ever found one at a really good price, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase one myself. |
|
Converting a Mark23 to 9mm defeats the entire purpose of the Mark23. It was specified to be chambered in .45 with match grade accuracy using .45ACP Ball ammo. If you are using 9mm ball ammo for any kind of offensive military operation, that would not be good. The Mark23's size and beefiness is directly attributed to the .45ACP. The Mk23 is designed AROUND the .45ACP round. I really cant see a 9mm semi auto offensive handgun. If you are going to be in 9mm, then you're better off with an MP5SD using supersonic hollowpoints. If you're going with an MP5 + external suppressor, than you're in the 147 grain subsonic hollowpoint area. |
| Combat-wise, it might not make as much sense as a MP5SD, but for plinking, I think it'd be great fun. The size and recoil system would soak up the 9mm's recoil, and you could probably stuff a whole lot of 9mm into the magazine. It'd be a nice fun gun. Let's face it, not too many of us are going to be using our Mark 23's to be eliminating sentries. |
| man i wish i could get a Mk23...i just don't feel right slapping down $1700+ for a pistol that isnt a collectors item or something. i know they're rarer than some pistols, but it's not like, say, a Luger. if i could find one for around $1000, i'd probably snatch it up. but i dunno...i've love Mk23's but if i were to pay that much for a pistol, i think i'd go with a Luger since i've ALWAYS loved them (for some reason). meh, i dunno. good luck to ya! |
HK could just make extended mags like glock does for the Glock 9mm 
|