OK. I have it narrowed down to 2 guns to chose from fro my deticated CCW gun. I was set on the HK for the longest time but a recent trip to the gun shop and holding them both I have doubts.

Both weapons will be in .45

I like the HK because:
   -It is designed for use and abuse.
   -Its light.
   -Aquires target fast
   -I've never heard of anyone having any problems with this gun.
   -I've just always wanted an HK.

I like the Springfield because:
   -Its super thin.
   -It fits my small hands better.
   -I can reach the slide release with shooting hand. (can't on the HK)
   -Its shorter.
   - I love the trigger


I need some other points of view on these 2 guns so I can make an educated decision and drop the better part of a grand on this thing.
JIM

Honestly, it should come down to whichever fits your hand the best so you will practice and get used to it so it becomes second nature.
For me it is the HKuspc in .45. It fits my hand like a glove and has NEVER had a failure of any kind with thousands of rounds through it.
I can't say that for any 1911 I have ever owned.
For me, being able to trust the weapon to go bang every time I pull the trigger is what matters, the HK does.

Quoted: Honestly, it should come down to whichever fits your hand the best so you will practice and get used to it so it becomes second nature. For me it is the HKuspc in .45. It fits my hand like a glove and has NEVER had a failure of any kind with thousands of rounds through it. I can't say that for any 1911 I have ever owned. For me, being able to trust the weapon to go bang every time I pull the trigger is what matters, the HK does.

If you are large enuf and your wardrobe allows the USP is they way.  It's bulky IMO.

Now for the controversy.  The 1911 is concealable and offers from 3.5 to 5+ inch barrels.  BUT most 1911's require tweeking some even while using 230gr FMJ's.  

YMMV

I use two USPs for my carry guns, one a .45acp & the other a .357Sig.

As you mentioned, the 1911 will be a bit narrower in profile. The H&K WILL be more accurate & reliable.

My .o2

i carry the USPc in .40 S&W. it's reliable, accurate, very comfortable and easy to conceal. i also carry (though not as frequently) my kimber eclipse pro 1911 w/ 4" barrel. it's reliable, accurate, easy to conceal, but definitely not as comfortable to carry. it's quite a bit heavier than the HK, but also packs more punch and recoils less. i've tried the USPc in .45 and thought the recoil a bit too much for personal defense purposes. if you're definitely getting the .45, i'd go with the 1911, the tried and true platform for that caliber. just my .02. but they're both excellent pistols, i'm sure you'll ultimately be please with either choice.

Sounds like the 1911 is the way to go so far. I am a fairly small guy. So I don't have a lot of space to hide a gun on anyway. I also own a 1911 (full size) now so I'm allot more familler with it.

JIM

I'm 5'7 160lbs.

I carry a USP .45 compact allmost everyday.

It is not hard to conceal. Most times I carry it in a IWB strong side. There are many options.

I have two 1911s and 3 USPs.
I trust the USPs more.

IWB??

Quoted: IWB??

Inside the WaistBand

Some of the SA micro compacts have trouble running out of the box.  The Commander-sized guns seem to be fine, though, as well as the 5" guns.  

The HK will no doubt be reliable, but you may find a double-stack auto too thick to carry comfortably.  I would prefer the HK P2000 over the USP Compact; it just feels better, and I think it's a little thinner.  If you ever have problems with it, you may be in for a rough ride with customer service.  

Purely my opinion: I'd pick an aluminum framed Commander-sized 1911 over just about anything else out there, and in fact one of these is my current carry gun.

Quoted: OK. I have it narrowed down to 2 guns to chose from fro my deticated CCW gun. I was set on the HK for the longest time but a recent trip to the gun shop and holding them both I have doubts. Both weapons will be in .45 I like the HK because:    -It is designed for use and abuse.    -Its light.    -Aquires target fast    -I've never heard of anyone having any problems with this gun.    -I've just always wanted an HK. I like the Springfield because:    -Its super thin.    -It fits my small hands better.    -I can reach the slide release with shooting hand. (can't on the HK)    -Its shorter.    - I love the trigger I need some other points of view on these 2 guns so I can make an educated decision and drop the better part of a grand on this thing. JIM

Jim,

I would agree that the Springfield will better fit your smaller hands and you MUST be able to reach both the slide release and safety with your strong hand.

I've owned the HK compact and currently shoot a Kimber.  My suggestion -- given your hands and the trigger...Springfield.

Although I won't  make a 'for sure' choice untill I have enough cash in the gun fund lets assume for the sake of the argument that I am going with the Springfield (Its looking that way now). Should I go with the Compact or Ultra. My stance would be to go just compact more bbl and just as easy to conceal. Plus the shorter bbls seem to have a higher malfunction rate.

Thoughts??

www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-cm.shtml

www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-uc.shtml



JIM

Kimbers and Springfields are amongst the best current crop of mass-produced semi-custom 1911s today.  I trust the Kimber more, personally, as I've had a brand new Springfield Loaded pop a spring 1 week after owning it.

Don't buy the Ultra compact, unless you are set on using less than 230gr rounds.  230s don't expand very well out of short barrels, and you should, ideally, have 4-5" of barrel for it to properly expand.  With this in mind, I'd recommend that you go with a Compact of sorts - this meaning at least 4-4.25" barrel, and able to fit a 7-round Wilson Combat Officer's magazine (the best) flush.

By the way, the Kimbers and Springfields feel differently if you didn't know.  The front strap is more curved and slimmer on the Kimber, and is slightly wider, more flat on the Springfield.  It really comes down to personal preference.

One last thing - the two most important characteristics of a handgun, in terms of concealment, are the width of the handgun, and the length/shape/width of the butt of the handgun.  The barrel length usually isn't quite as important.

The compact and ultra compact have the same width and butt length/shape/width, i believe.  I don't think you'll get that much more concealment out of the ultra than the compact, if any at all.

Never owned a 1911, but I do have a USPc that I love.  Mine conceals well.

Quoted: Although I won't  make a 'for sure' choice untill I have enough cash in the gun fund lets assume for the sake of the argument that I am going with the Springfield (Its looking that way now). Should I go with the Compact or Ultra. My stance would be to go just compact more bbl and just as easy to conceal. Plus the shorter bbls seem to have a higher malfunction rate. Thoughts?? www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-cm.shtml www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-uc.shtml JIM

I would stay with the compact.  

my .02,

Jeff

I went w/the Kimber Ultra CarryII because of the weight (24oz) and no matter about expansion...the hole is still .45 and using 230 gr FMJ lets me shoot a whole lot more.