Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/22/2002 3:55:07 PM EDT
I'm not sure if this was the right area to post it, but I figure this is general enough. But anyway, I'm thinking about getting another handgun to replace the one I had to sell a while back. I'm getting a enough from the tax return to finally get another one, thank god, lol. Right now I'm pretty much torn between these too. The H&K Compact USP357, or the Glock 32, I've had a chance to shoot a Glock before, although it was a G17, but I have never been able to shoot an H&K since they're so pricey no one I know has one. So that's why I came here, I would just like to get everyone's opinion on this subject, thanks.
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 4:41:37 PM EDT
Oh baby...HK all the way. I have 4 USPs...2 Compacts, and 2 full sizes. I also have a Glock 33...I definitely prefer the HKs to the Glock. The ergonomics of the HKs just fit me WAY better.

I highly suggest that you try out each and see what feels best to you. Both are great pistols.

In fact, I often see the .357 HK for about the price of the Glocks due to lackluster sales.
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 9:18:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2002 9:35:39 PM EDT by njogi]
I had to have Usp's and Glocks. Usps are sweet in full-size.

I did buy a Glock 32 also and I like the compactness of the gun, and most of all I did buy Insight Technologies M6 light/Laser system (under $200 dealer cost), that attaches and detaches real fast, real nice fit. Perfect for Home defense with Light/Laser Combination. The .357 Sig is a sweet cartridge. Lots of attitude!

www.fountainfirearms.com/streamlight/stream.htm

Choices ..we have to make!
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 5:10:23 AM EDT
Easy one. HK
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 7:02:14 AM EDT
I'll second what brouhaha said. Try to find somewhere that'll let you handle and preferably fire, both of these weapons. They are both excellent weapoons, I carry a Glock 32 myself because it feels better in my hand and consequently I shoot it more effectively. Small H&Ks don't shoot as well for me as their 9mm/.40 full-size counterparts.

Also, can you readily convert a .357 USP-C to .40 S&W or 9mm? I don't know enough about H&Ks to have an answer for that, but the Glock 32 can be converted to .40 S&W with a simple barrel change or to a 9mm with a barrel and magazine change.

Just some things to think about, but get whichever fits better.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 8:44:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 5:00:11 PM EDT
H&K all the way. I own the USP 45acp Compact S/S & used to own a Glock 30. The Glock's are fine guns but it's like comparing Buicks to Cadalliacs (sp?). I've heard of many dissatisfied Glock owners but never a H&K owner.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 10:23:23 PM EDT
HK, no contest. I'd buy a Glock (maybe) if I wanted a piece to throw into a tackle box or something.

I'd suggest also looking at a SIG 239 in .357 if you want something compact. Very high quality and priced well below an HK USPC from what I've seen at the shows. It's easier to find them with factory night sights also, and SIG uses Trijicons.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 2:12:51 AM EDT
Other than the fact they fire the same caliber round and they are both hand held firearms they are as different as night and day.

The H&K has an (almost) exposed hammer (my .40 USP compact did, I could pull it back with my thumb if I needed to), it has an external safety, it has a decocker, it can be fired in single or double action and it has an ambi-mag release.

The Glock has no external hammer, no decocker, no ambi-mag release, no external safety, and it is neither a single action or double action firearm.

I have owned the H&K USP Compact .40, I currently own a Glock 23.

If I had the money I would buy another H&K USP compact .40, but I would also keep the Glock.

They are both outstanding firearms.

I think the bottom line is going to be what YOU want in a pistol.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 7:15:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USNJoe:
Other than the fact they fire the same caliber round and they are both hand held firearms they are as different as night and day.

The H&K has an (almost) exposed hammer (my .40 USP compact did, I could pull it back with my thumb if I needed to), it has an external safety, it has a decocker, it can be fired in single or double action and it has an ambi-mag release.

The Glock has no external hammer, no decocker, no ambi-mag release, no external safety, and it is neither a single action or double action firearm.

I have owned the H&K USP Compact .40, I currently own a Glock 23.

If I had the money I would buy another H&K USP compact .40, but I would also keep the Glock.

They are both outstanding firearms.

I think the bottom line is going to be what YOU want in a pistol.



In addition, I think you should find that the HK has a larger capacity when compared to other compacts.(not exactly sure on the 357sig but know for sure on 40 and 45)
I currently have a USP 45 fullsize and a 40 compact. I also own a G26.
HK is twice the weapon IMO for all the above mentioned reasons.

Link Posted: 2/25/2002 8:22:03 AM EDT
I've gota USP 357 SIG compact. I love it and am pretty accurate with it out of the box. I can hit 7" rounds steel plates with it at 70yds. And I have always been a cruddy shot with open sights. I don't buy ammo in bulk like I should so its around $13 for a box of 50 Winchester FMJ 123gr (I think) most places only carry federal premium and want like 30 bucks a box. This is my first handgun. I thought about the glock too but once I saw the HK i never looked back. I have put about 500 through mine and am very happy with the 357 SIG. and yes you can get the .40 barrel for it and drop it in and shoot .40 with it, and use the mags it came with. My brother has the Tactical .45 and my buddy has the .45 full size. I like em and they all shoot great but I like mine the best.

diesel

here is mine.
http://www.geocities.com/dustinmundell/guns/hkusp357sig.jpg
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 1:15:12 PM EDT
XLoWRyDaX,

Here are some thoughts on gun ownership - coming from personal experience, I might add.

If I were to own one handgun, and (realistically speaking) if cost was a concern, I'd go with a Glock 19, in 9mm, hands down.

Why? Glock 19's are probably the most durable pistols on the planet, are capable of digesting upwards of 100,000 rounds of ammunition in their service life, are reasonably accurate, and
are compact enough for concealment, but large enough to be a primary arm.

Pre-ban capacity was 15 rounds, and "new" pre ban mags (at least factory) are astronomical in price...however, ProMag's copy works very well, and CDNN is selling them for a very reasonable $25 or so right now.

Even without the extra 5 rounds that the hi-cap mag provides, the Glock 19 has one thing going for it that the .357 SIG doesn't - price of ammo. Surplus military ammo (from around the world) can be cycled through your Glock...allowing you (time permitting) to shoot (most likely) 2 to3 times as much as you'd be able to afford with the .357 SIG.

Knockdown power? Well, it seems that there's a never-ending argument on that issue - used to be 9mm versus .45, then it was 9mm versus the "new" .40, and now the super 9mm, the .357 SIG. Even so, does it really matter any more, with most trainers in agreement that one should "keep shooting until the target drops" anyway?

If you're a new shooter (no offense if you're not), you won't find a better carry gun. The Glock 9mm is truly a jack of all trades firearm, and I give it my highest recommendation. Used ones are being sold for anywhere from $350 to 400 from most dealers, and from advertisers in Shotgun News.

Top Top