glock 21 for a hk usp

[fivefivesix]

hey fellas need some help. im trading my glock 21 for a 9mm and was offered a HK USP 9mm full size variant 7 with the LEM trigger?.
i know its dao. is that a decent pistol? i know hk is supposed to be the shit. its a variant 7 with the lem

[GermanSynergy]

The USP is blocky and the ergonomics leave much to be desired. If possible, try before you buy. USP's are not exactly renowned for stellar trigger pulls...

[Seraph]

HK USP is known for reliability and durability. If you've already seen the pistol, and you like it, and its LEM trigger, then there's no reason to advise you against the trade. If it were me, I'd be looking at Glock 19 or M&P 9 FS.

[fivefivesix]

ive decided against the usp. i found a guyand were trading. he has a g17 with a 34 slide that goes with it,and has trijicon night sights.

[Mark71]

ive decided against the usp. i found a guyand were trading. he has a g17 with a 34 slide that goes with it,and has trijicon night sights.

That is a much better trade IMO.

[Argus]

Good choice. I had a USP9 and it is a fine pistol. But it is enormous for what it is (a 15 round 9mm). It was too big for my hands, and I could never get used to the long trigger pull. Ended up selling it to buy a Glock, and have no regrets about "downgrading".

[sacmaster]

Well, I'll just throw this out there, but I have a 9mm USPf and a Glock 19. I carry the Glock because of its size, but I prefer shooting the USP. It is on my hip when I am not carrying concealed.
edit: I'm not a big dude either. I never really understood the blocky grip argument; handles well for me.

[D. Christopher]

The HK is a nice pistol but it sounds like you found a much better deal, and if you were already comfortable with the G21 then the transition should be easy for you. You already know how to shoot and maintain the Glock and now you have the caliber you want with night sights and an extra slide. Unless you had a real problem with the Glock ergonomics I think you've made a wise decision. Good luck.

[Bolt_Overide]

Personally Id recommend passing on the USP. If you want HK the p30 is a much better solution.

If you arent stuck on HK, Id suggest a glock or an M&P.

[mkmckinley]

Don't do it. I traded a Glock 23 for a USP40 and regretted it as soon as I shot it. I'd tried a USP several years ago and thought I remembered it being pretty good. Not so. If the USP didn't have HK's name on it then nobody would give it a second look. It's big, fat, has bad control placement, terrible trigger, and weirdly snappy recoil The Glock was much better in pretty much every category.

[Skyyr]

The USP is first and foremost a combat pistol, the Glock is a designed from a reliability standpoint, while forgoing many of the traditional aspects of a combat pistol (such as double-strike capacity, safety, etc).

Many people mention the trigger pull as one of the biggest complaints. The single-action trigger pull is as good as any other pistol. The double-action pull IS long and heavy, but this is the nature of ANY double-action polymer pistol. Again, the USP is a combat pistol, therefore the DA is needed for second-strike capability. Glocks do not have this. If they did, they'd also suffer the same DA trigger pull.

"Blockiness": The USP is designed for redundancy and accessibility using gross motor skills and it reflects it in its design. In combat, you don't want a thin weapon or finely machined controls. You want a solid platform to grab and you want oversized, easily-manipulable controls. Try shooting a glock with artic gloves and doing malfunction clearances and you'll quickly see why the USP is built the way it is. It's almost impossible to miss the slide release. The mag release is ambidextrous and can be activated single any finger on either the firing hand or support hand.

Snappiness/Recoil: The USP has virtually equal physical recoil compared to the Glock, so that's not even an argument. It DOES have a higher "snap" factor to it, though, due to the high bore axis. It's just part of the design to the weapon.

Accuracy: The USP's accuracy wins vs the Glock every time. Not sure why Glock's barrels aren't as accurate, as they use a virtually similar process. Either way, the H&K is regarded as more accurate by most everyone.

Finish: The actual finishes are the same, Glock calling theirs "Tenifer" and H&K calling it "Hostile Enviroment" (HE). Chemically, they're both nitrocarburization. Glock does use a better cosmetic blacking over the nitrocarburized finish (meaning it will look "black" longer), but the actual corrosion resistance is identical on both.

- - -

I'm not advocating the USP as a better weapon. However, everyone seems to compare it vs the Glock thinking they're similar guns - they're not. The USP is a combat pistol, designed to allow control manipulation in combat conditions, in combat gear, offering second-strike capabilities and near match-grade accuracy, and is made to be as reliable as the design of a combat pistol allows for; The Glock is a weapon designed around reliability and consistency first and foremost - that's a big difference, both functionally and performance-wise.

For strictly a carry weapon, the Glock is the better choice for most people (unless you require a safety). For strictly a combat pistol, IMO, the H&K is the better choice. Most people don't use one gun for strictly one roll, however, and many want to know that their carry gun is good enough for combat and vice-versa. Therefore, decide your needs and pick what's most appropriate to you.

[John_Wayne777]

The USP is first and foremost a combat pistol, the Glock is not (although it is reliable enough to be used as one and commonly is).


What on earth are you talking about?

[Serpico1985]

The USP is first and foremost a combat pistol, the Glock is not (although it is reliable enough to be used as one and commonly is).

:confused:

[Skyyr]

What on earth are you talking about?

Sorry - you caught me as I was editing. I was trying to think of a way to word the fact that Glock forgoes many of the aspects of traditional combat pistols in the name of reliability. I didn't mean to say it wasn't one in a functional sense, it simply is, in my opinion, the anti-thesis of what we've come to accept as a military service pistol. This increases reliability from a weapon-only standpoint (ignoring ammunition failures), but suffers the loss double-strike capabilities, loss of external safeties, requires retraining from traditional combat pistols (lack of safety), loss of conditions 1 2 and 3, etc.

It IS a combat pistol and has been proven as such, but it lacks many of the traditional attributes (and therefore benefits) of one.

[D. Christopher]

The Glock is a modern fighting pistol and eliminated many of the old fashioned or outdated traditions and conventions in favor of reliability and ease of operation. In fact most training programs have evolved to reflect these changes and improvements in pistol manipulation and employment. I'm all for traditions in the right places. For me personally traditions have almost no place in weapon manipulations, employment and operations. For me only sound and proven tactics, techniques, tools, and training are important. I'll save the traditions for other areas. But that's just me.

[Skyyr]

The Glock is a modern fighting pistol and eliminated many of the old fashioned or outdated traditions and conventions in favor of reliability and ease of operation. In fact most training programs have evolved to reflect these changes and improvements in pistol manipulation and employment. I'm all for traditions in the right places. For me personally traditions have almost no place in weapon manipulations, employment and operations. For me only sound and proven tactics, techniques, tools, and training are important. I'll save the traditions for other areas. But that's just me.

Except that the Glock does not have double-strike capacity, nor does it have a safety. Studies have shown that safeties save lives, especially during gun grabs. The added act of having to engage/disengage a safety is therefore a training issue, not an outdated tradition.

It's one thing to have a gun that you know only you yourself will have access to and that you will pull it only when you intend on pulling the trigger; these are two factors that are not always so concrete in combat, patrol duty, serving warrants, etc.

The point is that while both guns have their merits, both have distinct advantages and disadvantages. For me personally, I require that every gun I own have a safety. Not because I don't trust myself, but crap can happen. "One is none and two is one" - the same applies to safeties and safeguards. Some people don't care, that's their choice. However, to say one is outdated or one is better than another is flawed.

Both are different guns designed from different ends of the spectrum. One was designed to always go bang when the trigger is squeezed, while the other is designed to only go bang once all of the safeties are disengaged while allowing multiple strikes if it doesn't.

[Alex F]

You're trading a brick for a brick. If you want a 9mm, get one that's more ergonomic.

[mkmckinley]

D. Christopher pretty much beat me to it but what I was going to say is that the USP was designed by HK to meet specs put out by a bunch of that get paid to sit around and pontificate from behind a desk. Things like a thumb safety and double strike capability aren't necessary. I can't remember a 9m NATO round ever having a misfire. If it did happen my immediate action is tap, rack, bang, not try for a second strike. Anyway the Glock was pretty revolutionary and made the traditional duty pistol perhaps not obsolete but old fashioned. Ask just about any guy on an ODA what he wants as a side arm and he'll probably tell you "Glock 19."

[GermanSynergy]

Double strike is overrated, IMHO. If you have a FTF, you apply immediate action. At least that's how I've been trained.

Also, Glock pistols do in fact feature several active and passive safety mechanisms. Those that state that "Glocks have no safeties" are mistaken. The Glock is a very safe design if the end user remembers to keep their booger hooks off the bang switch until ready to fire.

I've witnessed ND's with a supposedly very "safe" pistol, the Beretta 92. The operator's head was off in la la land, and a ND (and Article 15 proceedings) subsequently ensued.

The P80 (Glock 17 in Austrian parlance) was designed from the ground up as a replacement pistol to the Walther P-38, in service with the Austrian Bundesheer since, well, pretty much forever. It is the most prolific and user friendly general issue handgun in service with NATO forces to date.

While deployed in the Balkans years ago, I knew German CP types that selected and carried Glock handguns for bodyguard work. They preferred them over the P-8, P-1 or P-7.

[Skyyr]

Double strike is overrated, IMHO. If you have a FTF, you apply immediate action. At least that's how I've been trained.

Also, Glock pistols do in fact feature several active and passive safety mechanisms. Those that state that "Glocks have no safeties" are mistaken. The Glock is a very safe design if the end user remembers to keep their booger hooks off the bang switch until ready to fire.


Not all AD's are caused by "booger pickers." The Glock's safety is only effective if there is nothing in the trigger guard. There are countless stories of belt straps, debris, chapstick tubes, branches/twigs, etc. either falling into a holster or coming into contact with the trigger as the pistol is being drawn, causing an AD. Manual safeties add an extra safeguard to this issue.

And that's still not touching on the gun-grab issue.

[GermanSynergy]

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. An ideal compromise would be an M&P with thumb safety.


Not all AD's are caused by "booger pickers." The Glock's safety is only effective if there is nothing in the trigger guard. There are countless stories of belt straps, debris, chapstick tubes, branches/twigs, etc. either falling into a holster or coming into contact with the trigger as the pistol is being drawn, causing an AD. Manual safeties add an extra safeguard to this issue.

And that's still not touching on the gun-grab issue.