H&K USP .45

[D3030Trapper]

I'm looking for a rough and tumble fighting pistol. Currently have 3 1911's. I was looking at the H&K USP .45, SIG 226, and the Glock. Not a huge fan of Glocks but heard they are tuff ass guns. The Sigs are single stack magizines so I'm leaning away from the Sig. Just looking for input and experiences.

[F-Trooper05]

I have a special place in my heart for the USP, but at this point in time I think you'd have to be crazy to pick a USP over an HK45. Just my opinion, your milage may vary.

[Cobra66]

I have a USP 45 Tactical. It is a solid pistol and has never given me any issues when using factory parts (I had a FireDragon barrel which was not accurate or reliable). They are build like plastic bricks and if you are looking for rough and tumble, they will fit the bill.

However, I do think the design is lacking. First off, it is built like a plastic brick. It is a handful for me (and I have no issues with the M9) and I would imagine would be no small chore to conceal. The high bore axis and light weight produce far more noticeable muzzle flip than I get out of my M&P, a Sig220, or a 1911. The double captive spring is supposed to reduce recoil, but I'm not convinced it is all that effective.

The standard V1 configuration is nice in the way it allows you to choose method of carry. But that said, it can over complicate things at the same time.

I have been eying the HK45s and they look like awesome guns. Had I not gone with the less expensive M&P, I might justify the purchase of one.

If I were starting with a blank slate, I would agree with the above poster and go with an HK45 over an USP45. You might however be able to get a heck of a deal on a USP45 and saving a few hundred $$$ might make it worth it.

In short, I consider it a tough and reliable weapon but lacking in the human interface department.

[Machurtado]

I'm assuming toys meant sig 220 and not 226 in 45 since the 226 doesn't come chambered in 45 and is a double stack. I have all 3 however my USP is a compact not a full size and I must say that out of the 3 the USP is my favorite. I say that because I have smaller hands and the glock is just to bulky for my hands it just sits in my safe. The 220 I like however I find that it's heavy and too cumbersome to carry while the USP is neither of those.

[Semi_auto]

You might however be able to get a heck of a deal on a USP45 and saving a few hundred $$$ might make it worth it.

Full size USP's (including the tactical) are priced less that the HK45 here. But, the USP compact and HK45c are priced the same.

[one]

I had a USP 45 Tactical several years ago. I now have an HK45. The newer guns are so much nicer and more pleasant of a feel than the old USP line it's like night and day.

That said the USP45T that I had (and the USP45C that I currently have) were some tough and reliable pistols. It's not like you're wasting your money on them, it's just to me there's better options from the same company in 2011 to purchase.

I really don't understand why the USP line is still being produced when the HK45, P2000, and P30 are in full production.

[Eliakim]

I really don't understand why the USP line is still being produced when the HK45, P2000, and P30 are in full production.

USP's must still be selling well or they probably wouldn't be making them. The USP 45 is a good tough no-nonsense pistol.

[brushy bill]

The USP 45 is a good tough no-nonsense pistol.

What I'm trying to figure out is whether the HK45 or USP is most durable. I have big hands and the ergos aren't that important to me. I'm looking for the most bombproof of the two.

[rbabbitt767]

HK45.

[skyugo]

HK45 or USP 45 C. hk45C is also sweet of course.
the C models are much better fit, imho.

[deeHKman]

I have a HK USP.45 and 9mm both in stainless. I have a Glock 21sf rtf2 and my hands are large enough to accept most any platform. The USP's have a proven track record of quality, accuracy and reliability. I have no need for the newer models but would like to see how they feel.
The USPc do feel good i had a .40 and i liked it alot. So i am looking for a good carry HK so i might look into some newer compacts. My Glocks do a great job of that for concealed carry. But the new HK's are interesting. Any HK would serve well.

[smschulz]

What I'm trying to figure out is whether the HK45 or USP is most durable. I have big hands and the ergos aren't that important to me. I'm looking for the most bombproof of the two.

If you aren't turned on by the Ergos (me neither btw) then you pretty much answered your question.
As far as durability ~ they are pretty much the same gun except that the HK45 is prettier, holds two less rounds and costs more.
I have nine USP's in one flavor or another ~ but the HK45 is a nice gun > just not necessary IMO.

[mikecon75]

I carry a HK USP 45 as a duty weapon and love it. Very durable. I have had no reliability issues and find it a great gun to shoot.

[Treehopr]

FWIW - I just attended a class with a FL LEO who states that he has, conservatively, 60K rounds through his USP 45 Tactical without so much as changing a spring.

He's a helluva shooter and I don't doubt his numbers.

[Striker]

Shoot them all and see what works best for you. If you're thinking Sig P226 and 9mm; great gun nothing else to say other than that. P220, in .45 is not a personal favorite of mine, but many like it. For Glock, I've shot the 21sf in .45 and personally like it, but many don't. If you're thinking 9mm, 17 and 19 are extremely durable. Hk USP 45 is very bulky, but is also very accurate and handles well. Never shot the HK 45, so I can't comment on it. Put some trigger time in on all of the pistols you're considering and see what works best for you and your situation.

Also, 1911 in the right configuration is a great fighting pistol. IMHO, it's a very accurate platform and has a better trigger than anything you're considering. They do take some work and money to set them up and maintain them, but still a great pistol.