After reading all these posts it seems apparent that it is quite the “pot calling the kettle black” with HK owners referring to Kool-Aid and Glock owners. I guess you guys need to justify to yourselves the reason for coughing up $1,000 for your gun. I don’t really like the “fanboy” comments myself. I assume we are all shooters, hunters, and sportsmen, not a bunch of Bieber fans.
I have an H&K USP 40 myself. I have shot it a fair amount and all I can say is that it shoots well, goes bang every time, etc. Isn’t that what we say about Glocks? My Glocks do! Also, there was no way I would have given big bucks for this H&K. I stumbled onto this like new USP 40 for about $550 some years back. I had a USP 45 before this one. I think that was a midnight bargain on Gunbroker for about $500 or so as well. That gun was huge. It looked like a black 2x4 with a grip on it when I aimed it.
The only reason I bought an H&K in the first place was because of a friendship I had about twenty+ years ago with an H&K freak. This guy couldn’t afford his hobby, but had some pretty fun toys. I got to shoot his MP5 and I guess fell for his “Kool-Aid” talk about H&K’s. But looking back he was just a kid, probably twenty-five or so. This guy would spend his kid’s milk money on gun stuff—what a child himself.
Anyway, my answer to the OP is no, they are not superior. Is it a good gun? Yes. Is it superior to Glock? —I don’t think so. I have my Glocks because they work. I shoot them well. They are simple---so simple that there are thirty-three parts. I tried to count the part numbers on this H&K schematic and quit counting when I figured there are three times the parts moving around in there. Actually, after looking at these schematics I may just sell this high dollar “Beemer”. I can’t believe I haven’t broken the flimsy de-cocker off if it myself as a previous poster mentioned.
