Home > Glock Talk > General Glocking > Size comparison of the Glock 19 and USPc?

Size comparison of the Glock 19 and USPc?

  1. Does anyone know the dimensional differences of a Glock 19 or 23/32 compared to a USPc in 9 or 40?

    I am most concerned about the width and height.
  2. With the flat floorplate on the USPc magazine, height is about the same. I have the .45, and the only difference between it and the 9mm/.40 S&W gun is the barrel/slide is a bit longer, and the grip frame is a bit deeper to accomodate the longer .45 cartridge.

    The USPc is a bit "fatter", width-wise, than the Glock; through the slide area only. Glocks (except the .45 GAP models) have the same width from top to bottom; the USPc's slide is a bit wider than the frame, a'la Sig P229.

    The USPc is perceptibly "bigger" than the G19/23; so if size is your most important criteria, go with the Glock in a 9mm or .40 S&W.

    The .45 USP Compact is where the big differences are. The Kahr P45 and a couple of whacked 1911-style pistols might be smaller than the USPc .45, but that pistol is the softest-shooting .45 I've ever fired, in any size handgun. A pal has the Kahr, and I've shot it quite a bit and tried to warm up to it, but just can't. I find that little pistol distinctly uncomfortable to shoot.

    Anyway...if smallest size is your main concern, the USP Compact is NOT the smallest out there. It IS the "best", IMO; small enough to easily conceal, and leagues above the others in terms of fit, finish, and overall quality.

  3. I carry an issued USPc in .40 at work daily. I prefer carrying the Glocks on the weekend because they are easier to conceal - they are not only dimensionally smaller but lighter weight. The dimensions are on their websites. The HK USPc is noticeably larger than the Glock 19/23. The USPc is wider, and slightly longer from the top of the slide to the bottom of the grip (using a flat mag basepad on the USP). If using the contoured basepad, the USPc becomes significantly longer from top to bottom. Overall length of the USPc is slightly less (from muzzle tip to the end of the frame above the backstrap. The Glocks have a longer barrel by design, but that stubby little barrel in the USPc is way more accurate.

    Since you are concerned about width and height only, Glock wins.
  4. On paper, the two guns are virtually identical.

    G19, H&K USP Compact 9mm

    Length 6.85 in., 6.81 in.
    Height 5.00 in, 5.00 in.
    Width 1.18 in., 1.14 in.
    Weight 20.99 oz., 23.52 oz. (unloaded)

    (Source: respective manufacturer's websites)

    Holding them in your hand, however, the USPc does seem a bit bigger/fatter, but its perception. I think the clean shape of the Glock gives it a slimmer appearance.

    And despite my new found love for Glocks, if I could only keep ONE gun out of my collection, it would be my H&K...

  5. Agreed on the clean lines of the Glock.

    Height is identical depending on how you measure. The geometry is different, giving the Glock a lower overall profile. Both my USPc and G19(and G23) have trijicon sights. I placed them upside down, side by side and the grip of the HK sticks up higher than the Glock by about 1/4 of an inch. Once you put the mag of the HK in with the contoured basepad (which is necessary to establish a full grip due to slide being higher), the HK is more than 1/2 inch higher than the Glock. The HK grips and slide are wider, including a slide stop that sticks out noticeably from the gun. These things may not seem like a big deal, but trust me, when you are carrying one all day, the difference is huge. I have been carrying the USPc concealed for over 6 years. The Glock is way easier to conceal.
  6. Thanks for that feedback. It is amazing to me how to guns can look identical on paper but in reality be so different. Comparing them side by side will confirm this. I moved from the H&K to the P99C for daily carry (almost like moving from a G19 to a G26), and am now carrying a G26. I found the G26 with a pinky extension shoots just as good as the G19, and its even easier to carry and conceal. When I want to carry "full size", I got with the G19 (even though technically its called a compact), and when I need smaller (like wearing shorts) I am doing the G26 instead of the Walther PPK or Tomcat 32. That seems like a good combination.
  7. I noticed the same thing when I first shot mine, Guess it wasn't a fluke.
  8. The USP Compact definitely seems bigger than the Glock 19. The Glock 19 always felt like it was easier for me to conceal than the USPc.

    However, I actually find my P2000 (with flat baseplate) to be more concealable than a Glock 19. In fact, after I bought my P2000, I sold the Glock 19, since I had all the concealability I needed.

    None of this is to say that the USPc is a bad choice for conealed carry. I think it's an excellent choice. It just might not be quite as comfortable or hidden as the Glock 19 or P2000 over the length of an entire day.
  9. Are you referring to the P2000 or P2000SK? I found the P2000 to be quite similar to the USPc, but the P2000SK what a lot more CCW friendly.
  10. I'm talking about the P2000, which is in fact more concealable (to me) than the USPc, due to being thinner and having more rounded edges. I've never carried a P2000SK, and dislike subcompacts in general.
  11. I seem to recall comparing both (P2000 and UPSc) at a gun show side by side, and the P2000 seemed a little bigger. The P2000SK, for being a subcompact, was very nice to hold, and larger than other subs like the Walther P99C and Glock 26. Its nice to have a range of weapons to choose from, and you can choose the one that fits your hand the best. I liked the P2000SK a LOT, but did not feel like spending $850 for one. For that I got TWO Glocks (G26 and G19), and I think that is a better deal. :thumbsup:
  12. That was my impression as well, from handling in the gun shop.

    I have a USPc.45, and will have a P2000 in hand in a few days; the wife's new gat.:)

    Stay tuned for a comparison...

  13. Just finished the ritual initial cleaning of a new gun; the P2000.

    Let me preface these remarks by saying that I did a close comparison of a USPc .40 (same size as the 9mm USPc) to my USPc .45 a while back. The ONLY difference was a bit longer slide/barrel on the .45, and the grip frame was longer (through the bore axis) to accomodate the longer .45 cartridge. Every other dimension between the two pistols was identical.

    Holding the USPc .45 in one hand and the 9mm P2000 in the other, the P2000 actually seems SMALLER. Dunno what I was thinking at the gun shop. Anyway, not convinced, I got out the old Mitsutoyo precision calipers.

    The two slides are IDENTICAL in width. The P2000 slide APPEARS to be smaller/thinner, due IMO to the different contouring and more rounded edges. But the calipers don't lie. The .45 slide is, of course, a bit longer.

    The grip frames of the two pistols are also indentical in width. Above the grip portion, just under the frame rails, the P2000 is a few thousandths thicker due to the ambidextrous slide lock.

    IOW (and IMO), its a wash. The 9mm USPc would be indiscernible, size-wise, from a P2000. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the P2000 is nothing more than a USP Compact with a better (more ergonomic) grip. The four different sizes of back strap provided (S, M, L, XL) make a huge differnce in the way the pistol feels in your hand. I tried 'em all. The P2000's internals, trigger bar arrangement, etc., are pure USPc.

    But the kicker is this; the P2000 slid right into my custom-fit Kramer holster (made for the USPc .45) like a glove.

    I dunno what any of this proves... but it was interesting to look into.