ive had USPs long ago, kind of old news though with the VP9 being a legit striker fired alternative to the glock, better ergos than the USP, and about $200 less in cost.. ive had a USP years ago when i was still an HK fan, theyre great handguns, just not worth what they cost when you compare them to all the polymer 9s out there now

 

Agreed.

First, the "grip angle" argument is practically nonsense.

The USPs are a fantastic gun. But expensive, a bit thick, and the $50 magazines combined with the worst capacity in the industry among peers, no thanks.

I've had maybe 3 or 4, and now down to 1 I think.

 

Cool, I always like to see other folks choices and thanks for the info on firearms ownership in Spain....And I do use a Glock btw

 

I love mine, it is my CCW. Got my a couple of years ago when they had $200 off rebate and the storer was $100 off sale. If it wasn't for those 2 things I would not have bought one, but now that I have it I am super happy I did.

 

Bought my first G17 back in 1985 and began carrying it CCW. Owned Glocks ever since.
Bought my first USP/C back in late 1990s and began carrying it. Owned USPs ever since.

All my USPs are currently .40 caliber.

My USP .40 Compact fits my hand noticeably better than my favorite G19 and G23. Just a better grip...which translates into better practical accuracy and recoil management.

As the years have gone by, I find myself increasingly drifting back to DA/SA semi-autos (HK USP & CZ 75 series) and somewhat away from striker fired weapons. Despite the trigger pull transition, I can deliver a fast and accurate 1st DA shot and then effortlessly transition into equally accurate SA follow-ons (or decocking). After decades of training with Beretta M9s/92s, CZs, Walthers, & USPs, that DA/SA action is just second nature to me. I actually shoot my USPs & CZs better than equivalent caliber Glocks. Those guns are also mechanically more accurate than my Glocks.

I also believe the USP is a better (more reliable/durable/accurate) platform for .40 S&W shooters. HK originally built the pistol around that caliber. Rather than building a 9mm version and later engineering changes to make it work with .40. No kabooms, no accelerated wear and tear. No malfunctions with mounted combat lights. And enough heft and internal springing to tame that increased recoil.

It's funny that people tend to think of the USP as "old" when it's actually nearly a decade newer in design than the Glock.

IMHO, the only real downside to the USP today is in terms of available accessories. Selections are limited. Decent light bearing holsters are a bitch to find, mainstream CCW Kydex or leather offerings are few, night sight options are increasingly less available, and the guns still feature that damn HK proprietary rail.

That rail necessitates mounting an after market rail adapter to accept modern weapon lights from Streamlight, Surefire, etc. Which then won't fit most name brand holsters once you've added such an adapter (e.g., GG&G Slim Line USP Adapter). So you can't even slip the gun (without a light) into a non-light bearing holster without first taking off the rail adapter. A vicious circle of poor platform support by many major holster makers. And HK's refusal to update to an integral Picatinny rail. Too bad.

That said, the USP Full Size & USP Compacts are simply superlative handguns. In all calibers. Good ergonomics. Excellent reliability, durability, and accuracy. Still a bit over priced in the USA.

I frequently CCW a Full-Sized USP .40. I simply prefer that gun's size and sight radius. The USP is one of only a few pistol designs that I routinely expect to function 100% right out of the box. I've yet to have one break or exhibit problematic function.

Anyway, I agree with FerFal's take on the 9mm USP/C fitting a lot of hands better than the Glock Compact. Definitely an option for those who don't like the Glock's grip (even with interchangeable back straps).

 

Yeah, for $300 or thereabouts a USP is a steal! Around here they are in the $600+ price range, and far above Glocks. Mags are $50, about double the price of competition.

As I mentioned I've had a few USPs in 9x19, .40, and .45. Here's pics of a few.

One thing I really like about the USP, which makes it IDEAL for winter gloved carry, is the generous trigger guard. It's one feature other companies should take note on. And I also really really really like, for a hammer fired gun, the HK safety and decocker in one unit. Taurus does something similar on a few guns, but I'm unaware of any other companies that do it. It's a great feature that should be more common.

On the negatives, as mentioned in the thread, is lower capacity for the same size platform, prices, and lack of compatability with holster and lights and low aftermarket support.

I'll also note that I once had a catastrophic magazine failure with the (cheaply made?) magazines. The baseplate popped off at the range and dumped all the ammo!

In the end, I sold or traded off 3 of mine. Had offers I couldn't refuse: Sold one for $800, and had an offer I couldn't refuse for two - a guy traded me a M1A SCOUT with a thousand dollars worth of accessories/SAGE rail system. I liked the pistols but that's an incredible deal for me on all...

I will add that if you want an amazing $400 hammer fired polymer handgun, look at the CZP07 series. Maybe the best factory trigger I've fired, high capacity, and just an overall excellent gun. Pictures don't do it justice. BEST ergos in the market.

Anyway, a few pics of my former and current USPs, and a CZP07.

 

I think HK emulated both Glock & Colt in terms of stubborn refusal to change their flagship USP design to meet evolving commercial market demands. The "Perfection" Problem.

"Our gun is great as is... and the proof is all the German cops and troops using them. Besides... we are the ones who essentially invented rail mounts for lights." They then sat on their laurels with the USP series and were late to join the striker fired bandwagon. Or to discard a proprietary rail system that no one else adopted.

HK priced themselves out of US civilian market dominance by offering USPs that were simply too rich in price for the average shooter... or LEO agency purchasing agents. Instead, buyers flocked to less expensive Glocks, S&Ws, Berettas, Springfields, & SIGs. HK also developed a reputation (deserved or not) for not caring about their civilian customers. Perceived poor customer service & after market support. Good guns but dumb marketing & pricing strategies. When a viral mid-2000s internet meme tagline has it that: "HK: Because you suck. And we hate you."... you've got serious marketing issues.

For a time (mid 1990s to mid 2000s), HK USPs were at the top of the heap (in terms of performance) but they remained niche weapons in terms of US civilian sales. Because they cost too much. Today, they offer excellent updated striker fired weapons at competitive pricing, but that catch-up ball game effort left the DA/SA USP series in the dust. Never updated for basic attributes like a common light rail format that every other manufacturer offers nearly universally.

I've never actually been a huge fan of earlier generation HK weapons. Most of them were solid but merely mediocre performers (like the G3). Some (like the G-36) were worse than mediocre. But a few were excellent and ahead of their time. Like the USP series.

During the early 2000's, USSOCOM came within a hairs breadth of adopting USP variants force-wide. The moment (and funding) was lost in the face of other expensive wartime priorities plus Big Army political interference in the selection process. In any event, the fact US SOF formations nearly unanimously wanted USPs (at that time) speaks volumes about their performance.

I like mine to the point that I've gone the extra mile required to procure boutique holsters and light mounting arrangements. They remain the dependable core of my .40 S&W battery.

But I still own, shoot, and carry Glocks. 19, 23, & 21SF. Go figure.

 

Give the HK USP Compact a try. I'm really liking it. The grip is very comfortable, although I'd say a tad thin for my hands and I prefer Glocks. Those with smaller hands will probably find that the USP Compact fits them well.

Im one of the folks who do not shoot Glocks very well because they don't fit my hand.

My hands are XXL Farmer hands, and even a full sized Glocks feel small and slippery.

My idea of a ergonomically designed auto pistol is a Browning Hi Power, CZ-75, Sig P226, or Sig P220 SAO with the beaver tail grip.

 

Funny, I have what I would call average sized hands and the CZ-75 feels great and the Glock like a 2x4.

I think a lot of it is mental and personal perception.

Ive had a lot of people tell me the Glocks grip is too fat, and they preferred their 1911's. Yet when I got the calipers out, the Glock actually had a thinner grip. Go figure. I think a lot of it is in the head though. People believe what they hear before they even have something in their hand to make a valid decision and/or opinion. Once the bias is set, it can be hard to get beyond, especially for those who dont have an open mind, and/or are set in their ways.

For me it is not the "thickness" but the "front to back" dimension along with the squared grip. Most designs in the last 20 years have realized a curved design feels and shoots best. Glock refuses to acknowledge this.

 

My idea of a ergonomically designed auto pistol is a Browning Hi Power, CZ-75, Sig P226, or Sig P220 SAO with the beaver tail grip.

Must be a perception thing. I have had all but the CZ's, and I have Glocks, and never noticed a difference.

Although I will agree, some Glocks can be a tad slippery (my hands arent XXL, but they are fairly heavily weathered and calloused from work). I prefer the RTF2 versions, or else stipple them. If Id known about stippling when I had my SIG's, they would have been done too. The were grip taped though.

 

For one person I know with small hands (wife), the Glock Gen 3 is the worst handgun shape bar none. At least that I've had her try. I haven't had her try a Desert Eagle

Hi Power works better for her. Even Beretta 92 works better for her.

She described the Glock Gen 3 grip (Glock 19 to be specific) as "like trying to grip a Coke can" and essentially refused to shoot it after the first two tries, saying she didn't think it was even safe to attempt to aim because of her terrible grip.

Glock 19 Gen 4 works fine for her, so, we now have a Glock 19 Gen 4.

Glock 19 Gen 2 also works fine for her.

I am not sure it's all about hand size. Maybe also something to do with the geometry of different hands? Or could be partly mental.

 

I think a lot of it is mental and personal perception.

Ive had a lot of people tell me the Glocks grip is too fat, and they preferred their 1911's. Yet when I got the calipers out, the Glock actually had a thinner grip. Go figure. I think a lot of it is in the head though. People believe what they hear before they even have something in their hand to make a valid decision and/or opinion. Once the bias is set, it can be hard to get beyond, especially for those who dont have an open mind, and/or are set in their ways.

 

I think it's 99% perception. As the chart I posted shows, the difference in grip angle is trivial, like 5%. Unless you have really tiny or enormous hands, then perhaps a particular gun is too big or too small. For instance, a friend with small hands cannot reach the trigger on CZ 75 in DA.

I have large sized hands. I admit that some guns like CZ have the best ergos, but there's not a hair of difference in my ability to use Sigs, Glocks, Hks, Taurus, revolvers, etc.

BTW revolvers have atrocious ergos (by comparison), especially the SA ones. Terrible grip angles. Yet folks never seemed to have such complaints - it's like holding a banana and putting your finger in a shoelace eyelet trigger well.

 

In her case, I think it's perception based on the gun itself, not what she hears from other people. She doesn't really talk about guns (other than with me, what little she'll talk about them with me) and doesn't know what "Gen 3" or "Gen 4" means, she just says "the old Glock" and "the new Glock." So I think there is a physical component, but there may also be a mental component in the sense that if she shifted her hand a little differently, Gen 3 might work for her. But fewer headaches all around by just buying the Gen 4.

Anyway, my point is, I would think of Glocks as working well for people with large hands, especially the Gen 3, but maybe some "big hands" are long, some are wide, some are meaty etc so what people mean by it might vary.

 

I shoot a fair amount of DA revolvers as well, mostly S&W's. Ive never found them to be an issue, grip or otherwise. I actually shoot them better than most of the autos Ive owned.

I think a lot of the problem with the revolvers is, were a good way from the revolver era, and I think a lot of people arent really familiar with them, and really dont know how to shoot them. Once you get used to that DA trigger and shoot them DAO, the whole world changes, and youre shooting will improve with pretty much anything you shoot. It will also cure any trigger phobic issues you have.

SA revolvers, meh. Fun toys, and thats about it. The thing that drives me nuts with them, is their slow lock time. I do better with the bolt travel on open bolt SMG's!

 

I shoot a fair amount of DA revolvers as well, mostly S&W's. Ive never found them to be an issue, grip or otherwise. I actually shoot them better than most of the autos Ive owned.

I think a lot of the problem with the revolvers is, were a good way from the revolver era, and I think a lot of people arent really familiar with them, and really dont know how to shoot them. Once you get used to that DA trigger and shoot them DAO, the whole world changes, and youre shooting will improve with pretty much anything you shoot. It will also cure any trigger phobic issues you have.

Preach it Brother.... :thumb:

I always start off new shooters on a revolver. Definitely teaches trigger control. And like you, I still shoot them better than a lot of other guns. A couple of freight cars full of wadcutters shooting PPC makes them second nature to me. I even like DAO autos, and boy have I bought a few cheap from guys who couldn't hit anything with them.

Unfortunately, it is a dying art. I used to watch guys who were mediocre Glock shooters try and shoot their J frame hideout guns at quals. A lot of them were lucky to do "minute of man", and they always blamed it on the gun. "Snubnoses are only good as belly guns, why do we have to shoot at 15 yards"? I'd say lemme try it, and then ring the plate 5 times fast at 50 yards, DA.

Like you said, if they'd learn to master a DA pull, they'd shoot better scores at quals with their Glocks too.

 

my next pistol, the one that will probably become my main shtf weapon is either going to be a glock built on a polymer 80 frame or a 1911 built on either a single stack steel frame or an STI 2011 type double stack.. either way im probably going to end up going all-out on the customizations to a level i just couldnt do with a CZ

ive held the polymer 80, with no finger grooves, hump removed, trigger guard undercut, you get a higher grip on the pistol as well and the ergos on that, to me, are superb, youd have to pay an extra couple hundred on top of the price of a glock to get a professionally done customized grip whereas i can build up a polymer 80 for about the same price as a glock with its poorer ergos.. one of the key benefits of this route over say a USP is that its compatible with all gen 3 glock parts, accessories, holsters, etc whereas USP components and aftermarket is pretty slim

 

I have a Gen 3 Glock 19 thats as near new as you can get, I've been seriously thinking of getting a P80 stippled frame for it. Although my M&P M2.0 has great ergos.

 

 

I've been reading quite a few good reports on these. Might pick one up to add to the collection. :thumb: If you have one, how do they compare to other popular striker-fired polymers -- if you know?

 

The bottom line: if it doesn't fit, you must . . . keep trying other brands; till you find something that does. Doesn't matter if the angle is 1% or 10% different. It's what works in your hand in a gun that works well at a price you can find a way to afford. I haven't found a handgun I cannot reach or pull the trigger on, but there are plenty of them that I cannot release the magazine on without adjusting my grip. Glocks are too fat for my hand and even the newer ones don't feel comfortable. Then again, I'm not much of a poly fan anyway, though I still like my S&W 9 & 40 compacts w/medium backstop if I do carry poly. Preferred carry is a CZ75 D Compact PCR.

 

USP compact 9mm was my go to for a long time along with Glock 19's and 17's. The USP's grip was not, how shall I say it, a large improvement imho. I lived the USPC because it was accurate, built like a tank, had a little more nesse than the glocks and could be carry cocked and locked. Now I carry a P30S 9mm and it is my perfect pistol. Grip is probably the best on the market for mid to large frame 9's, it has a documented 91,000 round endurance test with no major parts breakage, cold hammer forged barrel, luminescent steel night sights come standard, ambi everything, and can be carried cocked and locked. I would reccomend this to people instead but to each their own. HK's are expensive but, hey if you can afford it, why not.

 

In a round about way I traded a Glock 21 for a H&K USP 45.
Traded the Glock for a S&W 629 44 mag. Traded that for the USP 45. Traded the USP 45 for my exact Glock 21.

Just about hated everything about the USP 45. The mag release is/was the worst design out there. Use a high hand hold and your fighting yourself (middle finger) trying to get the mag out. The grasping grooves in the grip are there for a reason.

Had a HK zipper mag split open on me when dropped on concrete. All my shots went low. Didn't much care for the trigger or the need to buy an ambi-safety for it.

I'm sure people love them - not for me.
Was offered a USP40 cheap a few years ago. Passed.

 

Bought my first handgun which was a Glock 10 years ago. Anytime I pickup another handgun I have to make a mental correction to rotate my wrist. Otherwise I'd always be shooting low. It's all in what you're familiar with.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

seems the glock and the 1911 are no more different, or even less different than the 1911 is to other handguns, glock has a 112 degree grip angle measured from the bore axis.. 1911 has a 110, i think the CZ75 has about a 108, but it seems most others, the M&P, the hi power, the beretta, i think sigs, and more are 105 degrees.. so the only thing with a higher grip angle than the 1911 is the glock, and only just barely

 

DA trigger control is a learned skill requiring a good bit of ammo expenditure at the front end of training. But one that makes for a better shooter with any other handgun action. Because you really have to learn, practice, and deliver the fundamentals of marksmanship with a DA trigger. As I originally learned to do on DA revolvers.

There was a time that my timed from-the-holster DA first shots were consistently more accurate than subsequent SA shots from military issue M9s. DA first shot right to point of aim and follow-on shots a little more off. I found that to be true with several other models of DA/SA semi-autos as well.

Decades ago, I bought into the (then) current gun rag expert mantra that DA/SA was an answer to a question nobody was asking. But as the years passed, and my use of handguns got more & more duty carry oriented, I found that a decent DA 1st shot was something I actually preferred. I came full circle and decided that most of those writers were not as informed or experienced as I once thought. DA/SA offered less to go wrong, in the heat of the moment, and under conditions of physical exertion, adrenaline dump, or startle reflex. And a safer/faster re-holstering after decocking, especially in the dark while wearing a bunch of on-body kit and armor. With (for me) no loss in accuracy or speed in delivery of that first round.

One of the reasons I prefer the HK USP & CZ 75 DA/SA series of weapons to this day. To me, the double action first shot isn't an impediment... it's a bonus.

 

A USP in variant 1 (ie combination safety catch and decocker) that is kept in the holster decocked with the safety on, would have to be about the safest handgun to carry around, put into and draw out of a holster. If you train this way, it is also as fast and accurate as any other handgun/configuration.

That is just one of the many reasons why I like USPs better than other handguns.

I have shot lots of rounds (at tax payer expense) through both USPs and Browning HPs, but I have never seen a USP break.

 

To read comments sometimes on this board, you'd think nobody buys Glocks because they have all of these assorted issues, yet somehow they're an industry leader, if not THE industry leader. Wonder how that happened?

They marketed a super reliably performing and revolutionary product at a price nobody could compete with. And designed a deliberate marketing strategy to fill the majority of US LEO holsters with that gun. They out-hustled every other manufacturer for majority share of that police market during the decade after the Glock 17's US introduction in 1985.

The civilian buying public tends to hold in high regard whatever handguns dominate in law enforcement or military circles. Then buy accordingly.

Glock redefined the art of handgun design (and marketing). They stamped their name indelibly into the buying public's consciousness. By selling a great gun to almost every law enforcement agency in America (at damn near a loss) for the first few years. In automobile terms, during the late 1980's through early 1990s, it became the Model T Ford of its time. Dependable, affordable, universal. As long as you liked it in black.

Arguably the most significant handgun design of the entire 20th Century.

 

1911 is tough to beat in terms of overall significance over time, but off the top of my head, the other contenders from the 20th century would include S&W 27, S&W 19, Glock, P38. I'm sure there are other strong contenders. For the latter part of the 20th century, Glock for sure. JMO.

 

Besides Glock, every gun you just named I like and have owned...or still own today. All very significant designs.

But in terms of sheer world-wide distribution, none of them come close to Glock. Conservative production numbers are on the order of 12+ million units with more than one million new production Glocks added each year.

The US military only ordered 2.7 million 1911s across the entire 106 years of it's use by American forces (still in service). I absolutely love 1911s, but Glock has quadrupled those numbers in only 35 years.

I don't love Glocks, but I respect them for the dependable tools they are. Love it or not, it's currently the most numerically dominant pistol design on the planet. Not bad for a model whose most salient features were borrowed from other designs and makers. But to give them credit, Glock put it all together in a package that sells like hotcakes to this day.

 

Besides Glock, every gun you just named I like and have owned...or still own today. All very significant designs.

But in terms of sheer world-wide distribution, none of them come close to Glock. Conservative production numbers are on the order of 12+ million units with more than one million new production Glocks added each year.

The US military only ordered 2.7 million 1911s across the entire 106 years of it's use by American forces (still in service). I absolutely love 1911s, but Glock has quadrupled those numbers in only 35 years.

I don't love Glocks, but I respect them for the dependable tools they are. Love it or not, it's currently the most numerically dominant pistol design on the planet. Not bad for a model whose most salient features were borrowed from other designs and makers. But to give them credit, Glock put it all together in a package that sells like hotcakes to this day.

im not so sure that is true, you speak of the ones the US military has ordered, but thats just from the US military from one supplier, 1911s are made by about 50 different companies and if you compiled the amounts sold by all those companies the total of 1911 pistols out there would far surpass glock, available from only one company

 

Bear in mind that the M9 is Son of P38.

I have no idea the total number of 1911s sold all-time and total number of Glocks sold all-time. Maybe I could find it via googling, but it's not completely my point. I am referring to influence as well as raw numbers. There are more people today so sales numbers from 50 or 100 years ago are apples and oranges.

The S&W 27 (or at least, same gun, different name) ushered in the era of magnum handguns. The 19 or variants were carried by a huge number of police. Time travel to 1970 or 1980 and you're more likely to encounter one of those than even a 1911. That said, I still wouldn't rank them at the level of influence as the 1911 and Glock.

The Glock has been truly dominant for years starting probably in the 90s. btw I'm pro-Glock, don't take anything I say on this particular point as anti-Glock.

The origin of my earlier post was bemusement that I frequently come across people on this thread who believe that not many people like Glock, only a few oddballs, because of Major Issue A, Major Issue B or Major Issue C. I'd list what the issues are but we've all heard them ad naseum. Yet there is Glock, still leading the market.

 

Those numbers don't account for the foreign markets.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

not many foreign military or police forces use glocks either and civilian ownership of these guns is pretty much illegal in most countries and the few militaries that actually issue them, like austria, are themselves extremely small, i doubt adding foreign made glocks would even double their production numbers and even then its still currently being outsold by the M&P.. that chart also didnt list foreign made 1911s either, such as the armscor brand which is currently one of the top selling 1911s on the market out of the philippines

so im willing to bet there are more 1911s in the world today, than glocks, and probably as many hi powers, and that today not only are more M&Ps being sold, but the saturation of the market of better alternatives to glock in the polymer 9 category isnt making things easy for them

thats not to say glocks arent good pistols, or that there isnt a ****load of aftermarket and parts available for them, because their is and that still makes them one of the best, if not the best choice for a shtf pistol, and just about anyone can repair a glock whereas a 1911 needs hand fitting, but the numbers of them out there are exaggerated and it looks like the M&P is well on the path to catching up to glock

 

according to a 2014 production report by the BATFE, in 2014 glock was producing 250,000 pistols per year,

I believe that figure is purely for reportable US production by Glock USA. Glock has several additional regional subsidiaries pumping out guns for the global market.

http://www.glock.com/GlockLanding/index.html

They've been producing over a million per year worldwide since 2013. So claimed by the firm. While we Americans tend to think in terms of what we see/experience here on our chunk of North America... there's over 7 billion other folks on the planet. Glock is busy selling to them.

While we hold S&W DA magnum revolvers and 1911s in epic regard, most of the world historically had but passing fancy with those designs. Few nations or populations ever adopted huge numbers of 1911s outside of our hemisphere. Same for S&W revolvers. P-38s only spread as far as brief Nazi territorial ambitions...filled the holsters of post-war German forces... then mainly flooded the US market as surplus.

As far as commercial (civilian sales) 1911 production goes, for about the first 60 years of the 1911's existence, few companies offered them. Colt pretty much owned that market. And didn't sell huge numbers of them... because (post-WWII) there were plenty of inexpensive surplus GI weapons on the market. During the 60's-70's, a few boutique firms offered frames, slides, or whole guns for a burgeoning 1911 custom-gunsmithing niche market...but (again) not in numbers that dominated firearms industry sales figures.

Today's younger generations of shooters can't remember a time when every maker out there didn't offer an in-house version of a 1911 (or ARs for that matter). But before the 1990's... it just wasn't so. If you wanted a 1911... you generally bought a new Colt or a surplus military weapon. USGI, Argentinian, Norwegian, etc. Or new commercial/military sales like Norinco.

Today's 1911 market, where umpteen dozens of firms all offer versions of the gun, is a fairly recent development. And they still don't sell that many in aggregate. At least not in comparison to Glock.

Look at that annual BATFE report... right at the top of the first page. 1,035,454 semi-auto handguns produced for the whole country in calibers larger than 9mm. Think about what that figure entails. For starters, that includes all .40 & .45 semi-autos. Of any make, model, or action type. Including Glocks made by Glock USA. Every striker fired, DA/SA, SA, or DAO weapon made by any firms inside of the USA (Ruger, S&W, Kimber, Beretta, etc.). Not really a lot of 1911 production as part of that overall number. Just a fraction.

When you consider that the more prolific US 911 producers (like Kimber) are generally in the 50K units per annum range and that medium producers (like Colt) are well under 15K... it's not really a ginormous number of 1911s being made annually. The imported Filipino budget guns represent the largest slice of the current world production 1911 pie. Total US 1911 production is undoubtedly over 100K. Total worldwide production is likely under 200K.

About a fifth of annual Glock worldwide production.

I was just trying to throw out a broad look at the forest (rather than focusing on specific trees) when I commented about Glock being such an influential design. Not intending to start an argument, generate a this model vs. that model debate, nor derail the thread. My apologies to all.

For the record, I've continuously owned Glocks since 1985. I don't love them, but grudgingly admire them. I prefer several other gun designs in my hand. Specifically certain Colt/USGI 1911s, HK USPs (most of them), CZs (almost all of them), and certain S&W semi-autos (M&P & Shield series).

I like the OP's USP/C. I own one in .40. Easy to carry and fits my hand well. So I shoot it well. I've yet to have a problem with that gun, but actually prefer to carry the full sized version. I shoot it a bit better due to longer sight radius and slight increase in heft. Just balances better in my grip.