[old&cranky]

I'm considering an H&K and that would make me a rookie for sure, but old (and cranky) gun guy here. Nice to meet you all.

I have a couple of questions. Right now my main carry is a Sig p220 carry elite and I am looking at something smaller for lighter carry. I was looking close at a glock 36 but the compact usp .45 has caught my eye. It shows to be about a few ounces more than the glock, but how do you guys like the compact for carry? Does anyone have both it and the sig 200 and is there much of a weight difference? Is it too close to the weight of the sig and threefor better to go with the g36? How about some opinions of you guys that have made comparisons of these 3 guns.

Thanks in advance.

 

[AGG-closed]

Welcome! For the short of it, I would personally go the USPc route!

Me likey .45!

 

[old&cranky]

Hello AGG and thanks for the reply. I may just go with the uspc and if I like it get the USP. I don't see anything wrong with owning a couple of sigs and a couple of h&k's. I think they can probably cohabitat.

I love .45, it's all I own in handguns. I've been a 1911 person since the service, also grew up with guns, and like the idea of the usp cocked and locked (v1 I think). I tossed around the idea of the LEM but I just don't think I would like it as much. The next sig I get will be the SAO.

 

[jimmybuffett]

Not trying to start a caliber war here, you obviously have a preference for .45, but the USPc .45 gives up 4 shots over the full-size, where the .40 only gives up 1 shot. If you will only own handguns in .45 that's your choice, but I'm always surprised when somebody picks an 8-shot USPc .45 over the 12-shot USPc .40. Whatever your opinion of the particular calibers is, the .40 and the .45 are at least in the same ballpark in terms of performance, and having 50% higher capacity in the .40 to me is a pretty significant advantage.

 

[old&cranky]

Well, I'm always suprised when 9 rounds of .45 is not enough for civillian concealed carry. Now I used to be in the "give me more rounds" camp but after years of ccw and never knowing of a civillian defensive shoot taking 9 rounds I have long left it. I think you are still comparing 9 rounds of .45 to 9 rounds of .40 as the chance of having to even pull it are slim and the chance of needing even close to 9 rounds almost none. Now I guess war could break out but one might as well carry an extra mag or two in that case, but I would feel safe with a 6 shooter.

I have owned several .40's and do not for years now. I consider the .45 to be a better caliber and I also reload .45. I have been a 10mm enthusiast, reloading them, so I would go with a toned down 10mm long before going with .40 and still have more firepower. I have rhumatoid arthritis though and the 10mm even toned down tend to snap my joints where .45 is more of a push. The same is true for .40 and 9mm, .45 is easier on my joints.

So I don't feel at all as 9 rounds of .45 any less protection of 12-15 rounds of .40 in ccw instances and in fact I think it is better. If I like the uspc I may go with a regular usp, but it would not be for carry. Probably more nightstand duty.

We will probably continue to disagree on this, but not everyone thinks the same and even if others choices suprise us that doesn't mean either is wrong.

 

[jimmybuffett]

I think you are still comparing 9 rounds of .45 to 9 rounds of .40 as the chance of having to even pull it are slim and the chance of needing even close to 9 rounds almost none.

If only there were concrete data to show (a) how often concealed-carry weapons are used legally and (b) how many rounds were fired, we could know which is more rare - using the weapon or firing more than 9 shots when using it.

In every dimension except width, the USPc .45 is marginally larger/heavier than the other calibers. So not only are you sacrificing capacity but also concealability and carry comfort as well.

We can agree to disagree, I'm content to just point out what I think is a deficiency with the USPc .45 over the other calibers. It's not my $700 that you'll be spending .

 

[old&cranky]

I have read where even in police firings the average is something like 3-4 rounds fired. There are even less in civillians firing in self defense. Maybe you have a link to where anywhere near 8 shots were fired by a ccw holder in self defense. Here's a link to where they say 5 shots fired average 1996 and 3.4 in 98 in New York City. Yes that's several years ago, but the number is still in that range and that's by cops in NYC. Civillian carry is even less:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E7D7143BF934A35751C0A96F958260

One could say that since that's average then there are shootings of both 1 and 10 rounds, but cops like the military "normally" shoot in a 3 round burst on the first trigger pull. So i would say shootings with lower than 3 shots and as high as 3 really rare.

I have carried full size 1911's and 25 ounces for a carrry is not really sacrificing anything at all. It's all relative anyway. Why not carry a kahr or kel-tech if it's all about size and weight. Compared to a .380 you are giving up a lot in size and weight. I shot a 'possum 3 times at 10 feet dead center with a .40 one time and it still ran away. I know it's all about shot placement but .40 S(hort) & W(eak) is too much of a defeciency in order to overcome the whopping .07 pounds difference in weight between the .40 and .45 version in my opinion.

Thickness is the biggest concern carrying and as you said they are the same. The weight difference is just over an ounce and negligible. Any other dimension difference is also negligible. In fact I almost think with the ammo in it they are probably very close in weight.

So I don't think you have pointed out any shortcomings whatsoever nor any reason to go for a lesser caliber. I'm not trying to be a wiseguy but the high cap excuses are mostly mall ninja stuff that won't be needed in real world concealed carrying. I guarantee you if someone fired 8-10 rounds in ANY ccw situation it would be all over the front page saying what a rabid gun nut he was.

I wish I could delete this thread now, turning questions about .45's into a caliber debate is ridiculous. I've been shooting for 50 years, many of those in the military and connected with leo so I have very little caliber specific questions.

Oh, on your question. I would be suprised if anyone has fired 9 rounds from a ccw weapon unless they were screwing around. I bet you whatever you want that it's by FAR MUCH more rare.

I WILL decide to spend my 700.00 on what I consider to be the better caliber:

 

[jimmybuffett]

So I don't think you have pointed out any shortcomings whatsoever nor any reason to go for a lesser caliber. I'm not trying to be a wiseguy but the high cap excuses are mostly mall ninja stuff that won't be needed in real world concealed carrying. I guarantee you if someone fired 8-10 rounds in ANY ccw situation it would be all over the front page saying what a rabid gun nut he was.

I wish I could delete this thread now, turning questions about .45's into a caliber debate is ridiculous. I've been shooting for 50 years, many of those in the military and connected with leo so I have very little caliber specific questions.

I actually prefer my PSP as a carry weapon over the USPc .40 in my signature. The PSP holds 8 shots of 9mm but is far easier to conceal due to width/weight and also, because of the unique safety/cocking mechanism, in my opinion much safer and easier to carry with a round in the chamber. But your post doesn't mention the PSP/P7 as an option so that's why I didn't bring it up. As you can see in my sig I own a variety of calibers as well.

My point in relation to your original post is that the USPc in .45 gives up a significant amount of capacity going from the full size to the compact frame, compared to the capacity reduction for the .40 and 9mm. I am not saying that I think the .45 round is inferior to the .40, I'm saying that I think the USPc .45 is inferior to the USPc .40. I personally consider the .40 and .45 round to be close enough in performance that a 50% increase in capacity for the USPc .40 is a distinct advantage over the USPc .45.

I think the main reason that we carry is because we'd rather carry a gun and not need it than not carry a gun and need it. I justify 12 rounds of .40 being better than 8 rounds of .45 for the very same reason, I'd rather have the extra shots of a roughly equivalent performing round and not need them, but again that's just my personal opinion.

I understand your argument that .45 is easier on your joints than the .40, it's a snappy little round. I shot one of those Kel-Tech 9mm's at the range the other day and it felt like it was going to fly out of my hand. The fact that you reload .45 can't hurt either, I spend a healthy amount of money feeding my UMP (of course 25 round mags don't help).

 

[AviatorDave]

I actually prefer my PSP as a carry weapon over the USPc .40 in my signature. The PSP holds 8 shots of 9mm but is far easier to conceal due to width/weight and also, because of the unique safety/cocking mechanism, in my opinion much safer and easier to carry with a round in the chamber. But your post doesn't mention the PSP/P7 as an option so that's why I didn't bring it up. As you can see in my sig I own a variety of calibers as well.

My point in relation to your original post is that the USPc in .45 gives up a significant amount of capacity going from the full size to the compact frame, compared to the capacity reduction for the .40 and 9mm. I am not saying that I think the .45 round is inferior to the .40, I'm saying that I think the USPc .45 is inferior to the USPc .40. I personally consider the .40 and .45 round to be close enough in performance that a 50% increase in capacity for the USPc .40 is a distinct advantage over the USPc .45.

I think the main reason that we carry is because we'd rather carry a gun and not need it than not carry a gun and need it. I justify 12 rounds of .40 being better than 8 rounds of .45 for the very same reason, I'd rather have the extra shots of a roughly equivalent performing round and not need them, but again that's just my personal opinion.

I understand your argument that .45 is easier on your joints than the .40, it's a snappy little round. I shot one of those Kel-Tech 9mm's at the range the other day and it felt like it was going to fly out of my hand. The fact that you reload .45 can't hurt either, I spend a healthy amount of money feeding my UMP (of course 25 round mags don't help).

I'll second the PSP for CC. I'm now carrying my new to me P7M13. I like that I can carry it with one in the pipe completely safely, but should I ever really need it, no fumbling for the safety, hearing a dreaded click when I expected a bang, etc. Just squeeze and fire. I got the M13 because the M8 just seems like too few rounds, but the odds of me getting into an extended shootout are about nil, and the M8 would be fine. I guess my only fear would be missing 9 times and wishing I still had 5 more rounds left. I'm a decent shot with a pistol, but I know for a fact I'd be not nearly as steady if someone were shooting back.

But what's the deal with the opossum? Where was it hit 3 times with a .40 and still ran off? I know when I was a kid, they'd get into my grandfather's chicken pen at night, and a .22lr would usually drop them in their tracks. Sometimes it was a .410, but that made more of a mess.

 

[TexasJim]

Old and cranky, get the uspc 45 you will love it over the Sig 220, I used to have a sig 229 and I never like that weapon. I think you will find the mag release on the USP much better. also you can switch the slide release if you want to as auther creeps up on you. Welcome to the Fourm and enjoy. TJ

 

[sfguard]

I would recommend the USPC I personally don't like the feel of the Sig myself but do like the HKs. Also, think you will have a hard time beating the good old tried, and true 45acp.

 

[old&cranky]

Hey, thanks for the replies guys. I am really leaning toward a uspc and if I like it the usp a little later on. I like the sigs a lot, but I don't see how having a couple of each could be a bad thing.

Dave, don't know what the deal was. I was visiting my parents and heard their cats fighting something so went out to the small where their food was kept. They were squared off with a 'possum (southern spelling) so I put 3 rounds in him and the distance inside to the back of the building was about 10 feet. I know every one hit him, but he still managed to scoot away and I never found his body. Plenty of blood and I'm sure he died soon after, but I was pretty shocked. I'm just a big fan of .45 or 10mm for self defense and as I said above .45 is a lot easier on me as my RA gets worse.

 

[jimmybuffett]

I'll second the PSP for CC. I'm now carrying my new to me P7M13. I like that I can carry it with one in the pipe completely safely, but should I ever really need it, no fumbling for the safety, hearing a dreaded click when I expected a bang, etc. Just squeeze and fire. I got the M13 because the M8 just seems like too few rounds, but the odds of me getting into an extended shootout are about nil, and the M8 would be fine.

When I was picking up my PSP, my FFL let me check out his M13 and with the squeeze grip on the front and the extra width of the grip, the gun just didn't feel right to me. And I have big hands too. I've never handled a Mark 23 so I can't compare the two, but the M13 just didn't fit me right. Whereas the P7/PSP fits like a glove.

 

[DevDog]

Forget about the Glock 36. The USPC will feed just about any ammo. The Sig P220 has them beat in accuracy...IMHO. Go with the one you can shoot most accurately!

 

[smn_ss]

uspc 45...in case you want to ccw too.

 

[old&cranky]

Whatever I get is absolutely going to be carried ccw (I already have the 220 and carry it) and the glock 36 I was looking at as very lightweight carry as it's quite a bit lighter than the others. I think my original question may have gotten lost in the caliber debate, I do appreciate everyone that has answered though:

I have a couple of questions. Right now my main carry is a Sig p220 carry elite and I am looking at something smaller for lighter carry. I was looking close at a glock 36 but the compact usp .45 has caught my eye. It shows to be about a few ounces more than the glock, but how do you guys like the compact for carry? Does anyone have both it and the sig 200 and is there much of a weight difference? Is it too close to the weight of the sig and threefor better to go with the g36? How about some opinions of you guys that have made comparisons of these 3 guns

 

[AviatorDave]

Whatever I get is absolutely going to be carried ccw (I already have the 220 and carry it) and the glock 36 I was looking at as very lightweight carry as it's quite a bit lighter than the others. I think my original question may have gotten lost in the caliber debate, I do appreciate everyone that has answered though:

I'm not sure about the weight/dimensions of the others, but if you go to the World of HK on the HKPro home page, it has weights and dimensions of the USPs.

 

[old&cranky]

Well, I was suprised today that I saw a usp .45 in academy sporting goods. It was way over priced but it gave me a chance to handle one. I never thought I would see an h&K (don't see sig either) in a store round here, it's a rare thing. The problem is that I don't like the grip at all, I like my p220 grip much better. I'm not trying to start anything at all, but as most know everyone has different hands and not all prefer the same pistol grips. I just did not like the usp grip at all. I know the compact is a little thinner, but I'm not sure I would like it either. So I guess I will research other options and maybe go with the glock 36 as it is the only .45 glock who's grip I like. Thanks to all that answered and I really wish I had liked the grip.

 

[satin]

old and cranky for me ti was simple I carry a USP standard 9mm at work and went with the compact for ccw. I ran over a posum less than 1 mph in a field ten min later it had wandered off. tuff criters

 

[old&cranky]

They are pretty fricken tough.

Maybe I will see a usp compact somewhere and I can see if I like the grip any better than the full size.