[Guest]

I currently own a sig 2022 9mm as my range gun/home defense gun. I want to buy an HK as a carry and range firearm and was wondering if I should go with the P2000SK or the USP compact. Also what are the major differences between the 2000 and the 2000sk, is one a better choice than the other. I would appreciate any advice anyone has for a soon to be HK owner. Thanks

 

[Aron81]

It's going to come down to you as to which one you pick up. A lot has to do with the feel of the weapon! Are you sticking with 9mm?

The P2000 / sk have changable backstraps to adjust the feel of the grip to better accomodate your hand size. I, personally, love the feel of my USPc.

As far as P2000 and P2000sk differences... the SK mags are 10 round cap as opposed to 13 in the p2000 and USPc. The SK is roughly 1/2" shorter in length and in height. Me, personally, would pick the USPc over the P2000 for a carry / home defense gun, (well, truthfully, my USP .45 is my home defense gun... or a shotgun heh) but for a SubKompact, were I to scratch that itch, would take the SK for sure.

You can go here to see exact specs on dimensions if that helps. Also, you can see how the specs change if you aren't planning on sticking with 9mm.

Like I said though, it's a pretty personal decision. Not just on the feel, but how you shoot with them too. Get down to the store / range and feel out a few of them and put some rounds through them if you can. Whatever you decide, all three are great pistols and you will be happy with whichever you choose.

 

[Guest]

thanks for the info. Im not sure if I'm going to stick with the 9mm. I will try out the .40 and .45's. I am going to the range today and will shoot both the USP compact and the 2000, unfortunately they dont have the 2000sk to shoot or to check for size so that could influence my decision a bit, although maybe it shouldn't. Any feedback you can give me on the frames, ie importance of polymer vs not polymer and how important or not this is.

I do understand what you saying though about personal prefrence and I know that which ever HK I do go with, I am getting a great firearm.

 

[Aron81]

Note, that the P2000 / SK do not come in .45 caliber. Only 9mm, .40 and .357 sig.

If you're looking at going .45, however... the USPc .45 is an awesome choice. The only reason I didn't go with USPc .45 is the 8 round cap... in a real life scenario (on average) it would probably be over before that however. Still... I went with .40 for the 4 extra rounds (12). Heck, if you can change mags like some of the shooting videos I've seen... it doesn't make a difference hehe...

 

[Guest]

A carry and a range gun are 2 different things really. You need to practice regularly with your carry gun at the range, but if you're looking for something to have fun with, a subcompact lower capacity pistol with a short sight radius is not going to be the most fun thing to shoot in my opinion, especially when shooting longer distances.

If you plan on shooting a lot, .45 will get expensive quickly, as will 357 Sig (as in the equivalent of a car payment every month). Ammo prices are going up this fall too, possibly by as much as 20% with some manufacturers. You can start learning to reload right off the bat and make an investment in a good reloader though . . .


I don't like the short sight radius of most subcompacts. I'd go with a P2000 (non-SK) in 9mm myself for the ergonomics and relatively low cost of ammunition.

 

[jpgeorge]

Just get two P2000SK's, one in 9mm and another in 40SW. Use X-GRIPS to use hi-caps or 10-rounders. My P2000SK DA/SA is stupid accurate. If I use P2000 10-rounders with x-grips, is comfortable and accurate.

HK's compacts aren't really all that compact.

P2000=Compact with a safety
P2000~P2000SK with x-grips

JPG

 

[AGG]

USPc (.45)!

 

[bakkufu]

I am going to the range today and will shoot both the USP compact and the 2000

be interested to know how you got on with each of these, it is a definate personal choice

 

[jimmybuffett]

Let me suggest against the USPc .45 as a contender, for only one reason: greatly decreased capacity in the compact frame.

The full-size USP .45 holds 12 rounds, the .40 holds 13 rounds. The compact versions of those hold 8 and 12, respectively. So basically to get the compact frame, in .45 you give up 4 shots and in .40 you give up 1 shot.

Lots of people have a preference for certain calibers, I've made this exact argument before in other threads and I'm really not trying to go there. Whatever you believe about the comparison of .45 to .40, the two rounds are at least in the same ballpark in terms of performance. When the .40 compact holds 50% more bullets, to me that's a distinct advantage. All other things being equal: shooter skill, accurate controlled fire, etc, I think the greatly lowered capacity of the USPc .45 over the .40 and 9mm is a big knock against it.

How the gun feels should be the first consideration, definitely, but if you like the USPc and you don't have a caliber preference, let me suggest against the .45.

 

[HUNTER22]

Well, I can say there is no wrong decision on this one.. I own both and couldn't be happier!! Just buy both and have twice the fun!!

 

[Chris Sanchez]

Jroos:

Since this is your first centerfire handgun, I would suggest that you go to the standard P2000. The various grip profiles, the adequate sight radius, and over-all size will give you more familiarization than an abbreviated pistol. I would suggest that you get the variant 3 as the configuration will help to get familiar with the fundamental single-action pull, then practice more with the more advance-level double-action pull.

Based from my experience, by-pass the USP/USP Compact. Firing a gun with the feel of a brick is really no fun. I have my personal USP9 Standard, and I state that it is no fun to shoot or do dry-practice during spare time.