1911 vs HK USP 45

[Tere_Hanges]

While I would love to get another USP45 or 1911, the next .45 I get will be a Glock 21sf. Just cant top the overall value of a Glock 21sf.

[solipsism]

I grew up shooting 1911s and have a fondness for them but the USP is superior in every way except the trigger.

Polygonal rifling, 12 round capacity, can handle +P, +P+, .45 super all day, better recoil assembly, weighs less, can be configured DA/SA with or without safety/decocker, or LEM, has a rail unlike most 1911s, there are USPs with incredibly high round counts and no parts failures such as Federal Ammos USP that had almost 300k rounds through it. Not picky about ammo, and no extractor tuning.

In my opinion, the controls are better as well.

[tacticalcity]

In my humble opinion, newer 1911s with modern extractors are as reliable as just about any gun out there. The older extractors would slowly loose their shape/tension and need to be bent back into shape after a few thousand rounds. With modern design updates that is no longer the case. And while some 1911s have very tight tolerances that lead to them being "quirky" most production models do not. My Sig TTT has been nothing but reliable. And every Sig 1911 owner I know says the same. They just run, and run, and keep on running. Fans of many other 1911 brands say the same.

It's similar to people calling the AR15 unreliable because back in Vietnam bean counters used the wrong gun powder in the ammo gumming up the works. Once the word "unreliable" gets attached to something in the gun world, it tends to stick around LONG after it no longer applies. In both cases above, the root cause has long since been addressed and fixed. But the stigma still lingers. And to those that buy into those myths without knowing the history behind them...there is no reasoning with them. Their buddy's, buddy's, uncle's friend said so...that's all they need to know on the subject.

As for the original question. The trigger, and thus speed you will achieve with a 1911 over the HK45 is undeniable. Nothing beats a 1911 trigger. The capacity of the HK45 is a benefit, no question. However, here in California it's max 3 rounds difference. If you're LEO it might be more. I am not sure what the HK45 max capacity is. That 45 is a big round. In my limited experience with them the Chip McCormick 10 rounders have been reliable. I run the 7 rounders instead. Another bonus of the 1911 is the added weight. At least when it comes to speed (not necessarily carry). It helps dramatically cut down the felt recoil of that powerful 45acp round in a way the HK can't. I'd opt for the 1911 between these two. I owned an HK USP V1, and I was not all that impressed with HK DA/SA trigger. There are MUCH worse triggers out there. I am just not a DA/SA fan to begin with. So I don't hate it. It's just not my favorite. While the 1911 is.

Now, all that said. For defensive purposes or duty carry. I would opt for the Glock 17. I've owned one since before the ban and have a bunch of preban mags. So capcity is a MAJOR advantage (yes the law gets murky there). The trigger is not as nice as the 1911, but the trigger pull is the same from start to finish so very easy to master so you get proficient very quickly and get some nice speed. Plus the recoil of the round is lighter. So even with a polymer frame (lighter gun) you get faster follow up shots.

Don't get me wrong. I love my 1911s. They are a joy to shoot. When range day comes I can't wait to take them out. So much so they are a very, very close second to what I would reach for in a defensive situation to the Glock 17. But the Glock 17 still wins out.

Still...both the HK45 and a 1911 are great guns. We're splitting hairs here they are both so great. So you'll do fine either way.

[bmk20398]

How do you guys think XD45?

http://www.gunblast.com/Springfield-XD45.htm

incredible accuracy for $499

[robert101]

I'd go with the Range Officer as I have a similar gun in the SA Loaded model. My reason is that for a range gun I like the 1911. No it is not the most reliable but then a range gun doesn't have to be. For CCW I prefer Glocks - G27 to be specific. I do simply prefer the 1911 style guns. To clarify I don't own a USP to make a side-by-side comparison so I'm not knocking the USP.

[elSquid]

In my humble opinion, newer 1911s with modern extractors are as reliable as just about any gun out there. The older extractors would slowly loose their shape/tension and need to be bent back into shape after a few thousand rounds. With modern design updates that is no longer the case. And while some 1911s have very tight tolerances that lead to them being "quirky" most production models do not. My Sig TTT has been nothing but reliable. And every Sig 1911 owner I know says the same. They just run, and run, and keep on running. Fans of many other 1911 brands say the same.

It's similar to people calling the AR15 unreliable because back in Vietnam bean counters used the wrong gun powder in the ammo gumming up the works. Once the word "unreliable" gets attached to something in the gun world, it tends to stick around LONG after it no longer applies. In both cases above, the root cause has long since been addressed and fixed. But the stigma still lingers. And to those that buy into those myths without knowing the history behind them...there is no reasoning with them. Their buddy's, buddy's, uncle's friend said so...that's all they need to know on the subject.

OTOH...

I own/have owned a bunch of 1911s. I've had two Springers - made in the last 10 years - that didn't run out of the box properly due to extractor issues. ( A loaded and a TRP. ) Kimber went to external extractors, had issues, and then went back. Most 1911 manufacturers use the classic, internal extractor.

Are SIG 1911s the current reliability kings of 1911s? Don't know. SIG has been dinged a few times for reliability issues for their seemingly constant tweaks to their in production pistol manufacturing. ( Witness the holy wars that arise when current P series pistols are compared to the old German made ones. ) Things at SIG did change when Cohen took the helm. SIG definitely is more financially successful these days - Cohen probably saved the company - but it's debatable that the pistols made today are as good as those made in the past. Anyway, that's a bit of a digression...

The 1911 was designed 100+ years ago to run ball ammo. Those of us that are older remember that the recommendation 'back when' for a new Colt was to get a throat and polish job so that it would have a chance to run JHPs reliably.

These days 1911s are arguably better, but the fact remains that USPs were designed from the get-go to run JHPs and to be manufactured with a minimum of hand labor. Individual pistols may vary, but as a general population I'd expect the majority of USPs to be more reliable with a variety of ammo than the majority of 1911s made today.

I prefer 1911s, and I have a bunch of them, but if I had to grab a new pistol - that I couldn't test beforehand - to defend my life, I'd take the USP. If I had a chance to test and tweak the gun, then a 1911. I'm willing to accept minor reliability losses in return for much better shootability. Other people may make other choices.

As for the original question. The trigger, and thus speed you will achieve with a 1911 over the HK45 is undeniable.

The OP didn't ask about the HK45, he asked about the USP 45.

That said..

The problem with the USP 45 is shootability and ergos, but the newer HK45s address that. The std mag capacity drops from 12 in the USP to 10 in the HK45. It's a shame that the HK45 is off roster. Todd Louis Green ran a test where his HK45 ran amazingly well for 50,000 rounds...

http://pistol-training.com/archives/4027

Interview with Hackathorn and Vickers re HK45 development:

http://pistol-training.com/articles/hk45-interview-with-ken-hackathorn-and-larry-vickers

-- Michael

( Owns a bunch of 1911s, a USP 45, and a HK45 )

[DArBad]

I like my 1911s that is why I have several of them. I've never like the USP. Handled one several years ago hoping to spend the money...... I've decided there and then.... I am not interested in acquiring one.

[SNEAKS]

How's it going everyone, so I really like the USP 45 for its rugged reliability but I also love the 1911 for its cool factor, I was looking at a Springfield range officer. It seems that a 1911 is not as reliable as an HK USP. If you had to choose one, which would it be? Thanks

Strictly from a reliability stance I'd have to give it to the USP. I've had many 1911s over the years and love them but the USP 45 is my nightstand gun.

[tacticalcity]

Are SIG 1911s the current reliability kings of 1911s?

Wasn't trying to say that at all...just using them as an example. That would be a BOLD claim indeed. I have no idea which brand would be the reliability kings of the 1911. I just have more rounds down Sigs than any other brand, and it is the nicest most reliable 1911 I personally have owned. So I shared my own experience. Which is that of the dozen or so people I know who personally run them, including myself...they have been phenomenally reliable...while being run VERY hard. While my Kimber Custom II had some extractor issues in that I needed to keep an eye on the extractor and adjust if from time to time or it would fail to properly eject the round and jam (a very common problem with the original extractor and main cause of the claim that 1911s need a lot of extra TLC to run right).


Glock, arguably the king of reliability, has had it's fair share of issues as well. At least as far as the internet is concerned. Every gun and every brand has more than it's fair share of detractors. Often through no fault of it's own. All sorts of things beyond the control of the manufacture come into play. Crappy ammo, crappy magazines, crappy shooters using improper techniques...all get blamed on the gun by most shooters. Human nature to blame the gun first. So I tend to take complaints with a heavy grain of salt. You just never really know until you personally put the gun through it's paces. And even then you, might get lucky and get the one gem in the bunch or unlucky and get the one lemon.

All I can really say, is that I would trust my life to my Sig 1911 and my Glock 17, because I have put them both through the paces and they meet if not surpassed expectations. I have not felt that way about every gun I have ever owned. Some just were not up to par. But those two definitely are. Will every Sig or every Glock be as reliable? Nothing is ever 100% perfect. But 99.99% will be trust worthy and reliable...if not more. Something I think also holds true of the HK he is also considering.

[Tere_Hanges]

How do you guys think XD45?

http://www.gunblast.com/Springfield-XD45.htm

incredible accuracy for $499

XD45 or Glock 21sf, are both solid choices, choice is up to personal preference. Either will get the job done everytime without breaking the bank. A good option for those that want a .45cal pistol but dont want to drop $900+ on a USP or $1200+ on a 1911. XD is even more appealing with the promo going on.

[teflondog]

For the range, I prefer the 1911 because the USP grip doesn't feel as good in my hand. If I had to pick a gun for SHTF I would go with the USP since it's just as reliable as a Glock.

[Soginator]

Where is this reliable stuff coming from? I'm genuinely curious. Odds are, you'd be dead long before you fired enough shots to jam either gun in shtf. Pick whatever feels right and what you want to shoot. Personally, I would take a 1911 over usp even in the apocalypse. I would however pick a Sig P226 over either.

[the Scholar]

I am biased as I do not own any 1911's and own several H&K's. They have all been fantastic, so it would be the USP for me.

[_TomT_]

USP45 is the only gun I regretted selling, I wish I could somehow buy it back at the price I sold it for...

[billvau]

Have both. 1911 has adjustable sights too. 1911 is way cool. HK is way cool and more fun, easier to shoot.

JMHO
Bill