Didn't see this posted anywhere. So...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-omukX5ScM0
I know there's mixed feelings on MAC's "Gauntlet Tests." But I thought this was pretty impressive. Whether or not you believe these tests have any relevance to real-world usage scenarios, it's tough to argue that HK engineering isn't... awesome.
I carried an HK USP 45 LEM for years, on duty. It is the most reliable pistol I have ever carried. That said, for many other reasons, it sucked ballz as a duty pistol. I was not surprised by MAC's video. The pistol flat out shoots and keeps on shooting. It just comes down to if you are willing to accept it's horrible ergonomics in exchange for fantastic accuracy and world-class reliability.
Yeah, I had a USPc 45 for a while. I agree--ergonomics sucked. That's pretty much why I sold it. I wanted to love it, but I just couldn't hold onto the thing. It was 100% reliable, though. And so was the 45c I had. Which had pretty much the worst double action trigger I've ever experienced (from a non-communist country).
Last edited by MattyD380; 10-16-2017 at 08:26 AM.
I don't think there's a pistol that works better in my grip than the USP .45. All the full size USPs work better for me than the new "spidey" grips on P30, etc.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
So long as you're not using a one-off video of product abuse as an indicator of that "awesomeness".Originally Posted by MattyD380
I don't for a moment doubt that HK makes quality product,but I won't be using a singular YouTube video to be the judge of that. Testing protocols exist for a reason.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
That's interesting. If there's one thing about handguns... they're subjective.
I never tried a full sized USP 45. I felt the USP compact grip was too thin, and too deep. Felt totally awkward. My guess the full sized might offer a bit more lateral stability because it's wider... but probably still wouldn't fit my small hands very well.
Fair enough. But considering it did better than just about any other gun he tested (except the Arex)... I think it's a strong predictor of said awesomeness--while not definitive.
Not really.
Sure it did well in this one video. But that's no direct indicator the USP45 you'd get would perform the same.
If MAC tested 31 or more randomly sampled USP45s nationwide via the same methodology and tablulated the results ,we'd have something to make conclusions from. As they are, the "Gauntlet" videos are pure entertainment value-period.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
As I jokes when Sparks posted a link to this video in another recent thread, the MAC testing is only applicable when it concerns a pistol you like and the result is positive. Then, it’s rigorous science. I see the 2.0 M&P did USP level well in the recent MAC test.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Well, you can't know anything for sure; that 32nd randomly sampled USP might have a bad extractor.
But, I'll put it this way:
I would be more apt to put money on another HK USP 45 (or 5) surviving the gauntlet, vs. most of the other makes he's tested. And that includes guns I "like" better than HKs. Suffice to say, I don't think a gun needs to "make it through the gauntlet" to be a good, reliable, dependable gun. Normally, I'd take a 92 any day over a USP...
But, if I had to take one into a swamp... I might have to think about it.
Reply With Quote