[wakeride74]

If you were going to own one of the two (regardless of caliber) which one would it be? Which one would be considered the better gun?

Springfield XD or HK USP

 

[grawk]

HK.

A good friend of mine just made the same choice.

 

[necropimp]

both are good pistols but HK anything tends to be priced higher than it needs to be

a new XD will run ~$500ish where a new USP is $700-800

 

[rb67]

Both are good, but after trying out a few, I prefer the way the USP feels. The weight distribution makes it feel more solid IMO, and I like the way the grip feels better.

 

[marvin]

M&P45 if I have to go polymer. American made, excellent ergonomics, great shooter. Also economical compared to the HK. Not so much compared to the Springer once you consider that there are a ton of used XDs on the market.

Otherwise, the Springfield. Both are good, but I prefer the XD's trigger and ergonomics. Plus the XD-45 Compact (CCO style format) is great. Also, if you do have problems with the gun, Springfield is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than HK.

 

[wakeride74]

I held the M&P .45 and thought it was pretty nice but I really liked the feel of the XD in the 5". I actually have a .40 HK that I like pretty good but I was in a gun store today and felt like it was time for a change, I just didn't want it to be a downgrade if I traded my HK in. I don't really have any gripes with the HK but after holding the XD and M&P the both just felt better in my hand and seemed to have a better trigger design.

 

[JLai]

HK.

Personally, I'd spring for a Sig 229.

 

[grawk]

The sig is quite a weapon. I own a 239 and an HK Tactical 45 (plus a 1911, and a luger, and...)

 

[RedLeader]

USP with those chioces, but perhaps a Sig 227?

 

[Hey_Its_Cole]

Personally, I would go with a Glock. They are the best bang for the buck but of the two, I prefer the H&K. You really can not go wrong with any of the three. In the end go with what feels best in your hand.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hey_Its_Cole /img/forum/go_quote.gif Personally, I would go with a Glock. They are the best bang for the buck but of the two, I prefer the H&K. You really can not go wrong with any of the three. In the end go with what feels best in your hand.

Yeah, the Glock would generally be a first tier rec based on history, but the large frame Glocks (G20/21) are about as ergonomic as a brick. Better than the Mk. 23 though.

 

[choomanchoo]

Neither , I'd go for this bad boy http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_handguns/gsr_0401/

 

[GAD]

H&K hands down, though I prefer the older non-locking models. .45 for me.

GAD

 

[Old Pa]

Neither. .45ACP 1911 (not SIG).

 

[vpivinylspinner]

I have owned both. My HK is utterly dependable but I like the Springfield ergonomics a bit better. I feel the fit and finish of the H&K might be a bit better but it was also 2-300 more. My HK had the LEM module and I just couldn't get used to the trigger pull. The compact Springfield XD-45 is a nice carry gun and mine has been very reliable. The Springfield is also a great deal. I do feel that the Glock 21 and 30 are great weapons and I can shoot them more accurately than I can the Springfield and HK.

With that being said, if I was going to buy another .45 it would definitely be another 1911.