Salamander
Member
- Messages
- 48
Another HK guy here. USPs, P2000s, and now a VP9K. All eight of them have been robust and reliable.
Since you've provided the opportunity, I'll run through my rationale for HK in California. I'm one of those guys that tends to do a detailed use assessment every few years or whenever my situation changes more than a little.
A P2000sk 9mm LEM was first, I think it was something like 17 or 18 years ago. It all started there...
At the time my work was a mix of office and field, and some of the field time was was in places that can be a harsh environment; salt spray, blowing sand or dust, heavy winter rains. So I needed something that I could be confident would just work, every time.
That contributed to ordering my priorities for a pistol. Reliability first, then inherent accuracy, then everything else. Running out of the box with minimal modifications was a plus. HK met all of those priorities.
Later I found that my hands worked better with the USP grip shape, so I mostly shifted to those. Currently a USP 45 (woods gun), USPc 9 (town gun) and P2000sk (summer town gun) are on my permit and all see use.
I've just finished vetting the VP9a1 K that I purchased last spring, 800 rounds without a stoppage and I am in the process of adding it to my permit. These eyes aren't as young as they used to be, so an optic is a big help. It took me a little while to adapt to the Spiderman grip, but I'm now shooting the VP9 better at 25 yards than anything else that I own. While I still kind of prefer hammer-fired pistols, optics are the future and I expect the VP9K is going to. get the majority of carry time going forward.
Yes, they're expensive. But I also don't need to do anything to them but add an optic and some grip tape, and quality costs money.
Why not something other than HK? Glad you asked, and my answer is different than it would be in a free state.
Let's address the obvious one first. While I like the simplicity of Glock, and the massive aftermarket, as far as I'm concerned they're not an option in California at the present time. None are at present available new, with the off-roster markup on gen 5 or 6 it's cheaper to buy an HK. If Glock resolves the roster issue I'll revisit this, but I'm about to sell my last two Glocks and will put the money into another VP9 plus some ammo.
Sig, I choose not to spend my money on them. Let's call it a difference of philosophy on how to run a business.
Walther, I like a lot of things about the PDP and the snappy recoil is not an issue for me. If I did a lot of competition or open duty carry, then it would be a contender. But I don't, so for me the PDP drops out because the big angular slide is hard to conceal, and because parts like spare CA-compliant mags are usually unobtainium.
M&P 2.0, if I weren't already all in on HK this would be a contender. It's not perfect but nothing is, and it meets most of my desires. I may pick one up just for variety.
Other brands, I just don't have much experience with and am really not in the mood to start over with all new holsters, spare mags, and more. And some otherwise OK options are still off roster anyway. So I'm not even bothering with the research.
The current plan is to add another VP9, probably an F; I already have a spare L slide (which is scary accurate, on a good day it shoots one ragged hole at 15 yards; the only other pistol I have in the same league for accuracy is a USP Elite). So with both frame sizes and three slide sizes, I'd be able to mix and match if in the mood. In practice though the K would become the carry pistol, and the F would become the range practice pistol and backup. Then someday, if the VP9cc is ever added to the roster, I'd pick one of those up also. Same design only shrunk a little, should be an easy transition, and I'm hearing good things about accuracy.
Since you've provided the opportunity, I'll run through my rationale for HK in California. I'm one of those guys that tends to do a detailed use assessment every few years or whenever my situation changes more than a little.
A P2000sk 9mm LEM was first, I think it was something like 17 or 18 years ago. It all started there...
At the time my work was a mix of office and field, and some of the field time was was in places that can be a harsh environment; salt spray, blowing sand or dust, heavy winter rains. So I needed something that I could be confident would just work, every time.
That contributed to ordering my priorities for a pistol. Reliability first, then inherent accuracy, then everything else. Running out of the box with minimal modifications was a plus. HK met all of those priorities.
Later I found that my hands worked better with the USP grip shape, so I mostly shifted to those. Currently a USP 45 (woods gun), USPc 9 (town gun) and P2000sk (summer town gun) are on my permit and all see use.
I've just finished vetting the VP9a1 K that I purchased last spring, 800 rounds without a stoppage and I am in the process of adding it to my permit. These eyes aren't as young as they used to be, so an optic is a big help. It took me a little while to adapt to the Spiderman grip, but I'm now shooting the VP9 better at 25 yards than anything else that I own. While I still kind of prefer hammer-fired pistols, optics are the future and I expect the VP9K is going to. get the majority of carry time going forward.
Yes, they're expensive. But I also don't need to do anything to them but add an optic and some grip tape, and quality costs money.
Why not something other than HK? Glad you asked, and my answer is different than it would be in a free state.
Let's address the obvious one first. While I like the simplicity of Glock, and the massive aftermarket, as far as I'm concerned they're not an option in California at the present time. None are at present available new, with the off-roster markup on gen 5 or 6 it's cheaper to buy an HK. If Glock resolves the roster issue I'll revisit this, but I'm about to sell my last two Glocks and will put the money into another VP9 plus some ammo.
Sig, I choose not to spend my money on them. Let's call it a difference of philosophy on how to run a business.
Walther, I like a lot of things about the PDP and the snappy recoil is not an issue for me. If I did a lot of competition or open duty carry, then it would be a contender. But I don't, so for me the PDP drops out because the big angular slide is hard to conceal, and because parts like spare CA-compliant mags are usually unobtainium.
M&P 2.0, if I weren't already all in on HK this would be a contender. It's not perfect but nothing is, and it meets most of my desires. I may pick one up just for variety.
Other brands, I just don't have much experience with and am really not in the mood to start over with all new holsters, spare mags, and more. And some otherwise OK options are still off roster anyway. So I'm not even bothering with the research.
The current plan is to add another VP9, probably an F; I already have a spare L slide (which is scary accurate, on a good day it shoots one ragged hole at 15 yards; the only other pistol I have in the same league for accuracy is a USP Elite). So with both frame sizes and three slide sizes, I'd be able to mix and match if in the mood. In practice though the K would become the carry pistol, and the F would become the range practice pistol and backup. Then someday, if the VP9cc is ever added to the roster, I'd pick one of those up also. Same design only shrunk a little, should be an easy transition, and I'm hearing good things about accuracy.
Last edited:
