HK P2000 SK Reviews

by **BLADESKATER00** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:37 pm

Everyone over 15 should know that price does not always dictate value. Just because one gun costs less than the other does not mean that one is actually better than the other. Some companies by effective marketing are able to con the customer into believing they are receiving more because its manufactured by them; when the reality is very different--this is certainly true of H&K. If H&K were all steel then it would be a better made gun and worth more--with plastic they have promoted the lie that plastic is better. Plastic is better for H&K, Glock, et al to make a very cheap gun and charge the same as steel--but plastic is not better for the user. As for weight its possible to make a gun of all metal with the approximate weight of plastic--the reason they do not--is based upon economics. As for excellent reliability, all steel at three hundred less than an H&K--CZ is an excellent choice--and the CZ hasKalashnikov reliability. As for magazine size--size does matter--and to hell with the damn prosecutor.

by **whitehood** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:30 pm

Not true about steel. Polymer frames flex and help reduce felt recoil. The CZ certainly doesn't have any better reliability than the premium pistols. It's a good pistol sure, but it's still an old design. Plastic does bring down costs but it's very very tough stuff. There are Glocks that have gone well past the hundred thousand round mark with Chuck Taylor claiming his G17 went well beyond 150K. Your claim that steel is better is way off base as well as the weight issue.

by **BLADESKATER00** » Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:01 am

Age of the design is irrelevant--reliable is reliable! CZ equals the reliability of H&K. Plastic frames do not flex that much [if they did the guns would not be accurate and reliable] and the lighter weight of plastic guns usually increases the felt recoil.

by **whitehood** » Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:06 am

Actually the age of the design is quite relevant. No one is calling the CZ a dog, it's a very nice weapon, but it's two generations older than the P2000. You didn't see the CZ enter into the JSAAP comp nor was a CZ design in the JCP evaluations. In fact the earlier generation H&K, the USP won the OHWS comp for the USSF. CZ was nowhere to be found. The CZ is/was among the first generation of the wondernines and belongs in the same category as the Beretta 92, but it wont' come close to the what the H&K will do.

by **BLADESKATER00** » Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:44 am

Stormtown, It is version 3, I wasn't aware that the LE trigger was available for it--that definitely would have helped--but the gun was too big for my intended purpose, i.e., in the pocket carry.

by **g4l** » Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:01 pm

This is a great spirited debate guys, and the Moderators try to keep a good mix of conversation & reviews in these sections. But please, don't get too far from the purpose of this thread..reviewing the P2000.

One can always start a thread debating the "steel vs plastic" in the "Gun Chatter" section.

Thanks!

by **BLADESKATER00** » Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:08 pm

Age of design is completely irrelevant in this respect--in a gun fight its all about reliability--some older designs have this reliability. Gun manufacturers produce new designs for economic reasons--rarely are these new designs better than the previous designs they have--they are just [somewhat] different. The basic design of the semi auto pistol from the early twentieth century is the same--they haven't for the most come out with anything new--just different variations on the same theme. The same is also true of the revolver from the latter nineteenth century.

by **whitehood** » Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:16 pm

Not true blade and not even close. Any military combat pistol over the last century has been tested for reliability and the quality controls keep getting higher and higher. You're simply off base. All of these weapons are tested and tested hard. The US military won't even begin to look at a pistol in the future till you can guarantee mean time between any failure at one in five thousand. The Sig 228 beat out the Glock in US military trials with one failure in 30,000 rounds with three trial pistols. Sorry, but each new generation is simply better than the next. The USP is/was really good but the new gen HK's are even better. Here's another example. The Beretta 92 which are still excellent pistols were having slide failures in the 10 to 12 thousand round range. The steel was changed and the slides made here. The Army tested three and got slide failure rates at 23,000 and two at 30,000+ rounds. Glock slide failures go consistently over 50,000 rounds.

by **jobpatto** » Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:47 pm

I agree completely with "whitehood". I own a USP Compact .40 but also bought a P2000 SK .40. The P2000 simply seems more refined and a little better in every way. Obviously one is a Compact and one is an SK but still the SK is as accurate and reliable. I love them both. I actually almost bought one of the compact Glocks instead of the HK but I loved USP Compact so much that I'm HK for life. Besides, the high capacity magazines will work in the SK...although I rarely use 12rnd mags it is a nice option to have. It works great with the smaller 9rnd mags.

by **jobpatto** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:27 pm

I also forgot to mention that I bought the P2000 SK because I wanted to use the rail mounted LaserLyte FSL sub-compact laser and the USP's use an older style rail that requires a bulky adaptor. I also ordered the SK w/o night sights because IWB carry close to the family jewels with the radiation from glowing tritium sights made me a little nervous. My USP does have them however. It was the only way it could be ordered with the airline pilot deal. The deal was the LEM USP Compact .40 with 3 magazines and night sights for $495.