On Thu, 04 May 2000, Brian D Williams wrote:
> From: James Rogers <email@example.com>
> Revolvers are not normally considered semi-automatic, even by the
> anti-gun crowd.
I know that this is not the way the term is usually used, but by
definition it is correct. Much in the same way many people use "auto"
when they mean "semi-auto". I was just nitpicking; I understood what you
> I've tried arguing this with them with no success, I'm a proud
> owner of a HK USP 9mm myself.
Over the years I have owned 4 USPs (3 .40, 1 .45) and have never had a
single failure of any type in any of them and they all have >5,000
rounds through them. My oldest one (an early model USP40) has >15,000
flawless rounds through it. The USP series has developed a reputation as
one of the most durable and reliable pistols on the market (also one of
the most expensive unfortunately). The USP9 is actually supposed to be
the least reliable of the bunch (in terms of MRBF), but it still fairs
very well overall, and I've heard that the USP9 Compact is right up there
with the rest of them in terms of reliability.
As a point of reference, I know that the MRBF figure for the exceedingly
popular USP40 Compact is around 10,200 rounds (I just happen to know this
one off the top of my head) and most other USPs are similar. The MRBF
figures for Glocks are somewhat less, but still good. By point of
comparison, IIRC many high-quality, popular revolvers have a MRBF in the
5,000-6,000 range. The accuracy of the H&Ks *are* significantly better
than the Glocks in general. I love SIGs (very nice and extremely
accurate), but they are somewhat less durable and reliability is not
uniform though generally acceptable.
> At least they both own nice collections of .44mags and classic
I can't argue with that. I wouldn't mind having a Colt SAA myself.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:28 MDT