What's with the Teutonic Cultishness?

[Boats]

I often read posts around the internet that go ". . .it's not in the same class as the HK or SIG."

It doesn't matter if "it" is a Glock, Beretta, M&P, higher end 1911A1, XD, or even fellow German Walther P99, "it" doesn't compare.

Having owned in my day a SIG P220, 226, and a HK USP45c, and no longer owning said items, I find these contentions of Germanic superiority rather overblown. Facts are facts. For instance the Beretta 92FS finished just as technically acceptable as the P226 did in the M9 trials, but does so at a civilian unit cost of $200.00 less per example. Both are substantially made in the US, but during large M9 runs, Beretta imports 92 series pistols from Italy, produced using Euros, yet holds the line on its bottom line and has for over a decade.

An H&K polymer weapon is extremely unlikely to outperform a Glock, yet there is H und K charging $200.00 more on average.

Yes, I understand that "other factors" besides objective performance drive supply and demand, but when I hear SIG and HK fans popping off about what "class" their pistols are in, I can only think of one thing:



The Teutonic Tit-Willow, Lily Von Shtupp. A common and ordinary looking burlesque singer getting a special tour and more perceived "hotness" as viewed by the cowboys for being a little exotic and having an accent.

Or did I miss something about the awesomeness of German pistols when I owned them?

Read More

 

[kito109654]

Hahahaha, in for the ride.

 

[Cougfan2]

You must have an enormous Sweinstucher! Willkomen, Bienvenue, welcome, come on in!

 

[Humpyslayer]

Working at a gun shop (part time but have been on and off for a few years for fun and to share my useless firearms knowledge with the general public), I find it fascinating how many people come in asking to look at H&K's or Sig's, then ask us what we're carry. Guess what?!? None of use are carrying either. Now don't get me wrong...they're both fine manufacturers. But from most of our standpoints, H&K doesn't do a good job supporting their product and it's over priced and won't out perform any of our Glocks, and Sig's are expensive, heavy (unless you get a Sig 250) and over hyped. Besides my own personal experience in owning guns and shooting the heck out of them over the years...my other way of judging what's a "good" gun and "bad" gun was to see in the past what was in the broken gun box (to go to the gunsmith) at the range. I saw plenty of Sig's, Beretta's, and 1911's (nice one's too) mostly. What I never saw in my time was a broken Glock, Kahr, or hard to believe...Ruger. Now I know that any gun can break and there's manufactures defects sometimes or quality control issues with any firearm, but through personal experience, I've avoided the expensive, over engineered, overly complicated, German and Italian pistols.

 

[Creeper]

People tend to hype what they own, and the more expensive the product the more they have to justify that expense with hype... and hold it over the heads of owners of "lesser" firearms, who can be a little nervous about competing with the German products. Hype is a wonderful thing ain't it.

There is a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy at work here. The owners of lesser firearms know that (frequently) their choice was based on budget, and that "if they had the money", they'd have a "premium" weapon as well. I drive a Focus... but want a Mercedes, BMW or Audi. Consumerism at it's finest.

Sure, much like most products, there are multiple levels of quality when it comes to firearms, and much of a firearms value can be related to name and "professional reputation"... but there is a point when value for any product becomes subjective.

I do own several H&K handguns... all steel guns from P7K3 to P7M13 and P9S .45 Target. I own them because I like older H&K products... and I am a bit of a handgun snob. (Yes, I freely admit it )
I would not however recommend H&Ks to others for a first, or even a 5th gun. One must want an H&K, Sig Sauer... or any other gun where value runs to the intrinsic rather than the real.

Just to throw a monkey wrench into the conversation... I detest H&K rifles.

Cheers,
C

 

[nwo]

Wow, she REALLY IS a HOTTIE!

 

[magnum]

 

[jordanvraptor]

I think it is a bit of class warfare or elitism. If you can afford a pricier product you have more status than those who cannot. Doesn't even matter if the cheaper product performs better. I just go with what works, for me.

H&K annoys me a bit due to their "Because you suck and we hate you" attitude of customer support if you aren't a military or LE contract. I was also a bit peeved because the HK416 was a "new" design that was superior to the M4. They dusted off some patents about piston operating rods and used German manufacturing methods and all of a sudden its a "new" design? The real funny thing about this Teutonic idol worship is that because its German its supposed to be better because of their military and technical expertise. Yeah. They lost. Twice.

I worked with the Bundeswehr in Afghanistan and got to do the schutzenschnur with them. Great guys with a lot of motivation but I was not impressed with their weapons. The G36 was big, encased in plastic and its optical sight tried to do three things at once and did none of them particularly well. The G36 did have full auto capability and all troops love full auto whether they need it or not. Their P9 pistol jammed by failing to go into battery once. The MG3's rate of fire was awesome but hurt a lot if the buttstock slipped off my IBA onto my shoulder joint. Not that these guys seemed concerned about changing barrels, but I prefer the 240B in terms of doing barrel changes, controllability and maintenance. It was kind of funny how they described the MG3. "This is basically the same design as the MG-42 machine gun that was used by the uhhhhh German Forces in World War 2..."

All that being said, I love my new MSAR STG-556 clone of the Steyr AUG. So maybe there is a little Teutonic fanboy in me after all...

 

[tionico]

Personally, I don't buy anything because someone else does, its "cool" (espectially if it's labelled :"tacticool"), or its the hottest thing out there.
First, it has to FIT my hand and point naturally. No model Glock does, so I don't care HOW good/reliable/cheap/well liked/ common they are.... I just can't shoot Glocks. And I don't care that I can't... I've found others that I CAN shoot, and shoot well. So, I don't buy Glocks, and DO by some of these others. The HK fits my hand, and points, very naturally. I like it. The extra price slowed me down a tad, but that's all. Sigs are OK, but didn't jump up off the counter ahd scream BUY ME. Besides, they're single stack, I've already got one good single stack .45, so why buy another? The one I have works well. And fits. (oh, and it WAS a bit more dear than I'd have liked.... but, in twenty years that won't be an issue). My favourite smaller pistols are the Browning High Powers, and yes, I DO go for the Belgian ones, the older ones, the simpler ones. I do not like all the new fancy stuff they're putting on them.... so I don't buy them. A bit dear when found? Most times yes, though I have managed to get in the way of a few at VERY good prices. And then it came to a small, conceal handgun with some authority, I looked at everything I could find.... and ended up with a Kahr MK 40....... if it ever disappears, I'll go and find another. Without hesitation. Pricey? Yes...... but, in 20 years.......

its not a snob, cult, cool thing at all. The weapon has to WORK for me. Long guns, same way. Just bought a Marlin .30 30, I preferred their feel, quality, solidity, to the Winchester. I've also heard a number of trusted people say they're more accurate and last longer..... hah,, they're a bit cheaper, too... because its the Winchester that has the cult following, snob appeal, nostalgia factors. Fine........ also very partial to the old German Mausers, as well....... VERY solid, reliable, accurate, confortable.

And oh, it wasn't the inferiority of German weapons cost them those two wars. It was the rotten idealogy behind them, and the leadership obsessed with things other than good warfare practice....... in most cases, their weapons WERE superior to ours. In capabillity, quality, performance, and numbers. Hitler was a madman, and his mental instability cost him dearly. His megalomania and personal insecurity is what cost Germany that war... for which we can thank God. Had he been a true genius, and pulled together a team of others, we'd all likely be speaking German now. And this forum would not exist.

 

[soberups]

Somebody has not been reading their history. Numbers? The USA not only provided enough tanks, ammo, trucks and planes for our forces but for Britain and the Soviets. Quality? The Garand was far superior to any bolt action Mauser in combat. The Mustang and Thunderbolt fighters made the BF 109 look sick. Sure, the Germans had a few 'wonder weapons' that were too little, too late. Our heavy bombers took care of their industrial 'engine'. Germany was steamrolled, pure and simple (thank God). Look at the 'flyover' photos of Berlin from 1943-1945. What is truly amazing is that the USA managed to crush Germany and Japan from a pre-war position of tiny armed forces while the Axis had been preparing for war for years.

1. The superior number of weapons we were able to produce was due to the fact that our factories were out of range of enemy airstrikes, and we were self-sufficient in petroleum, steel, and other vital commodities.

2. We were many years behind Germany in the field of jet engines and rockets. Had Hitler not been obsessed with the idea of trying to turn the ME 262 into a bomber--a role for which it had never been designed---Germany could have deployed it in early 1943 and it would have given them a decisive advantage in the air war over Europe.

3. The only reason we were finally able to crush Germany was because they had already exhausted huge amounts of manpower and resources in their war against the Russians. The Germans were within spitting distance of Moscow by December of 1941, but the onset of brutal winter weather---for which they were unprepared---stopped them and allowed the Russians to hang on. Had the invasion of Russia begun 6 weeks earlier, history would be very different.

 

[ORBrit]

Mods, can we move this WWII discussion to a new thread? - it's an interesting topic

 

[tionico]

Somebody has not been reading their history. Numbers? The USA not only provided enough tanks, ammo, trucks and planes for our forces but for Britain and the Soviets. Quality? The Garand was far superior to any bolt action Mauser in combat. The Mustang and Thunderbolt fighters made the BF 109 look sick. Sure, the Germans had a few 'wonder weapons' that were too little, too late. Our heavy bombers took care of their industrial 'engine'. Germany was steamrolled, pure and simple (thank God). Look at the 'flyover' photos of Berlin from 1943-1945. What is truly amazing is that the USA managed to crush Germany and Japan from a pre-war position of tiny armed forces while the Axis had been preparing for war for years.

excellent points, all of them..... and I suppose I should have qualified my earlier statements. Germany DID enter their aggression with weapons superior in both numbers and quality. As you so accurately pointed out, we awoke to a combat situation very little prepared for it. It is nothing less than astounding to look back at our, and Britain's, war mobilisation process. We had no significant standing army, nor much of a modern navy, and certianly to fleed of transport vessels. A few dozen rotting old Liberty Ships mothballed and leaking.... some provate merchant vessels, sufficient for our sea freight needs in commerce. Germany over-ran Poland and Aistria in, if memory serves, 1939..... and kept going until Dunkirk miraculously delivered the remains of Allied troops to England. We still would not enter the war.... but did enter into massive production for the Lend Lease programme, supplying England and Russia with war materiel. It was during that time of run up we began to design and produce newer and more modern equipment. But, at the point of Hitler's overtaking nearly the whole of Europe, we were far behind, as was England.

Yes, you are absolutely correct.... we DID overrun, massively, Italy and Germany, and, later, Japan. But nearly the whole of our war production that eneabled that to happen did not come into play until about 1942 and 3, and even then was not in sufficient numbers to equal those of Germany.

Remember, as well, how the British Intelligence service (I believe it was MI 4) managed to dupe Hitler and Himmler into taking off after Soviet Russia, diverting the bulk of their energies on the Eastern Front, where they were absolutely and soundly drubbed by a very fortuitous (for us) combination of record breaking hellish weather, stubborn Russian forces that knew their terrain AND were defending their homeland, and an ever-lengthening supply line, steadily whittled away by Allied attacks to break their pipeline. This bought us sufficient time, and diluted their forces enough, that we were able to bring to bear our by-tnen superior equipment, better trained, motivated, and regulated troops, and our own increasing numbers.

It is quite interesting to note, as well, that the real motivation for Germany's concentration on their Eastern front, where they were quite effectively broken, was in large part the megalomania of both Hitler and Himmler, each with delusions of grandeur and their own views of themselves as the certain soon to be sovereign rulers of the entire earth. Their greed for power and control was their downfall, leading them down the primrose path to certain victory on the Russian Front.... believeing they had the whole of Europe forever under their feet. Meanwhile, WE brought our by-then far superior forces to bear in the largely unguarded Europe. It was merely a matter of walking it out at that point. The meanest winter on record made short work of Hitler's troops...... whoever didn't freeze to death nearly starved to death or drowned in the endless muck. Equipment was almost immobilised in those conditions, supply lines, which had managed to escape destruction at the hands of our bombers, moved slowly if at all...... and we had also done an excellent job of pressing equipment and newly developed tactics into good service in destroying the war production factories throughout Germany, Belgium, Poland, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Austria..... all of which we were unable to manage much before the Dunkirk evacuation earlier on. We simply had not been prepared, lacking both the quality and quantity, and the means to deploy, in adequate supply to make much of a difference.

The amazing thing is, and a lesson I surely wish we'd not have forgotten into the present, is that we came from our early condition of unreadiness and, in an incredibly short while, developed and produced, then delivered, the materiel and manpower to make the difference. Had we been well prepared as Germany were in their very obvious run-up during the late 1930's, rather than our heads in the sand, there likely never would have BEEN the war. It would have been a relatively simple matter to bring force to bear on Germany in her preparation period through the mid-1930's, to compel complilance with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. She was in ocntinual and blatant violation of those terms by at least 1932. It nearly was out undoing. And Britain's.

 

[Selftest]

You're looking at a very very small cross-section of firearm owners, first of all.

In MY experience, most "serious" shooters (do not ask me to qualify or quantify what serious means... I have no idea) will almost always suggest the Glock.

Now, I own a Sig (I wouldn't, but I got a killer deal on it) and I trust it implicitly. It hasn't failed me, and it never failed it's previous owner. I also know many many people who have 5+ examples of Glock that have never failed them.

As far as "it's because they're German..." it's sort of the general consensus that German engineering is the epitome of good bubblegum. I mean, it extends to vehicles as well, you know?

So, while I have no answers, I have opinions.

 

[Outrider]

It is just not university level thinking to believe a European nation the size of Ohio could hope to defeat the combined Allied forces.

You're forgetting a few things. When Germany turned to attack Russia, the U.S. was not a declared power in the war and Britain was already an isolated island power in the West. France had been defeated and occupied. Spain was neutral but leaned towards the Axis powers. Italy was an Axis power. There were other Axis aligned countries in eastern Europe. At the time, Russia was on its own. -The Soviet Union started its role in WWII as a strategic partner of Germany not with the Western Allies. The U.S.S.R. had a non-aggression pact with Germany and had divided Poland with Germany at the beginning of the war.

Your view of it also misses how effective Blitzkreig can be and dismisses that it almost worked in Russia. It can work very well for a quick war. Every historian cites the sudden onset of a fierce winter as the reason German forces ground to a halt. The German soldiers and vehicles were not equipped for this weather and this gave the Russians time and the breathing room they did not have previously. This allowed the Russians an opportunity to stabilize the front. For Blitzkreig and Maneuver Warfare to work, it requires seizing the initiative and never relinquishing it. Once the winter set in, Germany had lost its ability to dictate the battle and it became more of a slug-fest. And even then despite inferiority in numbers of men and equipment, German forces were still killing their Soviet opponent at an incredibly favorable kill/loss ratio. When the tide turned against the Germans, Hitler's rigidity doomed them.

If you want to understand what was going on operationally on the Eastern Front, you should read Lost Victories by Field Marshal Erich von Manstein. It will help you understand what Germany had tried to do and why it didn't work. It was more complicated than a mid-size nation choosing to fight all of the Allied nations at once.

As far as the original topic goes, Germans have a reputation for thoroughness in design and execution of that design. It's not limited to firearms. Their firearms are generally well regarded. That's not to say you can't find a bad example of design or execution. However, all things considered, people know when they get a German manufactured firearm, it's probably going to be good out of the box and last for a long time. There are other firearms that do not enjoy that reality.

Some of the problem is that since firearms are expensive, people want to know/believe the firearm that fits their price point is every bit as good as a top tier firearm. Similarly, some of those who buy the top tier stuff have an interest in pushing down the lower tier stuff as a way of justifying their decision to buy whatever it is they own.

There are differences between the design and manufacture of different firearms. Some are going to rise to the top in terms of acceptance and performance and some will not. It's just the way it is.

 

[The B]

HKs are great guns.. i carried a USP45 for years, and shot the bubblegum out of it. loved it. and when money got tight, i was glad to sell it for more than i'd paid for it new, and with 5-7k rounds through it.

but years later, and now that i'm vastly more experienced and wise than i used to be, Glock is, to me, the cream of the crop. there's nothing "better" than a glock- just different. if you want a striker, very low bore-axis, amazing durability, and high ammunition capacity in a 9mm or .40, then glock cannot be beat. the M&Ps are likely to end up at the same level of regard (many would say they already are).

if these aren't your criteria, however, then glock isn't for you. or if you want/need/are required to have a .45. in a .45, i'd go with HK every time. in my opinion, double-action HKs in 45 are the placement for the 1911.. single-action if you want it, cocked & locked if you want it, big bullet, very accurate, but much more reliable and not limited to single-action only.

Sig- well, i dont have much to say about sig. there's nothing a sig does that 20 other less expensive, extremely high-quality weapons dont do. they're also a plus in the .45 category, but why get a sig when you can get an HK45 or USP?

 

[Silver Fox]

When people over pay for a sheet metal rifle with German stampings they have to congregate to support each others decision about paying such a high price for such a weapon with a limited role.

-Hk was the first firearms company to tap in to the "mercenary fantasy" marketing demographics of the American male.

-The MP5 was the first successfully manufactured closed-bolt firing sub-machine gun. This one weapon brought their name to the forefront of quality but Hk has had there share of failures.

Hk G3's or also known as the HK 91, is the only battle rifle I know of that requires to have its receivers gauged to ensure they are not dented which would hinder them useless.

I think of all the Hk weapons (I have one left) as really hot chicks that look good but require high maintenance.

My 2/100th of a $

SF-

 

[Boats]

HKs are great guns.. i carried a USP45 for years, and shot the bubblegum out of it. loved it. and when money got tight, i was glad to sell it for more than i'd paid for it new, and with 5-7k rounds through it.

but years later, and now that i'm vastly more experienced and wise than i used to be, Glock is, to me, the cream of the crop. there's nothing "better" than a glock- just different. if you want a striker, very low bore-axis, amazing durability, and high ammunition capacity in a 9mm or .40, then glock cannot be beat. the M&Ps are likely to end up at the same level of regard (many would say they already are).

if these aren't your criteria, however, then glock isn't for you. or if you want/need/are required to have a .45. in a .45, i'd go with HK every time. in my opinion, double-action HKs in 45 are the placement for the 1911.. single-action if you want it, cocked & locked if you want it, big bullet, very accurate, but much more reliable and not limited to single-action only.

Sig- well, i dont have much to say about sig. there's nothing a sig does that 20 other less expensive, extremely high-quality weapons dont do. they're also a plus in the .45 category, but why get a sig when you can get an HK45 or USP?

It's amusing that your criteria for the HK45 or USP being the "replacement for the 1911" was the thing I hated most about the USP45c.

Yeah, they "cock & lock," but they should be limited to that in a particular variant. Being able to decock a C&L weapon back to HK's infamously bad DA trigger pull is like getting a horsefly in one's soup.

Coming from a Colt Combat Commander to the USP45c, I was used to mashing off the thumb safety and riding the lever. On occasion with the HK, this meant there were times I'd present my C&L pistol from the leather, mash off the safety and then pull the trigger only to find that I was in DA.

That sucked hard. So I inquired about going from V2 to V10, (me being a southpaw) and the price and wait I was quoted when I finally got a hold of HKUSA's service department back in the late 90s made me wonder if perhaps I had been drunk and propositioned to sleep with the guy's wife and forgotten about that part of the conversation.

I sold the pistol at a very minor loss. The resale value of an HK is about my highest praise for them now.

Long story longer, between the then proprietary rail, the unfathomably expensive spare magazines that are of no higher quality than your average Mec-Gar, the horrific DA trigger, and the not very svelte "compact" form of the compact, I became half convinced that the USP45c was neither designed by shooters nor backed by shooters.

Guys who actively shoot would not make a trigger that horrid nor would they gouge their customers for basics like extra magazines or conversion services upon a supposedly modular pistol system.

I happily went back to the 1911. The only other C&L pistols out there that do it right are the Browning High Power and the CZ-75 and its non-decocking variants.

SAFE>>FIRE>>DECOCK is the dumbest switch ever put on a combat pistol and lest you think I am bagging just on HK over this detail, the Taurus PT-99 or whatever their Beretta clone is called and the FN-FNP-45 got this oh so wrong as well.

 

[crosse]

I think of all the Hk weapons (I have one left) as really hot chicks that look good but require high maintenance.

My 2/100th of a $

SF-

"really hot chicks"??? hk, sigs, steyrs will never get my vote for bikini babes. high maintenance heart breakers are the 1911, hands down. they are right for all the important reasons and thats why when they raise the temperature of any warm blooded american male. lots of people still abuse their hk, sig, etc.... almost everyone babies their 1911. bc if you don't treat a 1911 right, it won't put out.

 

[Boats]

"really hot chicks"??? hk, sigs, steyrs will never get my vote for bikini babes. high maintenance heart breakers are the 1911, hands down. they are right for all the important reasons and thats why when they raise the temperature of any warm blooded american male. lots of people still abuse their hk, sig, etc.... almost everyone babies their 1911. bc if you don't treat a 1911 right, it won't put out.

Whether a 1911 "puts out" even when mistreated is wholly dependent upon how it was raised to fight when the chips are down.







At least 1911s, SIGs and Berettas have been in real fights of late.

 

[crosse]

Whether a 1911 "puts out" even when mistreated is wholly dependent upon how it was raised to fight when the chips are down.







At least 1911s, SIGs and Berettas have been in real fights of late.

look at the feathering around the slide. and the precison indentations that look like random dings in the surface. streamline. and the powder coat job of dust.
now that is a thing of beauty.