HK 2000 SK or Springfield XD

[Guest mtsusean]

Looking at getting a sub-compact, in .40

I've more or less narrowed it down to these two but am not committed yet either way.

Thoughts?

[Guest GT_Rat]

If you have the money get the HK. If not get the XD.

[DavidD]

If you have the money get the HK. If not get the XD.

There it is. Plain and simple.

[The Rabbi]

I hate H&K's so that kind of narrows it down a little.

[Mike.357]

Rabbi i think you and Mars are evil opposites of each other.

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi i think you and Mars are evil opposites of each other.

There's more truth there than you know....

[creeky]

If you have the money get the HK. If not get the XD.

I agree completely.

[nb forrest]

I have 2 XDs and they run flawless.

[strickj]

an hk is an hk,now the almighty XD is made when a glock and a 1911 love each other vewwy much,and spend a little to much time in the safe together,and ond day the stork brings the happy shooters a XD. can not go against love.....

[Guest mtsusean]

Never mind. Saw both side by side tonight.

H&K it is.

[Guest flyfishtn]

Never held an H&K but I own two XD's, nuff said.

[molonlabetn]

The H&K is a higher-quality pistol, no question. But, I must say that after shooting one, I would prefer the XD simply due to to the more natural controls (especially the mag release), and the trigger.

[The Rabbi]

The H&K is a higher-quality pistol, no question. But, I must say that after shooting one, I would prefer the XD simply due to to the more natural controls (especially the mag release), and the trigger.

Is it twice as good? Because it costs about twice as much.

I had a customer yesterday ask me to price a Kimber. After some calls I priced it around $1500. Now, I have a Century Commodore in the case for about $400. The Kimber is a very nice gun, no question. But is it nearly 4 times as nice as the Commodore? No, I don't think so. Will it shoot four times as well or last four times as long? Uh,uh.

[molonlabetn]

Is it twice as good? Because it costs about twice as much.

I had a customer yesterday ask me to price a Kimber. After some calls I priced it around $1500. Now, I have a Century Commodore in the case for about $400. The Kimber is a very nice gun, no question. But is it nearly 4 times as nice as the Commodore? No, I don't think so. Will it shoot four times as well or last four times as long? Uh,uh.

I don't think that any H&K product is proportionately better than a comparable XD (for instance)... but rarely is the price of any product proportional to it's perceived usability or quality. It is simply a reflection of any exceptional manufacturing processes, quality materials, or advertising prestige connected to it. In my experience, XD are 100% adequate for anything I could use a pistol for. It would be impossible to improve on 100%. But, it is also totally reasonable for a demanding shooter to demand the 'best'... and I don't think it's unreasonable for H&K to be considered higher quality than the XD. It is simply entering the realm of diminishing returns, at their price-point.

[Marswolf]

Certainly top of the line products cost a lot more than their additional utility value. It's sort of like deciding whether to buy a Ford or a Lincoln. The Ford will probably get you where you want to go as well as the Lincoln, but some people are willing to pay a lot more for the additional features.

As I've pointed out, there a lot of little things that you don't see in a H&K, like metal inside a "plastic" trigger, or a rubberized coating on the hammer, or better heat treating and finishing on the steel parts, that a lot of people never know or care about. Whether you are willing to pay for the extra engineering time and features is an individual decision - like buying a Lincoln.

[The Rabbi]

I dont doubt the HK has those things. I do wonder whether it makes much of a difference in how it shoots. I asked one of my wholesalers about the Sabre Defense ARs his company had picked up. He went on about how tightly they were put together etc. Given that the Sabres are significantly more expensive than a lot of other ARs my question is whether that "tightness" translates into better performance.

Now, some people will inherently shoot the HK better than they will the XD. So the amount of money doesnt really matter because for them there is little comparison.

But for most people there isn't going to be much difference except for price. And status. And I don't buy or sell guns based on status.

[molonlabetn]

Of course, there are those of us who shoot better with an XD than an H&K...

[The Rabbi]

Of course, there are those of us who shoot better with an XD than an H&K...

Noch besser.

[creeky]

Also none are made in the US. They are all imported (correct me if I am wrong). As well as all are sent to a different facility for their quality control checks. I'm not knocking a XD. Not at all. They are fine.

I see H&Ks for better or worse like a Mercades. The cost of ownership is higher

over all (as in buying magazines) but they hold pretty good resale value (for a gun).

I'd rather have an XD than a H&K if it fit my hand better. It's all really a personal

choice. I have palyed with the 2000hk. If I had the $800 I would be tempted to

buy one, but since I already have a USP Compact I can't really justify the exspense.

I would be more tempted to buy a baby glock in .357 sig and a few extra mags.

Price, perceived value, quality are all subjective, and relative to the buyer. I try not

to suggest one "brand" over another. I usually advise buying something that fits your hand best, and will do what you want it to.

[Marswolf]

I'm sure a lot of people buy H&Ks as a status symbol. But I don't do that. Function is my touchstone. I have four carry guns. Two are H&Ks, one is a Beretta, and one is a Kel-Tec. I carry them because I think they are the best available for the different uses I have for my carry handguns.

Except for the Beretta 92SB, that I've very happily carried since the dinosaurs died out, the other handguns were selected pretty much as a matter of evolution. The Beretta still does a terrific job as a field handgun, so I continue to carry it. I tried a number of guns and eventually ended up with my selection for other uses. It took tries with Glock and XD before arriving at the P7M8 for 9mm concealed carry. Glock and SIG were tried before arriving at the USP 40 for open urban carry. The BUG went through NAA, Beretta Tomcat, and Kel-Tec P-32 before settling on the P3AT. It doesn't really matter if I carry a $250 gun or a $1200 one. I want the best gun for the application.

I think I have them.

[creeky]

I think you really hit on it "Mars". It is such a personal, evolving choice that

there isn't a "one sure answer" for anyone.

Plus I'm envious of your P7M8! I've only heard great things about those.

[Guest Scottech]

My personal preference is the XD...and I NOW shoot better with my XD...since I had night sights installed.

I thought it was my pistol but my problem all along has been bad eyes! I blame my parents!

[BryanP]

Have you tried both? It may be that you like the XD enough to pay twice the bucks.

Me, I love my XD45. If it magically transformed into an HK overnight I'd sell it, buy another XD45 and spend the profit on ammo.

[Guest mtsusean]

Say you were going to throw a Walther P99QA into the mix. What would you buy, in order. The HK, Walther or XD? (hint...I really liked the HK compared to the XD but didn't compare it to the Walther)

[Guest HogMan]

You'll eventually end up with An XD