HK USC to UMP Self Conversion Review

[JustinJ]

I'm glad you like HK toy, but IMO, $2,100 is way too much money to spend for something that is no different functionally from the $600 Beretta Storm or $300 Hi-Point 995. All just pistol caliber carbines in the end anyway. If you've got the coin and it's what you want, more power to ya. But it is definitely a case of fashion over function

Thats about like saying why get a glock or HK pistol because it's funcitonally no different than a Hipoint pistol. Or a Ford Taurus is functionally no different than a Porsche. Not to mention i don't know of any special forces or paramilitary forces carrying hipoint carbines. The HK UMP solid reputation for reliability in adverse conditions, 27 round magazein and is a perfect platform to run a can with. In 16" barrel form the USC conversion is also incredibly quiet with flow flash which makes it a great home defense weapon with a potent round. I'll probably never use it for anything beyond recreational shooting but the same could be said about the vast majority of my collection. But that doesn't change the fact that the UMP is a superior gun to any other pistol caliber carbine on the market.

They do have a manufacturing plant stateside, they could do it if they wanted to.

True but that doesn't mean it would be sufficiently profitable. Tooling up the machines for these is certainly not cheap.

JustinJ, question for you: I noticed you only mentioned three (3) 922c compliance parts, which ones make up the other two (2)? I ask because I just got my USC and want to do literally exactly the same thing you've done and plan to do. Also, which vendors would you recommend to buy the parts from?

The other two parts were in the trigger group. I don't recall which though. I shopped around and actually bought from multiple vendors. The best find was the $300 lower. I don't recall who all i bought from but i'll dig through my records and message you if i find the receipts.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

True but that doesn't mean it would be sufficiently profitable. Tooling up the machines for these is certainly not cheap.

I would imagine that a G36 could be priced around $1,000 and be a good competitor to the AR15. Only problem is to get that price, HK would have to swallow their pride and get rid of the HK hype inflation that would make it a $2,000 rifle.

 

[JustinJ]

Only problem is to get that price, HK would have to swallow their pride and get rid of the HK hype inflation that would make it a $2,000 rifle.

I don't presume to know HK's manufacturing costs but the quality and reliability of their product indicate they don't take the shortcuts so many other gun makers do. HK also invests heavily in R&D as well as QC. You can call it hype if you wish but HK has earned a reputation for excellent weapons. If you believe a real HK G36 is only worth $1000 i'd hate to hear what you believe an AR should cost. FN SCAR is well of over $2k, sig 556 was $1,500 when it came out, etc. etc. HK is out to make money like any other business and have earned a reputation that allows them to sell their products for a premium.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

If you believe a real HK G36 is only worth $1000 i'd hate to hear what you believe an AR should cost.

I think ARs cost the right amount as they are now. The G36 has been around for quite a while and it's the issue rifle for quite a few countries. The SL8 is priced at $1,500 on the used market, they could make a G36 for us at that price.

 

[dprice3844444]

Posts: 5,710 If HK marketed one like that off the shelf, with magazines that held more than ten rounds, I would probably buy one. We need a good .45ACP carbine on the market.

craig,check http://www.mechtechsys.com/

 

[JustinJ]

I think ARs cost the right amount as they are now. The G36 has been around for quite a while and it's the issue rifle for quite a few countries.

Many new DI ARs are going for over $1,500 with $1K being the norm. Unlike said ARs the G36, and SL8, has additional costs associated with importation. Are you aware that the AR was developed in the 60's and the G36 entered service in 1997?

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Many new DI ARs are going for over $1,500 with $1K being the norm. Unlike said ARs the G36, and SL8, has additional costs associated with importation. Are you aware that the AR was developed in the 60's and the G36 entered service in 1997?

I am aware of that, just like 1911s costing around $1,000 as the norm. DI AR-15s do cost more but HK's DI AR 15 costs twice as much. Why is that? I wasn't bashing the SL8's price tag, just that $1,500 is the price that a G36 could be sold for. Even if I did see the SL8 as over priced, an AR 15 for the same price can do so much more.

 

[JustinJ]

I am aware of that, just like 1911s costing around $1,000 as the norm. DI AR-15s do cost more but HK's DI AR 15 costs twice as much. Why is that? I wasn't bashing the SL8's price tag, just that $1,500 is the price that a G36 could be sold for.

HK doesn't make a DI AR to my knowledge. They have the 416 and civilian MR556, both being piston guns. In addition to being a new design that HK invested money to develop they are extremely high quality with HK QC. Also, Knights DI AR, LWRC piston AR, Noveske DI, and probably a few i'm forgetting are in the exact same price range.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

They have the 416 and civilian MR556, both being piston guns.

The MR556 is basically an AR, the upper will go on any AR15 lower. which means that it's an AR. I don't see how it's different other then the piston. It's not quite an AR 15 but it's certainly an AR platform.

In addition to being a new design that HK invested money to develop

I hear this a lot but pretty much only with HK guns. Beretta released a new handgun, The NANO, and it's being sold in the $400 range. HK puts a piston in an AR 15 and then it's $2,000 more then one without? What's harder? Designing a new handgun or taking piston technology and doing something that has already been done in an AR?

Going back to the original topic, it would be nice to see someone convert a SL8. Do you plan on doing that at sometime?

 

[Redlg155]

You were able to keep the factory barrel? I'm guessing the us magazine parts will keep it compliant?

 

[nyresq]

I don't presume to know HK's manufacturing costs but the quality and reliability of their product indicate they don't take the shortcuts so many other gun makers do. HK also invests heavily in R&D as well as QC. You can call it hype if you wish but HK has earned a reputation for excellent weapons. If you believe a real HK G36 is only worth $1000 i'd hate to hear what you believe an AR should cost. FN SCAR is well of over $2k, sig 556 was $1,500 when it came out, etc. etc. HK is out to make money like any other business and have earned a reputation that allows them to sell their products for a premium.

If you saw what The direct LE Agency price is on most of these rifles, you would be surprised on just how much profit is made on the civilian market. The Sig 556? Direct LE Agency price is about 2/3 of what a Sig dealer pays for it, the civilian SCAR is almost a 150% mark up from what an LE Agency pays... most are anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 the price of what you see as internet dealer prices.

I have priced several of the popular ones at work and seen the agency price lists for most of the "top-tier" weapons that a Fed LE Agency may use.

There is no way in hell any of these companies are going to sell anything at a loss, so what you see as cost to the civilian market is actual cost plus a huge profit added on top.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

US Military pays $400 for an M4 Carbine, can't imagine them considering to replace that low cost rifle with a $2,000 Carbine.

 

[happygeek]

US Military pays $400 for an M4 Carbine, can't imagine them considering to replace that low cost rifle with a $2,000 Carbine.

Source?

Last I'd heard the government was paying $1,200 for each M4: $1000 for the rifle itself plus $200 for the KAC quad rail.

Sure you're not thinking of what they pay for M9s?

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5747349

See post #45. I was wrong though as it's the M16 that they pay $400 for.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Made in the USA.

HK could, too.

Thats about like saying why get a glock or HK pistol because it's funcitonally no different than a Hipoint pistol.

No, it's not, because the Hi Point pistols are functionally different. Glocks and HK pistols are not simple blowback.

Look, HK makes good guns, I won't argue that. But they price themselves right out of the market for those of us who put value above name recognition. When you buy a USC, you're paying about $600 for the gun and $800 for the letters on the side of it. Would I rather have a USC than a 995? Of course. Am I willing to pay 5 times as much for it? Nope. Double, yeah, but not quintuple. As it happens, my only .45 Carbine is a Marlin Camp 45 that I gave $325 for, and I like it better than the others anyway, especiallly since it takes 1911 mags.

Like I said, what you do with your money is your business, and if a $2k .45 carbine makes you smile, then it was money well spent for you. But the market majority has spoken, and as witnessed by the lack of USC's in circulation, $1,400 is just too high.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

HK could, too.

They do make the MR556 and MR762 here in the US. Down the street from where I work I believe. That's what gets me that they don't make a civilian legal G36. With all the polymer on it, it shouldn't cost that much.

 

[browningguy]

But the market majority has spoken, and as witnessed by the lack of USC's in circulation, $1,400 is just too high.

I'm pretty sure HK sold every one they built, and you never hear an owner complaining about them. Somebody has to be at the top of the market in any case, if not HK then maybe FN, or it could be KT with their new bullpup rifle.

I have been unpleasantly surprised over the past couple of years at the number of people that want ot convince people that a $200 gun is just as good as a $2000 gun, it's just not so. Fit, finish, accuracy, reliability all cost money. Not everyone wants to have something that's "good enough", they want the best they can get. Some people are willing to pay and some aren't, but no reason to trash someone elses choice.

Two of my favorite carbines, but for different reasons.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I'm pretty sure HK sold every one they built,

But how often do you see one of those carbines? They may have sold every one of them that they made but they haven't made a lot. I've only seen one in person in my entire life and that was sitting on the shelf at a gunshop.

 

[happygeek]

See post #45. I was wrong though as it's the M16 that they pay $400 for.

Problem is that post doesn't include a source either. I wouldn't be surprised if other countries paid $400 or less for surplus M16A1s & A2s from the US (most of which are probably in Mexico now), but to sell M16s for $400 new seems like Colt would be losing money.

I'll stop now before I run even further off on a tangent, apologies to the OP.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I have been unpleasantly surprised over the past couple of years at the number of people that want ot convince people that a $200 gun is just as good as a $2000 gun, it's just not so.

And I have been unpleasantly surprised my entire life at the inability of many to distinguish between "it costs more because it is better" and "it is better because it costs more".

You won't get what you don't pay for, but you don't always get what you do pay for.

Having owned (past tense) HK products, I find they deliver nothing at their price point that I cannot find in a less expensive but equally good firearm from another manufacturer, be it Glock , S&W, FN or another. HK makes one of the best $500 handguns and sells it for $900. Glock and S&W also make top shelf $500 handguns, and sell them for..........$500!

no reason to trash someone elses choice.

Not trashing your choice. If you're happy with the firearm and feel it was worth the cost, then that's what matters. Simply pointing out that some of us aren't willing to pay that kind of money for their product, especialy given their disposition toward non-LE/military.

If you want to continue buying HK products, by all means, do so. They're good guns, for sure. But trying to convince others of their cost-justifying superiority, and especially those of us who own/have owned products from a significant number of contemporary manufacturers, may prove to be a losing battle in many cases. The only thing my USP .45 did that my M&P 45 didn't was rub my trigger finger raw and feel like a hunk of lumber in my hand. It was no more accurate or reliable, and certainly not as ergonomic. In retrospect, I paid $300 more for something that was, quite frankly, not as good. If HK's products really did offer a significant benefit over the Glock, M&P or XD that justified the increased cost, they'd be in that league of popularity with the masses. But they don't, and sales reflect that. HK could increase their profits 10 fold if they sold their products for what they're worth instead of trying to ride on fanboyism and the "no compromise" nonsense.

It's still as fresh in my mind as ever what happened between a friend's USP40 and my S&W 4006. We had got a bad batch of reloads, both of us used the ammo, but at different times. Later, we found out that we both had problems with it. I had two OOB firings in the 4006, and the second tweaked the extractor enough that it was having some extraction failures. The USP40 had only one OOB firing, because that one blew the magazine and the extractor out of the gun.

I have no problem paying $1,000+ for a handgun, but it had better do something a $500 or $600 pistol doesn't. When a USP/P30/HK45/etc. feels/shoots as well as my Tanfoglio Witness Limited or Kimber Stainless Target II, or is as tough as a 3rd gen S&W, I'll revisit my opinion. Until then, HK won't sell me a dang thing.

 

[HauptmannAmerika]

Source?

Last I'd heard the government was paying $1,200 for each M4: $1000 for the rifle itself plus $200 for the KAC quad rail.

Sure you're not thinking of what they pay for M9s?

I can back FIVETWOSEVEN up on that: we currently pay $460 for an M4 (with quad rail, etc.) from Knight's Armament. Aside from the select fire feature however, there's nothing fancy about a military M4. Nyresq is right about price inflation for the civilian market. However, the sheer volume of the order the US government puts in with KA is the primary reason they're able and willing to drop the price so low. It doesn't cost more to manufacture them for individuals, but it does cost more to market and ship them, etc. Hence, $700 is a fairly reasonable jump in price for a civilian model M4. Anything above that is pure profit.

 

[HauptmannAmerika]

And I have been unpleasantly surprised my entire life at the inability of many to distinguish between "it costs more because it is better" and "it is better because it costs more".

You won't get what you don't pay for, but you don't always get what you do pay for.

Having owned (past tense) HK products, I find they deliver nothing at their price point that I cannot find in a less expensive but equally good firearm from another manufacturer, be it Glock , S&W, FN or another. HK makes one of the best $500 handguns and sells it for $900. Glock and S&W also make top shelf $500 handguns, and sell them for..........$500!



Not trashing your choice. If you're happy with the firearm and feel it was worth the cost, then that's what matters. Simply pointing out that some of us aren't willing to pay that kind of money for their product, especialy given their disposition toward non-LE/military.

If you want to continue buying HK products, by all means, do so. They're good guns, for sure. But trying to convince others of their cost-justifying superiority, and especially those of us who own/have owned products from a significant number of contemporary manufacturers, may prove to be a losing battle in many cases. The only thing my USP .45 did that my M&P 45 didn't was rub my trigger finger raw and feel like a hunk of lumber in my hand. It was no more accurate or reliable, and certainly not as ergonomic. In retrospect, I paid $300 more for something that was, quite frankly, not as good. If HK's products really did offer a significant benefit over the Glock, M&P or XD that justified the increased cost, they'd be in that league of popularity with the masses. But they don't, and sales reflect that. HK could increase their profits 10 fold if they sold their products for what they're worth instead of trying to ride on fanboyism and the "no compromise" nonsense.

It's still as fresh in my mind as ever what happened between a friend's USP40 and my S&W 4006. We had got a bad batch of reloads, both of us used the ammo, but at different times. Later, we found out that we both had problems with it. I had two OOB firings in the 4006, and the second tweaked the extractor enough that it was having some extraction failures. The USP40 had only one OOB firing, because that one blew the magazine and the extractor out of the gun.

I have no problem paying $1,000+ for a handgun, but it had better do something a $500 or $600 pistol doesn't. When a USP/P30/HK45/etc. feels/shoots as well as my Tanfoglio Witness Limited or Kimber Stainless Target II, or is as tough as a 3rd gen S&W, I'll revisit my opinion. Until then, HK won't sell me a dang thing.

It all comes down to preference, my man. Could HK sell their stuff at lower prices? Absolutely. But, as someone so helpfully put it earlier, they're in this game to make money too. Whether their products are better than everyone else's products or not is immaterial: that is the perception they've worked hard to create and has elevated their status to where they can do what, in the business world, is called "prestige pricing". It's why a Hollywood starlet will buy a t-shirt from a fancy boutique for $200, though it's physically the same as something one could get at Wal-mart. Saying "I got this at Wally World" doesn't have the same ring to it as saying "I got this at Jean Reno's Private Boutique". HK couldn't sell their products at a lower price without ruining the image they've worked so hard to set up for themselves.

As for your incident with the reloaded ammo, I have a question and a couple of observations: 1) Why on Earth were you using reload ammo in that weapon in the first place? 2) Characterizing that incident as typical or normal of all USPs is problematic at best.

For starters, running reload ammo through a nice weapon is like putting used tires on your new car -- you can't really get mad if the tires blow up and you get in a wreck. When it comes to things with gunpowder in them, it is my experience that "cheap" does not usually equal "good". Secondly (using the car metaphor once again), if your normally reliable Audi has an issue only after you've done something questionable with it, the fault should probably not be put with the car.

Anyway, like I said at the start, it all comes down to preference. If your M&P does it for you and you didn't have to pay an exorbitant amount of money for it, good for you. I've been considering buying one myself here recently. Some people however, need something that makes them feel better than a Smith and Wesson does. And for those people, a USP usually does the trick.

 

[MachIVshooter]

HK couldn't sell their products at a lower price without ruining the image they've worked so hard to set up for themselves.

Exactly my point when I said:

the inability of many to distinguish between "it costs more because it is better" and "it is better because it costs more".

As for your incident with the reloaded ammo, I have a question and a couple of observations: 1) Why on Earth were you using reload ammo in that weapon in the first place? 2) Characterizing that incident as typical or normal of all USPs is problematic at best.

1) The USP40 wasn't mine. As for the 4006? Why would I worry about it? The thing is a tank and a garbage disposal that I gave $300 for. I fixed the tweaked extractor with a punch and a vice in about 5 minutes, and the gun runs fine.

2) Yes, it's anecdotal. But it's still one out of one incidents showing the 4006 took twice the abuse with less damage.

For starters, running reload ammo through a nice weapon is like putting used tires on your new car -- you can't really get mad if the tires blow up and you get in a wreck

I don't buy new cars, and there is nothing wrong with used tires, provided that some dolt didn't try to patch a sidewall or something. Caveat Emptor, and know what you're looking at.

Secondly (using the car metaphor once again), if your normally reliable Audi has an issue only after you've done something questionable with it, the fault should probably not be put with the car.

Not saying the fault was with the USP, but to use your analogy further, if the same questionable thing was done to a Chevy with much less trouble, what would you deduce ? (incedentally, this analogy has literal merit in the automotive world; Try running cheap oil in an Audi A4 and a Chevy Impala and see which one needs major engine work first )

Some people however, need something that makes them feel better than a Smith and Wesson does. And for those people, a USP usually does the trick.

More power to 'em. It's their money. I just grow very tired of the condescending, elitist attitude we so frequently see from that crowd. So many times I've run into what summarizes as "My HK is the very best, your (insert less expensive weapon) can't compete", but none of these characters have ever been able to quantify the reasons for their claim(s). Like I said, if the weapons really did do something more for the extra cost, I'd (still) own them.