H&K Germany is in dire financial straits

Maybe they should have embraced the US civilian market instead of blowing the government.

Seriously, maybe if their guns weren't set at a price point dictated by what .gov is willing to pay, some of us might be able to afford them.
 
Originally Posted by Jon R.
If H&K were run by real operators, they would have invaded the Czech Republic, Poland, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands and spent the spoils on Polish vodka, Dutch prostitutes, Belgian beer, and rebuilding their company so they can sell MR556A1's to over weight American mall ninjas for less than then the ridiculous MSRP of $3,300, when you can buy a SIG 516, which is basically the same rifle, for half that.

Because you suck H&K, and we hate you.

This pretty much sums it up. [rofl]
 
stop selling cartoonishly large guns at 4k a pop and you may see some of us be able to afford it.

Eh, I'll take a Colt, Bravo Company, Noveske, or LWRC before I spend hard cash on an H&K rifle. If I want my wallet to get raped for the finest European firearms engineering money can buy, I'll buy an FN SCAR.

Now, the H&K45 and H&K45C are a different matter... but then again, I could just buy a Glock and spend the rest on ammo. Still, might be worth a gnote to have a safe queen like that.
 
Eh, I'll take a Colt, Bravo Company, Noveske, or LWRC before I spend hard cash on an H&K rifle. If I want my wallet to get raped for the finest European firearms engineering money can buy, I'll buy an FN SCAR.

Now, the H&K45 and H&K45C are a different matter... but then again, I could just buy a Glock and spend the rest on ammo. Still, might be worth a gnote to have a safe queen like that.

Agree. Ill take my Walther P99 over a USP anytime.
 
Sporting Purposes: How HK Really Does Not Suck Or Hate You « Vuurwapen Blog

But in the '80s and '90s, magazine editors, hunting guides, state game commissioners, and competitive shooting groups were consulted by the ATF in order to determine whether certain rifles were importable under the '89 import ban, and taking into consideration the "sporting purposes" test. I won't be debating the merits of that "test" here, because it is a somewhat complex matter, although my position on the issue should not be a huge mystery (hint: it's dumb).

What I want to focus on is the response of the magazine editors in particular. On multiple occasions, ATF asked them if rifles such as the SG550, FN FAL, AK-47, etc. had any useful "sporting purpose." When polled directly in 1989, 0 (zero) of 14 magazine editors responded in the affirmative.

When polled directly in 1997, only 2 of 13 responded that such rifles were appropriate for the hunting of medium to large game (why ATF decided to exclude the hunting of small game from their report is not stated). Of 70 magazine articles reviewed by ATF (again, the selection process is not described), only one described what the ATF calls "large capacity military magazine rifles," or LCMM rifles, as being "excellent" for hunting. Two others described 7.62x39 as being acceptable for hunting.

ATF also put down the idea of action competition shooting as being sporting, for the simple reason that it wasn't "traditional." I'm paraphrasing, but the gist of it is, "We didn't like the idea of some sporting purposes, so we made up our own definition, and guess what, none of these rifles fit our new definition of sporting purposes. Except some do, but we're going to ignore that." I don't grok this logic.

What else is interesting about this position paper? Well, of the manufacturers, trade groups, and so on that received letters from ATF seeking their input, exactly one company made an active attempt to stop what they saw coming. This manufacturer placed an advertisement in Shotgun News, attesting to how useful their firearms were for various sporting purposes, and encouraged owners of their firearms to write ATF with accounts of how they use their products as sporting arms. Which manufacturer was this?

HK.
 
HK makes fine pistols, I just don't get the pricing. 850 for a polymer gun compared to where Glock and S&W are which you'd think is their competition.
 
If they lobbied to repeal NFA and Hughes Amendment, sales of MP5's to US civilian market alone would keep the company in the green for the next decade.
 
HK makes fine pistols, I just don't get the pricing. 850 for a polymer gun compared to where Glock and S&W are which you'd think is their competition.

I've got an HK USPc .45. I had an HK USPC .40. All I can say is "meh". Their triggers just downright suck.
 
If they lobbied to repeal NFA and Hughes Amendment, sales of MP5's to US civilian market alone would keep the company in the green for the next decade.

Pretty much. I'd buy an MP5 in a heartbeat if they were not $20K because HK helped get Hughes removed. NFA would be icing on the cake.
 
Love em or hate em, HK makes a fine product. Sure it costs more, and sure the ergonomics tend to feel a little "German" sometimes, but you can't deny that you're getting an extemely well made, reliable gun.
 
They'd probably be in better shape if they hadn't invested so much in their customer service for the US market.

...What?
 
Yikes, doesn't look good if you are a firearm manufacturer with no money after the crazy gouging fest we just went through. If they couldn't make a boatload of money over the last couple years they are doing something wrong.
 
I like the USPs (one of the only pistols in .40 I'd buy), but what's up with the DA trigger pull on them? It's almost like the SW9VE that I bought when I first got my LTC. And from what I've read there's only one or two guys around who even want to touch them to do a trigger job.
 
Back
Top Bottom