Talk:Heckler & Koch USP/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Combat Competition

Could someone with more knowledge than I add a section on the new USP Combat Competition. Thanks

Minor Edit Comments

Edited the expert section - sight configuration was confusing. However, What is the difference between the "elongated" and "extended" slides? I have several USPs - IMHO - this should read "standard" for the regular USP, "extended" for the expert, and "elongated" for the Elite. Comments?

Misc Comments

The USP and the SOCOM were actually developed at basically the same time, and the USP was originally designed for the .40S&W cartridge-- 9mm was also developed originally, but the USP .45 was a later design.

Will dig through some of my H&K material and work on expanding this entry.

The design section looks to be a somewhat rearranged version of the article on the USP available at The Arms Site.

Is it Heckler and Koch or Heckler und Koch? -- 05:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

its Heckler&Koch (original company logo)
or, more simply, just H&K -- 05:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that on the USP Tactical's section, it says that the weapon is incompatible iwth supressors made for the MK 23 Mod 0, while it says the opposite on the MK 23 Mod 0's page? The two articles appear to contradict each other.

Well according to my USP Tactical owners manual it says in bold print "The MK23 sound suppressor cannot be attached to the USP45 Tactical pistol."

The threading is reversed, so they won't fit. -- Boris Barowski (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to add this great pic of mine that shows the full size USP as well as the USP Compact;

If it's necessary, please credit me for taking this picture.

Haizum 01:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomb Raider reference

USP Match pistols are used by Lara Croft in the Tomb Raider movies, not Tacticals as reported. I changed this on the article.

The imfdb page on Tombraider might be a good reference here. Packing 03:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good ref but we really need one that explains the value increase more. I can't seem to find anything on that. The guns couldn't have jumped that much in value just from being discontinued. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the movie(s), I just have to find a website that says it. 03:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Whaddya mean discontinuation doesn't affect price that much?? I'd say it affects price far more than a movie. Hell, the PPK was barely impacted Bond, and Bond is a way more valuable brand than Croft. I'm sure the films increased popularity among the airsoft kiddies and likely raised the value of the airsoft replica of the USP. But the real item? Doubtful. Discontinuation on the other hand lowers availability. Lower availability raises price. If the USP Match was so popular as to be THAT in demand from a film, why did H&K discontinue it? Arms manufacture is a very thin-margined business, and manufactures aren't exactly picky as to who buys. If it sold, I doubt discontinuation would have been an option. Don't confuse popularity with value. They are distinct. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It was discontinued before the film. I'm aware of how discontinuation affects value. I'm only suggesting that in this particular case, with the margin being so large, it doesn't make sense to me that the value increase was only due to that factor. Plus, the variant was discontinued for a reason -- it sucked. It looked cool but was very impractical. If gun people are so immune to publicity from a movie then why are the guns now sold at around $3,500 a pop? Does a lack of availability alone make up for it being such a weak variant of an otherwise-excellent line, with many other better designs available at a much cheaper price? Also realize that gun people aren't the only people who buy guns. Morons buy them too, along with everyone else, and yes they'll do it just 'cause they saw them in a movie.
I think you underestimate the power of product placement in major motion pictures. H&K probably had to pay money to have the gun in the movie to begin with, and probably more to have it placed on the movie posters, so they must have thought this would produce some kind of demand. And take a look at almost any ad for the sale of a Match -- nearly all of them make very prominent mention of Tomb Raider, ie. "These are the very same guns Lara Croft used!" They even sell them in pairs sometimes, just like Lara had, so people can play super hero. Like I said, morons buy guns too.
05:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
They don't mention it on their website. If you're refering to, that's a fan site. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I edited that out of my comment before you replied. I thought I saw it on the official site but I was mistaken. That's only one of my many points though and the rest still stand. 06:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Not all your points stand. I don't know if you know how Hollywood works. Not that I do all that much, but I know that firearms manufactures rarely (if ever?) pay for product placement, especially defense contractors as the civilian market isn't their target market. Armorers provide weapons for movies based on price, requested appearance, and what they have in inventory. In the case of "Cradle of Life", the armorer was Universal Armourers. HK didn't pay anyone for product placement, and I expect that the script did not call for the HK by name, but merely described the weapon. The armourer then matched the description from his inventory. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 06:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure that H&K didn't pay for product placement. If you take a look at the company credits for almost any movie, they rarely list firsthand manufacturers. I don't know much about how this works either, but if a movie like Transformers doesn't have a single car company listed (and it doesn't), then it's safe to say that product placement occurs outside of these credits or are perhaps all consolidated through a third-party negotiator. 07:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Car manufactures, soft drink companies, fast food chains, ect. all pay for product placement. Very well known to be sure. Cars, drink cans, fast food chain signs, and the like are far more layman-recognizable than a profile shot of a pistol. Smith & Wesson has their own in-house product placement department, but their target market is the civilian market and their brand is very layman-recognizable. H&K is a defense contractor with relatively low civilian market visibility. They can't expect that people will see a USP and know their brand instantly. Most layman would say, "Oooo... Glock!". Glock and S&W are household names. Due to this they can get visibility without much effort. Heckler & Koch have a name, but not a household name.

And then we also wonder why H&K would place a product that has already been discontinued? One that does not bear a resemblance to other exisiting product lines. And then, not even have the brand mentioned by name or logo displayed on screen. That'd have to be the worst product placement deal in history.

All of these things tell me that either H&K are the biggest bunch of suckers in the world, or they had no hand in placing that pistol in the movie. I'd say the latter. The pistols looked sexy and they matched the video games fairly closely. So the armourer chose them. I'd bet on it. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 07:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Oooh Glock!" ... We'll have to be in disagreement there. Although they are better-known names than HK, no layman can tell the difference between a Glock and an S&W and anything else when John Q. Action Hero draws one.
As for placing a discontinued product: When we say H&K paid to have their product placed in a movie, we don't necessarily mean that they were specifically looking to advertise this particular product. The movie makers could have decided they wanted to use the Match first, and then approached H&K with a placement proposal. And then something like this could have happened:
  • H&K says, "But, movie dudes, we're discontinuing that variant. If we're gonna pay for product placement then we'd rather do it for a product that's not extinct." To which the movie people would have said, "Well that's too bad because we've looked at the rest of your guns and this is the only one we're interested in. So it's either this, or we go with a different manufacturer. But we're not unreasonable... We'll give you a better deal for the trouble, how's that? Say, 35% off?" H&K: "Sigh... ok, publicity is publicity." And they'd be right. To have one of your guns become a collectors' item, selling at $3,500, is still good advertising for your brand name is general. How many layman have now heard of HK, just because of the movie, whereas previously all they knew was S&W and Glock?
You're right that guns are less mainstream than fast food or cars, so they aren't as recognizable. But I still think you're kidding yourself if you think the people producing movies will ever allow any product to grace a screen or a poster that a hundred million people will see without getting money for it. 13:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Agree to disagree. Unless I see hard evidence, I can't believe HK paid one nickle for product placement. Further, where guns are concerned I don't think any "product" was "placed". The USP Match in Tomb Raider was nothing more than a prop supplied by Universal Armourers to meet certain aesthetic requirements. Without a news article or press release, I will not be convinced otherwise. A take-it-or-leave-it cold call from some Hollywood jackass wanting to place a discontinued product in a movie aimed away from your target market is likely to be met with little more than amusement.
As for the original argument, let me put it like this... had the pistol not been discontinued, prices would have seen little effect from the film. But had they never been in the film, discontinuation still would have significantly raised price. After some further reading I'll concede that the film coupled with discontinuation had a synergistic effect. But the film alone could not do the same as discontinuation alone. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No not the film alone, I never claimed that. If the gun wasn't discontinued then no one would ever have to pay more than MSRP for it. It's a combination of both, as I stated in the article, so it looks like we're in agreement on that. 20:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Real quickly, I was goofing around on Gunbroker and did some studying. The average price of a USP Match Stainless sold on Gunbroker was $1775.20, and none sold for more than $2126. Lots of listing for $3000+, but none of those had any takers. There was only one on Auction Arms and it sold for $1150. Value isn't shown by what someone asks. It's what someone will pay that illustrates value. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 09:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know what value is. I haven't looked at what the actual sale prices have been, just a quick look at the asking prices. I think some of the prices I saw may have been higher because of special stuff like hi-cap mags and accessories etc. If I have time I'll take a look around at actual sale prices and see what the deal is. Meantime if you want to change the article wording in that section, to make it more accurate to what you found, feel free. 18:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In Fiction

Is there a reason that the fiction section is edited down so heavily? I would agree that that it is silly to list every single appearance of the pistol in every medium, but I think it's appropriate to mention it's use in a hugely popular TV show like 24. --Askaggs 08:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that these sections tend to get out of control, because they become "trivia magnets", i.e., every gamer and anime fan who passes by the article will have an urge to add all of his instances of the USP's appearances from his favorite video game or anime. The result is a list of indiscrimnate trivia that doesn't add anything to the article. So basically, these sections are either being edited down or removed altogether from firearms-related articles to avoid this issue. --Squalla 23:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining and I can say that I definitely prefer this format to the long list I saw in the page's history. In this particular case I think 24 is certainly as least as recognizable as the currently mentioned video games so I am adding it in, but I won't include any other references (and I do have several, I love this gun). --Askaggs 06:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The correct place for the information that any firearm appears in a film or video game is in the article relating to the film or video game, with a link to the article for the firearm. Riddley 12:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that and would like to add, that there are two pages created to consolodate this type of information, if users really need to add it somewhere: List of firearms in video games and List of firearms in films. --Deon Steyn 13:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The gun used by Jack Bauer in 24 is a SigPro, not a USP. Although, Vincent in Michael Mann's "Collateral" notably uses a USP. Kestrel 23:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack used a Sig in season 1 and 2, but since then a USP Compact has definitely been his primary weapon. Reference other sites such as Bauer Kill Count. Regardless, it has been decided not to put this information on the USP page. --Askaggs 12:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Squalla. This article needs to be about the actual firearm and nothing more. Haizum 04:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it a little odd that someone added Jack Bauer to the list of non-fictional police agencies who actualy issue out USPs? [StarkeRealm] 10:33, March 1, 2007

Removed. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 20:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)