# Glock 26 vs HK P2000SK



## EliWolfe (Nov 20, 2010)

Ok, so I'm on vakay down in Bonita Springs FL and 1400 odd miles from my handguns, a situation I can't get used to easily! Anyway, I've been thinking about replacing the Glock 26 I traded away (another story) and talking to a guy down here who has an HKP2000SK. I did not have a chance to fire it, but it looked and felt much like the G26 I remember. This guy says that the HK is superior, and that's why it costs more than the Glock. I have surfed around and found lots of comments on the two pistols. When I get back home, I plan to get one or the other depending on what I find out. My question here is: Do you think the HK is worth the extra money? If so, why or why not? Figured I might get some good input from my fave gun site, so there it is. Any hep appr!
Eli :watching:


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

I'd ask him to specifically list the reasons the HK is (supposedly) better than the Glock. 

Throw out the one about it "being a HK". If that was a real reason, then there would be no need for other guns on the market. :mrgreen:

After he lists the reasons, give each one an actual test or at least a BS smell-test. Trust your gut. Ask questions.

If any of the reasons seem legitimate, then ask yourself if those reasons are worth the price difference TO YOU. They may be worth it to him, and not worth it to me, but that doesn't matter; you should only pay for things YOU can use. Example: long-term durability is often a selling point for certain guns, but if it was your intention to shoot one magazine of ammo through the gun to function-test it and then drop it in the nightstand forever, long-term durability should not really be worth anything to you.

I'll mention that parts availability for HK weapons sucks, and when you CAN find them, they're always expensive. Spare magazines also usually cost more, but not always. Although they MAY be very accurate, many folks do not personally shoot HKs all that well (based on my experience), although I cannot say why with any level of confidence. Glocks are easy to work on, parts are plentiful and cheap, and enough folks shoot them well in competitions like IDPA that a person can't really argue that they are hard to shoot well. If any of this is important to you, take it into account when you make your decision. If not, or if you don't think it's inaccurate or might be biased, then don't use it in your decision-making process.

Good luck!


----------



## EliWolfe (Nov 20, 2010)

DJ Niner said:


> I'd ask him to specifically list the reasons the HK is (supposedly) better than the Glock.
> 
> Throw out the one about it "being a HK". If that was a real reason, then there would be no need for other guns on the market. :mrgreen:
> 
> ...


Thanks for the good input DJ. When pressed, the gentleman basicly said that the HK was made with superior metal and more accurately machined and therefor more reliable and accurate than the Glock. He also touted the grip as 3 finger vs. 2. Well, I got no way of comparing down here, but your remarks on the HK parts thing was very relevant. I was checking it out and found that the Glock has far fewer parts and is less complicated than the HK. I like that. Also, I am pretty sure I had a Pearce ext. on my 26, so whether it was 2 or 3 fingers, it felt good. Thanks again for your post, hell, I loved that little Glock and really don't need to spend any extra $$$ unless the HK was truly that much better, which I now doubt it is.
Eli Thanks for the slap upside the head! :buttkick:


----------

