Oh neat the USP has integral recoil reduction

HK USP -> HK P2000 -> HK45
|
V
P30

^

So what, exactly, is the difference between the P30 and the USP besides ergos?

Internals, apparently

Technically, the P30 is similar to the Heckler & Koch P2000 pistol; the differences are in exterior appearance and ergonomics. The basic design is derived from the Heckler & Koch P2000 and Heckler & Koch USP Compact pistols.

So it's not a USP, it just looks like one

It's a descendant of the P2000 and reflects the P2000 with, well almost everything but with even better ergonomics than the P2000 and the P2000 had better ergos than the USP

Just like 90% of HK pistols after they made the USP

I literally said the same thing Vanilla

Everything after the USP is just a USP with extra features

Oh no, I'm aware, I'm just echoing it

Also, I'm surprised HK didn't keep up with 4.73x33

there was no money to do so

After the round was made from the new explosive compound there wasn't anything wrong with the projectile itself.

no incentive

So, basically what happened with the G11

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Improve on it. <:smugflat:500075410487377922>

I'm just surprised they didn't try to make a pistol or something

Wait

Am big dumb

no incentive to do so

Like a 4.73x33 pistol would be beefy, but you could carry like 25 rounds in the space of like 15 9mm

this was just post cold war

so the need for such a thing didnt exist

It's just strange that they put so much R&D just to drop it

the money disappeared

That's my point

They didn't try to recoup by using it on anything else

I mean, why dump a fuckton of money when there's no threat of invasion?

Demobilization sucks

The G11, as cool as it is, wasn't necessary and neither was it's ammo. History has proven as much

HK is a business, and to stay in business, they need to make money

It's like a pharma company researching a med, dumping billions in to R&D, and not even bothering to seel it as a generic brand to recoup the cost.

although they seem to be bad at doing so...

Exactly

I mean, I get what you mean, but using "It's not necessary" as an argument is not something I agree on. Why innovate in the first place?

they are so successful, they put themselves out of business

need drives innovation

You guys are like "der wuz no need" and I fucking get that, but my point is they have this thing, which is very useful, and they've never tried to recoup the cost of inventing it

The round itself is spectacular