>>62512647
I would think it's a mistake comparing my full size 9 and compact side by side. The USPC is a fantastic carry piece, carried one for a decade now (RIP Jack Bauer, you da GOAT). Very recommended.

>>62513044
what about the p2000

>>62512647
No compromise. The slide needed more weight to maintain absolute reliability. The mag needed to be downloaded by 2 to maintain absolute reliability. Fuck the minmax numbers on paper, they wanted to build an unbreakable machine and for the time it was the best example of that.

Wanna know why your Glocks fail? They place too much emphasis on minmaxing to get more sales since their guns look better on paper. They're too light and their mags are overstuffed, causing the inexcusable amount of failures their guns have.

>>62512647
Likely just measurements being taken at different places on the gun. You wont notice a difference that small with IWB. Bigger differences are noticeable, namely they increase comfort as the gun is less obtrusively felt by the person carrying it, this is typically accompanied by a lower weight with thinner guns which exacerbates this. Note that thinner guns dont tend to really conceal better outside of extreme examples, grip height is by far the biggest concern for printing.

>>62513186
deply ironic post considering the USP has hardly been a trouble free design, in fact the 9mm USP and USPC are rather prone to reliability issues, turns out building a gun for .40 and shoehorning 9mm into it with minimal changes is almost as bad as building a gun in 9mm and shoehorning .40 into it with minimal changes.
>inb4 lmgtfy

>>62513233
0.3 inch different in grip height, but like a full inch longer slide of course. Per their listing of dimensions at least. 1 extra round(12 vs 13) and that extra metal idk how much extra weight it is loaded