Is the Browning Hi-Power still relevant?

But,

Quote:
There's nothing any modern 9mm can really do better IMO.
I'll second that...

Click to expand...

Sure there is. A modern 9mm can be/is cheaper to manufacture. That what more or less makes the Hipower irrelevant by todays standards.

A modern 9mm can be/is cheaper to manufacture. That what more or less makes the Hipower irrelevant by todays standards.

Click to expand...

<gasp>

Quality is irrelevant nowadays????

I know that no one wants to point out her flaws but come on. From the factory she has never had a good trigger, has a silly little safety and will bite the web of your hand. Count the magazine safety and one has to admit that she's not perfect. The three I own are "safe queens", but for some reason I do like to shoot them.

one has to admit that she's not perfect.

Click to expand...

What IS perfect?

The trigger may be a little heavy...but still better IMO than a long, mushy pseudo DA trigger that doesn't provide the "flywheel" effect of the DA revolver and easier to manage in any event than a long, heavy DA trigger that resets to a short, light SA trigger for subsequent shots. Confusing...and confusion isn't something that you want in an awful moment of truth, when consistency is needed.

Many of us don't get bitten...even with the ones that wear spur hammers...and the safety can be managed with diligent practice and familiarity.

Admittedly, the magazine disconnect could be a drawback, but with 14 rounds on tap...if you run the gun nearly dry and actually need a fast reload with the chamber hot...you're probably in over your head anyway.

1911 Tuner wrote:
Y'know, Steve. Sometimes I think your head's screwed on straighter'n some people think...

Click to expand...

Well that or we both are crazier than road ticks. *wink*


The BHP I admit has two faults:

1. I ain't got at least one anymore.
2. It comes in .40 cal.

Yes I know some like this durn caliber, but to me, who come up before it came to be, it is flat wrong, and especially in a BHP.

This way this works is-

BHP does 9mm
Gov't Model of 1911 does 45 ACP
Win 94 does 30-30.

I mean this ain't rocket science folks!

*curmudgeon grin*

Sure there is. A modern 9mm can be/is cheaper to manufacture. That what more or less makes the Hipower irrelevant by todays standards.

Click to expand...

Now we understand, some want the cheapest pistol, probably with the cheapest ammo as well. Oh, does anyone know where I can get a good holster for $9.95 to go with my new rig? I do have some plastic, sorry thats engineered polymer, pistols, but they are not what I carry.

I stand by my first statement, no "knowledgable" pistolero I know of considers the BHP irrevelant or out of date.

1. I ain't got at least one anymore.

Click to expand...

I don't either, but I love them. And they're far from perfect for me, too, because they bite me.

2. It comes in .40 cal.
Yes I know some like this durn caliber, but to me, who come up before it came to be, it is flat wrong, and especially in a BHP

Click to expand...

Amen and amen! Most especially, I never liked the uber stiff recoil spring of the .40 BHP. Too easy to kink. The pistol just wasn't designed for such a cartridge IMO.

<gasp>

Quality is irrelevant nowadays????

Click to expand...

Of course it is. But are you trying to suggest that a Glock or a Springfield XD that sells for not much more than half what a Hi-Power sells for aren't quality products?

The Hi-Power's price is indicative of the fact that it's an old design, produced with more labor intensive manufacturing methods. There's simply a lot more machining that goes into a Hi-Power than many, if not most more modern pistols, and this prices it above what a lot of folks are willing to pay. The same applies to the 1911.

I'll second that...

Click to expand...

\

I guess I'll third it.

Regards, Chang

When I was looking for a 40cal, I knew what I wanted.
It was the Browning HP 40cal. 10 in the mag and one in the tube.
Accurate, great handling, Sexy and handles the round well.
It's my favorite carry.

Amen and amen! Most especially, I never liked the uber stiff recoil spring of the .40 BHP. Too easy to kink. The pistol just wasn't designed for such a cartridge IMO.

Click to expand...

No, which is why FN re-engineered it to be capable of firing such a cartridge, and they succeeded very well.

Face it, the original Hi-Power was not without its flaws. It was originally designed around a 1920s French military specification that put a premium on light weight. Browning and Saive made the pistol as light as they could, and this had an adverse effect on its durability. I've read that IPSC shooters who put a lot of rounds through their guns found the old forged frame Hi-Powers simply wore out a lot faster than other pistols, and the FN .40S&W prototypes, also made with forged frames were worn after after a mere 2500 rounds. Many gunsmiths have advised for years that even a few magazines of 9mm +P could easily damage the locking lugs.

In engineering the .40S&W Hi-Powers, FN fixed all these problems. The slide is beefed up, the recoil spring is heavier, there's a third locking lug, and the frames are now cast from a much harder steel. This is all to the good if you ask me.

YESSSS!!! I Love 'Em

Well it's my all time favorite pistol, so yes, I think that they're relevant.

The BHP was used as the sidearm for the military and police forces for 50+ countries. Besides the FN FAL when was the last time that 50+ countries ever agreed on anything? There must be something good about it if that many countries adopted it to give to their soldiers and policemen as they went into harms way.

Even though it was designed way back in the 1930's it doesn't really give up all that much to modern semi-auto pistols, if it gives anything up at all. Even in it's lowest capacity (13 + 1) that's still not bad when compared to some of the modern crop of wonder nines and the Browning HP was ergonomic before that term was ever applied to pistols at all. Now there are mags which will increase the mag capacity to 17 +1, so even a slightly higher mag capacity for the newly made pistols isn't an issue.

Not to mention the fact that out of all the pistols that I've ever shot the BHP has always been the easiest to get hits with (maybe because I love shooting them so much that I get ALOT of practice in with them).

I think it is highly relevant. I just got my first "real" HP - a 1970 Belgian Browning this week. I also have a Charles Daly HP and both are good.

I plan to carry my Belgian beauty in a Roy's Pancake leather holster. Some would consider that doubly irrelevant but I don't.

John

Well

Quality is irrelevant nowadays????

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with quality, simply taking advantage of advances in technology.

Now, one might want to define irrelevant.

In terms of actually shooting. Not irrelevant. Collecting sure. Being likeable, sure. People like to say they're relevant because they have one, but...

In terms of mass producing, competing for contracts where cost is important, and being marketable, it is noncompetitive and thus irrelevant.

Sure there is. A modern 9mm can be/is cheaper to manufacture. That what more or less makes the Hipower irrelevant by todays standards.

Click to expand...

So, stated simply, "relevance" is attained by cutting corners in production, making small parts out of hi-tech stamped sheet metal instead of good old-fashioned machined steel, by making the frame out of a recyclable material, and charging the same price. Right. Gotcha.

I know that no one wants to point out her flaws but come on. From the factory she has never had a good trigger, has a silly little safety and will bite the web of your hand.

Click to expand...

That's completely subjective.
1) All 6 of my HPs have had triggers as good as (or better than) all of the entry-level 1911s that I've owned or fondled as they passed through the shop. When they are heavier or grittier than desired, the removal of the mag disconnect almost always solves the problem.
2) The "silly little safety" works fine for my hands. I do like the extended safety on the MkIIIs better, but I've never had a problem manipulating the original safety.
3) Never had a problem with hammer bite from my Hi Powers. I have had it from Mil-Spec 1911s, however.

Owning a Hi Power and complaining is kinda like being married to Cindy Crawford and whining about it. It's hard to have any sympathy, because it just doesn't get much better.

As a combat handgun?
No.

Click to expand...

To me they are Historically Relevant, but not Practically Relevant.

Click to expand...

What do you think it is that made them historically relevant? It was their performance and dependability.

Yeah, it's not everybody's thing. But for me, the sun rises and sets on the BHP.





Wes

I suspect that the primary difference between the BHP and the 1911 is licensing. As near as I can tell, Browning (or some other company) still holds licensing/production rights on the BHP design. That is apparently not the case with the 1911.

I would suspect that there would be a large, custom gun following for the BHP if it were otherwise.

It has nothing to do with quality, simply taking advantage of advances in technology.

Click to expand...

Aside from the use of polymer, I can't really see any 'technological advances' in modern guns. Night sights, maybe?

I've read that IPSC shooters who put a lot of rounds through their guns found the old forged frame Hi-Powers simply wore out a lot faster than other pistols,

Click to expand...

I suppose that could be because...like the 1911...they never envisioned the tens of thousands of rounds that today's shooters would demand of the pistols. The European military forces don't place the pistol in quite the same role as the US did with the 1911 during its development. The 1911 was designed to be a mounted soldier's primary weapon system...and thus had to be durable and easily serviceable. The P-35 wasn't under that sort of demand, and FN likely figured that the average pistol probably wouldn't see 2500 rounds in a 30-year career. Like Browning with the 1911...They didn't necessarily design what they wanted. They designed and delivered a pistol around someone else's requirements...the ones who had the money.

I know that this will come as a shock for some, but the same old question applies: "What is it for?"

The pistol under discussion wasn't designed for IDPA and USPSA competitors to shoot 100,000 rounds a year through. The US military ordered about a half-dozen slides and barrels for each complete 1911 pistol delivered.

So, it could be said that the P-35 wasn't as durable as the 1911, or as easy to repair and return to service...because it didn't have to be. That wasn't a criteria for its intended role. One of the requirements was that it be light...so that's how it was designed. Durability wasn't the primary concern. Portability was...as long as it was adequately durable for the projected use.

So, while the point about lack of extreme-duty durability may be a concern...or even valid in some circles...it's essentially irrelevant.

The Hi-Power is a fine pistol, but it's not an exceptionally strong pistol. The same could be said for the K-frame Smith & Wesson revolvers.

Aside from the use of polymer, I can't really see any 'technological advances' in modern guns. Night sights, maybe?

Click to expand...

The technological advances are in methods of manufacture. While the end product may be no more serviceable than an older gun, the fact is that modern pistols are cheaper to manufacture, which means they can retail for less. Labor costs more than it did in the old days, and any gun that demands more labor to make will be more expensive than a gun that demands less. Lots of shooters have a budget to consider and this means they often have to go with what they can afford rather than what they would like. As long as the weapon is fully serviceable, that's fine. A Glock, for example, may be a lot less elegant than a Hi-Power, but it's as least as reliable.

So, it could be said that the P-35 wasn't as durable as the 1911, or as easy to repair and return to service...because it didn't have to be. That wasn't a criteria for its intended role. One of the requirements was that it be light...so that's how it was designed. Durability wasn't the primary concern. Portability was...as long as it was adequately durable for the projected use.

Click to expand...

Don't misunderstand me. I realize the final form of the Hi-Power, like a lot of other products, was dictated by what the customer wanted, rather than what the designer might have produced if given free reign. I'm simply saying that all things being equal, more durability is certainly a plus. With a very slight addition to the mass of the slide, a heavier recoil spring, an extra locking lug, and a frame cast of more durable, harder steel, the Hi-Power has now been given this extra durability, and all without taking away from its superb ergonomics, excellent balance, or renowned elegance and beauty. Thus, re-engineering the gun for the .40S&W cartridge was not the heresy some purists insist it was, it was a genuine example of product improvement -- and moreover an improvement that was sorely needed if the pistol was to continue to be a success in the marketplace.

The Hi-Power is a fine pistol, but it's not an exceptionally strong pistol.

Click to expand...

Then allow me to inquire- what would be in your opinion, an exceptionally strong pistol?

Regards, Chang

The 1911 was designed to be a mounted soldier's primary weapon system...and thus had to be durable and easily serviceable.

Click to expand...

I have to correct you here. The 1911 was never considered to be the cavalry troopers primary weapon, the 1903 Springfield was, and every trooper was issued one. Cavalry have always been issued long arms, and used them as their primary weapon. Cavalry were, however, likely to need a repeating weapon suitable for one hand use from horseback (the other being needed for the reins) at close ranges, which was every every cavalry trooper was issued a pistol, whereas only officers and NCOs in the infantry usually got one.

A modern 9mm can be/is cheaper to manufacture. That what more or less makes the Hipower irrelevant by todays standards.

Click to expand...

Bunk

I guess the $700.00 to $1,000.00 polymer H&K's are not modern weapons?

I wouldn't call a BMW or Mercedes irrelevant just because there are cheaper, reliable cars available. Is a Tag or Rolex irrelevant? Maybe they're just irrelevant to those who choose not to afford them?

I could provide a gazillions examples of supposed irrelevance based on that criteria.

But are you trying to suggest that a Glock or a Springfield XD that sells for not much more than half what a Hi-Power sells for aren't quality products?

Click to expand...

No, sir. That's what you said.

All I said was:

<gasp>

Quality is irrelevant nowadays????

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with quality, simply taking advantage of advances in technology.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't think it had to do with quality. That's why I said what I did. And I question this "advances in technology" idea.
I'm just looking at the Hi-Power from a purely subjective point of view. And I'm entitled to my point of view, okay? If some of you guys don't like it, then go on to the next post. Sheesh.

The BHP goes Bang every time.
Folks who own a Browning know what i mean.

It is possible to find good quality used HPs in the same price range as used Glocks or within 100.

New the price is within 200. of a new Glock or Springfield.

The HP is more expensive than some guns. This has been pointed out (I pointed it out earlier). It is however a poor argument for irrelevance.

The argument that modern machining and production methods result in a less expensive product and can also produce a product that is more durable and can do it's job as well, if not better, is a good general point. It is the argument of a bookkeeper, engineer, or a CFO. We are speaking of sidearms here.

S&W produces revolvers based on an antiquated 100 year old design. They have made many engineering improvements to that basic design over the generations but it is still not as strong as the more modern design of a Ruger DA revolver. Yet many shooters prefer the feel and action of the S&W K, L or N frame over the Ruger. By Billy Shears criteria all S&W hand ejectors should be considered non-relevant.

The use of MIM internals, stamped metal, polymer, etc. does not make a gun more or less relevant to shooters. The Mauser 98 action would have passed from this earth long ago if it did. The 1911 by the same criteria is not relevant. It is the usefulness of a gun to shooters that makes it relevant or not. It becomes irrelevant when shooters no longer buy them or when they pass into the realm of a few collectors, like the Frommer Stop.

No gun is without weaknesses. That is inherent in the nature of the beast. The HP is relevant because it's simple design works well for many shooters and has for about 3 generations and will likely soldier on for at least one more. A very long run for a sidearm.

tipoc