Is a Browning HiPower Worth $300 More Than a CZ?
- Thread starter Tecolote
- Start date
- Status
powwowell
Member
If buying, I would not pay $300 more for a Hi-Power, than I would a CZ.
Then again, there is NO CZ that I would trade my Hi-Power for.
Then again, there is NO CZ that I would trade my Hi-Power for.
General Geoff
Member
As an appliance? No.
As a personal effect? I think so.
As a personal effect? I think so.
Bozwell
Member
Guns are a poor investment if you have any understanding of investments. Calling an inflation hedge, which for most firearms is the BEST case scenario, a good return is just silly. That said, they retain value better than some purchases (cars for instance) and are fun to own.
As for the OP, there is no right answer. For $900 you should compare a cz with custom work to the BHP, and then the question is as a buyer do you want modern performance or history. Buy what you like, buy both if you can.
As for the OP, there is no right answer. For $900 you should compare a cz with custom work to the BHP, and then the question is as a buyer do you want modern performance or history. Buy what you like, buy both if you can.
TMann
Member
I have both: a stainless 75B and an FN Hipower. Depending on the day, either one or the other is my favorite handgun. (Actually, on many days, my favorite handgun is my Walther PPS, just because it's so easy to carry.)
If you weren't concerned about resale value, collectibility, bragging rights or historical significance, I would have a hard time saying that either one was better than the other one.
If possible, shoot both. If the Hipower feels THAT much better to you than the CZ, then get the HP. If they shoot basically the same for you (or if you prefer the CZ) than get the CZ and spend the extra $300 on ammo, a good holster and some good nights sights.
Good luck with the choice. They're both great guns.
TMann
If you weren't concerned about resale value, collectibility, bragging rights or historical significance, I would have a hard time saying that either one was better than the other one.
If possible, shoot both. If the Hipower feels THAT much better to you than the CZ, then get the HP. If they shoot basically the same for you (or if you prefer the CZ) than get the CZ and spend the extra $300 on ammo, a good holster and some good nights sights.
Good luck with the choice. They're both great guns.
TMann
Not to me. I've owned CZs since the 1990's when they were still low priced. However, I do like BHPs. Someday, I may bite the bullet and get one. I waited 30 years before I bought my first Python so I can wait. In fact, the BHP is #4 on my wish list behind a Colt Woodsman Target .22lr, a Colt S.I.G rifle in .30-06, and a L.C.Smith 12ga double.
Ash
Member
Belgian quality? Are you serious? Sure, there are extremely-fine Belgian arms, and FN has always made good stuff. Nagant did, too.
But there are virtually no good Belgian revolvers out there other than what Nagant made (even FN used Astra to make theirs). Belgian copies of Webley and S&W revolvers were just as bad as Spanish copies. Dad's and Granddad's Belgian double barrel shotguns are regarded by shot gunners as utter crap, not even up to the level of basic Savage guns of the 1940's. Belgian flintlocks could be good, or could be horrendous.
Only after WWI did Belgium begin to cast off its reputation as a provider of Suicide Special revolvers and junk shotguns.
The Czechs on the other hand, have consistently made quality arms. Even the derided CZ-38 is acknowledged as a superbly-made pistol - just badly designed. Czech Mausers were often considered better than their FN counterparts. Some of the most highly-prized Mausers were made by CZ.
So using Belgium's history as a paragon of quality manufacturing is silly. Belgian quality? Please.
Of course today, Belgian arms have a good reputation for quality. But that is in SPITE of Belgium's history of firearms manufacture.
CZ's reputation for quality manufacture is equal to FN's - even when you factor in top-down decisions made by Communist party hacks for 50 years of its existence.
The Czechs didn't come up with an FAL, and Saive deserves credit for genius. In that regard FN has always been a design trend-setter in many firearms fields (even though the FAL was outdated when introduced, the VZ-58 actually succeeded in the role that the FAL failed in - a fully-auto FAL is a bad idea).
But there are virtually no good Belgian revolvers out there other than what Nagant made (even FN used Astra to make theirs). Belgian copies of Webley and S&W revolvers were just as bad as Spanish copies. Dad's and Granddad's Belgian double barrel shotguns are regarded by shot gunners as utter crap, not even up to the level of basic Savage guns of the 1940's. Belgian flintlocks could be good, or could be horrendous.
Only after WWI did Belgium begin to cast off its reputation as a provider of Suicide Special revolvers and junk shotguns.
The Czechs on the other hand, have consistently made quality arms. Even the derided CZ-38 is acknowledged as a superbly-made pistol - just badly designed. Czech Mausers were often considered better than their FN counterparts. Some of the most highly-prized Mausers were made by CZ.
So using Belgium's history as a paragon of quality manufacturing is silly. Belgian quality? Please.
Of course today, Belgian arms have a good reputation for quality. But that is in SPITE of Belgium's history of firearms manufacture.
CZ's reputation for quality manufacture is equal to FN's - even when you factor in top-down decisions made by Communist party hacks for 50 years of its existence.
The Czechs didn't come up with an FAL, and Saive deserves credit for genius. In that regard FN has always been a design trend-setter in many firearms fields (even though the FAL was outdated when introduced, the VZ-58 actually succeeded in the role that the FAL failed in - a fully-auto FAL is a bad idea).
71Commander
Member
Oh yeah. Not even close.
Mine in 40.
Mine in 40.
I feel that as a Belgian I'm somewhat 'obligated' to respond, altough I currently don't own any Belgian (or Czech) guns.
How about them Czech revolvers ?
I guess dad and granddad couldn't afford a LEBEAU-COURALLY shotgun. You're taking the crap manufacturers among the hunderds of Belgian gunmakers in history and compare them to CZ ?
So, after WWI ... and before CZ even existed.
I wonder who often considered Czech Mauser better than FN, never heard that before ? And exactly what model Mauser made by CZ is considered as 'highly-prized' ?
A fully-auto FAL is a bad idea ... in 7,62x51. But you can't blame FN for that choice of calibre.
And 'the FAL outdated when introduced' ... really, in 1951 ? Makes me wonder why it remained in service for so long with so many countries ?
FN has indeed been a design trend-setter in many firearms fields (even after Saive), but you say it like it's a bad thing. What design (except for the '75') did CZ ever make that was internationally noticed ?
How about them Czech revolvers ?
I guess dad and granddad couldn't afford a LEBEAU-COURALLY shotgun. You're taking the crap manufacturers among the hunderds of Belgian gunmakers in history and compare them to CZ ?
So, after WWI ... and before CZ even existed.
I wonder who often considered Czech Mauser better than FN, never heard that before ? And exactly what model Mauser made by CZ is considered as 'highly-prized' ?
A fully-auto FAL is a bad idea ... in 7,62x51. But you can't blame FN for that choice of calibre.
And 'the FAL outdated when introduced' ... really, in 1951 ? Makes me wonder why it remained in service for so long with so many countries ?
FN has indeed been a design trend-setter in many firearms fields (even after Saive), but you say it like it's a bad thing. What design (except for the '75') did CZ ever make that was internationally noticed ?
Ash
Member
The Persian Mauser is considered one of the best of the design. It was made by CZ.
Touche on Czech revolvers, except that Belgian did make them, and the revolvers of the 1880's up to prior to WWI were junk. A huge number of Belgian shotguns that came over here were also junk. That is not opinion but fact. Suicide specials were commonly made in the US, too, and current US autos can be excellent (Beretta, S&W, Dan Wesson) or horrid (Jiminez). It still in no way diminishes the largest bulk of export arms for the civilian market from Belgium historically was low-quality. After WWI, when many of those cottage manufacturers went under, those left, particularly FN
I have a special affection for Belgians and the nation itself. I can tell a Belgian accent over French and don't make that mistake.
But truth is truth. I gave props where they were. But, there's nothing about Belgium's history that establishes that as a nation or ethnic group, being made in Belgium makes it somehow mystically superior to being Czech-made.
As a result, there's nothing about "Belgian Quality" that the words somehow imply superiority to "Czech Quality."
Touche on Czech revolvers, except that Belgian did make them, and the revolvers of the 1880's up to prior to WWI were junk. A huge number of Belgian shotguns that came over here were also junk. That is not opinion but fact. Suicide specials were commonly made in the US, too, and current US autos can be excellent (Beretta, S&W, Dan Wesson) or horrid (Jiminez). It still in no way diminishes the largest bulk of export arms for the civilian market from Belgium historically was low-quality. After WWI, when many of those cottage manufacturers went under, those left, particularly FN
I have a special affection for Belgians and the nation itself. I can tell a Belgian accent over French and don't make that mistake.
But truth is truth. I gave props where they were. But, there's nothing about Belgium's history that establishes that as a nation or ethnic group, being made in Belgium makes it somehow mystically superior to being Czech-made.
As a result, there's nothing about "Belgian Quality" that the words somehow imply superiority to "Czech Quality."
Walt Sherrill
Member
It may be worth the money -- a subjective judgment, to be sure -- but it won't ALWAYS go up in value.
A standard BHP that was made in 1965, sold for maybe $1000; the Blue Book says it's worth $875 today, in 100% condition. With inflation, that $1000 gun would have to sell for over $7000, today, to have really gone up in VALUE (buying power of the gun sold).
A nickel/chrome HP that sold for $525 in the 1980s may bring as much as $800+ today, but would have to sell for $1120 to keep up with inflation.
You might argue that they probably hold their value better than many guns, but I think a Colt Python might be a better bet.
Most guns don't keep up with inflation.
SharpsDressedMan
member
"A standard BHP that was made in 1965, sold for maybe $1000; the Blue Book says it's worth $875 today, in 100% condition. With inflation, that $1000 gun would have to sell for over $7000, today, to have really gone up in VALUE (buying power of the gun sold)."
HUH?!!! I don't think a BHP in '65 was $1000; probably closer to $100. And if it were $100, what would the inflated price be today, 47 years later? I bought a new S&W Model 39 in 1968 for $100 (suggested retail) and $4 tax, total $104, and that was 3 years after the year being used to compare a Browning Hi Power.
HUH?!!! I don't think a BHP in '65 was $1000; probably closer to $100. And if it were $100, what would the inflated price be today, 47 years later? I bought a new S&W Model 39 in 1968 for $100 (suggested retail) and $4 tax, total $104, and that was 3 years after the year being used to compare a Browning Hi Power.
Walt Sherrill
Member
The Fjestad Blue Book showed MSR of $1030 for a post '54 HP standard with polished blue finish. Maybe that price was for the NEWER models in that time range , in which case, my example was wrong, and that part of your argument makes more sense than mine. (My error!)
That said, I doubt that you could ever buy a post -54 BHP for $100. Closer to $500, I would think. I got really lucky, about 10 years ago, and picked up a T-series BHP in ANIB condition for $300. That was a once-in-a-lifetime deal. I've shot it a lot, and it's no longer in ANIB condition. (I've had to replace a barrel, and was NOT willing to pay $400 for a factory barrel...)
The BHP Practical, imported from 1990-2000, and again in 2002-2006, shows a MSR price of $863. One in 100% condition, in the Blue Book, shows a price of $775. If we use the newest ones, that's only six years old, and the value has dropped, not increased, And, that's before you figure in inflation. It would take almost a $1000 to keep up with inflation. I've seen a lot of them selling for $600 - $900, some of them pristine. Not rally "holding value" -- let alone increasing!! You can probably find some on Gun Broker, now, in that price range. Collector condition guns will demand a higher price, of course, but most of us don't have "collector condition" guns.
A S&W 39 and a BHP are different guns. I don't think they ever sold for similar prices.
To have kept up with inflation, your $100 (in '68) gun would have to sell for $659, today, to have held it's value. I suspect you'd have a hard time getting that much for it, despite the fact it's a great gun.. I've seen several locally, in very nice condition, for under $400 in the past 5-6 months. I was tempted, as I love the older S&W semi-autos.
I agree that you WILL probably get more for a used BHP than for most used CZs, but the original prices were probably higher for those BHPs, too, if they were most made about the same time.
.
Last edited:
SharpsDressedMan
member
For a moment, lets forget about the "Blue Book of Gun Values". In my neck of the woods, it means very little. We have a slew of guns, gun shows, and gun shops here in Ohio, with higher than average amount of people to buy and sell guns. And, I have to say, lately more guns are turning up as the old collectors are dying off, and the number of this new breed of shooters is less than the days of old (seems kids would rather play video games that shoot a REAL gun.
) I believe, per capita, there are fewer shooters today, in spite of the alleged trend of massive gun buying. If a 1950's Hi Power went for "around" $100 back in '65, I'd guess it went for less than that in the 1950's. I happen to have what I believe to be a 1950's gun, maybe 1954, but I have no direct reference to its age...Browning did not keep and supply good records from that post war period. I bought a few years ago for $800 with spare mag and W. German police flap holster. I sold the mag and holster for $150, so I am into the gun for $650. I have seen similar guns advertised on gunbroker, etc for $900-$1100, and one at the Ohio Gun Collectors show several years ago for $900 firm, so I think I have a good deal here. Anyway, for the last 60 years, it has apparently gone up at least 500-600%. That is maybe 10% per year, and the gun has been shot, not only by me, but apparently some W. German police, over the years. It is still in 90-95% conditon, and probably has another 60 years in it, if taken care of as it was. Few things hold value as well. Money? Real estate? Cars? 401K's? They all CAN produce profit, under diligent and LUCKY conditions, but few have gone up 500-600% and held. I have some older CZ's. I do believe that if I sit on them long enough, they too will produce similar results to that old Browning in VALUE. So, we end up comparing AESTHETIC value to MONETARY value, and that is a different choice for each of us. Very hard to agree on the balance between the two. I like them both, and feel I can shoot them as much as I want, and still get my money back if I want. Can't beat that.
[/IMG]
) I believe, per capita, there are fewer shooters today, in spite of the alleged trend of massive gun buying. If a 1950's Hi Power went for "around" $100 back in '65, I'd guess it went for less than that in the 1950's. I happen to have what I believe to be a 1950's gun, maybe 1954, but I have no direct reference to its age...Browning did not keep and supply good records from that post war period. I bought a few years ago for $800 with spare mag and W. German police flap holster. I sold the mag and holster for $150, so I am into the gun for $650. I have seen similar guns advertised on gunbroker, etc for $900-$1100, and one at the Ohio Gun Collectors show several years ago for $900 firm, so I think I have a good deal here. Anyway, for the last 60 years, it has apparently gone up at least 500-600%. That is maybe 10% per year, and the gun has been shot, not only by me, but apparently some W. German police, over the years. It is still in 90-95% conditon, and probably has another 60 years in it, if taken care of as it was. Few things hold value as well. Money? Real estate? Cars? 401K's? They all CAN produce profit, under diligent and LUCKY conditions, but few have gone up 500-600% and held. I have some older CZ's. I do believe that if I sit on them long enough, they too will produce similar results to that old Browning in VALUE. So, we end up comparing AESTHETIC value to MONETARY value, and that is a different choice for each of us. Very hard to agree on the balance between the two. I like them both, and feel I can shoot them as much as I want, and still get my money back if I want. Can't beat that.
Last edited:
Ash
Member
An investment of any kind of $75 in 1950 that jumps up to $900 today is only a 4.2% return. It's not a great return or investment, but it held up against inflation (which means you didn't actually lose any real value). That makes it a hedge against inflation. However, you didn't really make any money on it while at the same time, utility or use of the item was minimal to maintain value. A Hi Power used for 60 years in a holster, shot 100 rounds per year, would be worn out and could not possibly fetch $900 today unless it ended up being some kind of collector.
As to going up, the more expensive the arm, the less the rate of increase generally is. A Clerke revolver that sold for $6 back in 1960 can actually provide a greater yield than a Hi Power of the same time - not that a Clerke is anything worth owning. Doubling in value has no meaning until you understand time.
Take for instance the $300 CZ-75 Mil I bought in 2001 compared against the $475 Hi Power from the same time. It didn't grow that much, to $450 today, that's about 3.5%. However, the $475 that is up to $600 today did worse, at a hair over 2%. The CZ was the better investment. You can't argue with numbers. The math is just that.
By the way, the equation being used to find interest is this: (FV/PV)^(1/y) - 1 = i
As to going up, the more expensive the arm, the less the rate of increase generally is. A Clerke revolver that sold for $6 back in 1960 can actually provide a greater yield than a Hi Power of the same time - not that a Clerke is anything worth owning. Doubling in value has no meaning until you understand time.
Take for instance the $300 CZ-75 Mil I bought in 2001 compared against the $475 Hi Power from the same time. It didn't grow that much, to $450 today, that's about 3.5%. However, the $475 that is up to $600 today did worse, at a hair over 2%. The CZ was the better investment. You can't argue with numbers. The math is just that.
By the way, the equation being used to find interest is this: (FV/PV)^(1/y) - 1 = i
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
Member
I'm still not convinced that ANY "new" Hi-Powers sold for $100 (or close to it) in the '50s. Maybe a trashed, used one.
The kind of return on investment cited as common (or resale values, if you don't consider them investment) seems very UNCOMMON to me.
The kind of return on investment cited as common (or resale values, if you don't consider them investment) seems very UNCOMMON to me.
wow6599
Member
A buddy of mine got his father's late 60's era Colt Python as a gift, and I think he said his dad paid around $150 for back then. I doubt a BHP went for 6x what a Colt Python did in the same era.
briang2ad
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Messages
- 683
I really like my Hipower. However, I'd have trouble if I was down to 1 gun to give up my CZ Compact. It is quite ergonomic, and has a higher standard capacity, and is about the same weight, and smaller than the HP. It is also a tad more versatile. Its worth at least what a HP is.
I have both and like both. I've also tweaked both pistols to amazing precision. I'll agree that out of the box the Hi power is a better pistol and will maintain it's value.
That being said....my CZ is more accurate for me but if I could only keep one it'd be the high power.
That being said....my CZ is more accurate for me but if I could only keep one it'd be the high power.
Ash
Member
The CZ will maintain its value as well and increase at the same rate, if not better, than the higher-priced Hi Power.
Gordon
Member
Had to do it, I only have a CZ P01 but it is under my bed!
Bozwell
Member
You have a beautiful gun and it sounds like you got a great deal on it. That said, your math is horribly off. Compound interest is a very powerful thing and a 10% return would double the value in under 8 years, double again in less than the next 8 years, and over and over. Earning 10% every year, a $100 investment in 1950 would be worth over $30,000 today. A ~4% return is certainly an inflation hedge though, and while you'd have been better off financially to invest that $100 in 1950 into the stock market, you can't shoot an index fund.
SharpsDressedMan
member
Yeah, it hurts my head to worry about numbers. I worry about how much ammunition I have, but it never compounds, gains interest, etc. It just depletes as I shoot it. Seems to be about the only numbers I worry about anymore: how much ammo is on hand.
- Status
