Probably true, but the U.K. government doesn't have to concern themselves. Considering their military background and magazine capacity over 10 rounds, it's unlike the Obama Administration would let them in, by invoking the 1968 GCA "sporting use" restriction.
British Army Replacing their 40 yeard old Hi-Powers with...
- Thread starter T2K
- Start date
- Status
Probably true, but the U.K. government doesn't have to concern themselves. Considering their military background and magazine capacity over 10 rounds, it's unlike the Obama Administration would let them in, by invoking the 1968 GCA "sporting use" restriction.
T2K
Member
The CZ-82 (military pistols, 12 round mag) was imported under the Obama regime, though?
Nope, not even close. The are are three BHP for every Glock in the world.....possibly four. Compound that with the fact that the majority of the Glocks manufactured are here in the USA, mostly in civilian hands. THe BHP has been used in conflicts all over the world for the last sixty years. It is a proven design.
People grossly overestimate the amount of Glocks in the world, mostly because of the marketing powerhouse that Glock is.
The Hi Power has been the most widely used 9mm handgun in the world for a long time, and will continue to be for the next couple decades.
I love the Hi Power, it is my favorite handgun. I own several. Having said that, I have to say I think the Brits made a good choice with the Glock. Tough, durable, and damn near grunt-proof it is an excellent selection for a long use handgun.
I seem to recall a long thread when the SAS was switching out the BHP for the Sigs were some Brits weighed in with opinions. I can't find it here so it must have been another forum.
If I remember correctly the biggest complaint they had against the BHP was it was worn out. They had been using these guns for a long time, and the older Hi Powers aren't as durable as modern guns. Even with minimal use 500 rounds a year over 40 years is about the entire service life of Pre- MKIII Hi Power.....beyond the service life if they weren't doing proper maintaince. (Which few militaries do)
The second compaint was the magazines were all worn out.
Now I believe there was some discussion back then about the Glocks but the lack of second strike capabiity and soft primer strikes took them from the running.
Going forward, no military that currently uses BHPs will ever sign a contract for more of them. FN really doesn't want to sell them, they certainly haven't tried to modernize the design and as a whole the world has moved to polymer. The price points alone favor Glock heavily.
In closing, I love the Hi Power. I have introduced many people to these fine guns and several of them converted to the BHP. Ergos, pointability, accuracy, and reliability.....these are fantastic guns. But if I were tasked with outfiting any sizable force with pistols in the modern world it would definately be a modern polymer striker fired pistol a la Glock/M&P. These guns bring a lot to the table for any organization that expects decades of use.
mgmorden
Member
As were the Polish MAG98's, surplus Israeli Hi-Powers, and we're still seeing surplus SIG 226's come in. We could get them imported from our end, but I Britain simply isn't going to sell.
I don't' know about parts wear but the idea the Glock has fewer parts is just not true. Glock has fed the lie for years that it only has 35 parts or so when 5-6 of those "parts" are actually parts assemblies of numerous parts making its actual part count 50+. In an honest count of the number of parts the HP is actually a simpler design.
I'm sure the fact it is a CHEAPER design with have much more impact than any fictitious notion of its parts count and logistics. The G17 is a good pistol and if it can do the same job for less money than why not change to it? It makes sense to me.
WVsig
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,063
Also you have to take into consideration that currently the BHP is a low production count gun. They do not make many of them anymore. Economy of scale is simply not working for them in terms of large military or LEO contracts. I would be willing to bet if FN bid on it they did not submit the BHP for consideration. It would have made much more sense to submit something like the FNX.
I love the BHP and am not a huge Glock fan but I do not understand all the vitriol over this choice. The sidearm is simply does not play a major role in combat anymore or am I missing something.
I love the BHP and am not a huge Glock fan but I do not understand all the vitriol over this choice. The sidearm is simply does not play a major role in combat anymore or am I missing something.
easyg
Member
The Brits chose wisely.
That's quite possibly true but the Glock, with its blocky slide and lack of a hammer with a 32 pound mainspring to overcome, is certainly more user friendly in manipulating the slide to quickly chamber a round than the Hi Power .
Don't misunderstand me. Recently when deciding between a Gen 4 Glock 17 and a Browning Hi Power 75th Anniversary, I chose the BHP. I can always buy a Glock, though there is some concern that it may not have three 17 round mags when I do
Last edited:
I have to ask, which gun has a 32lb mainspring?
easyg
Member
I'll bet both their military police and their SAS will have one in the chamber.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,297
Wolff Gunsprings currently list the Hi-Power as having a 17 lb. recoil spring and 32 lb. hammer spring from the factory. I think FN switched from a 26 lb. hammer spring to the current one around 1975. The standard recoil spring for a Glock 17 (not Gen.4), is 17 lbs. along with a 5.5 lb. striker spring.
I wonder if they'll melt them down just like the Canadian government did with their HPs! What is this world coming to?
New Browning Hi-Powers would run about $850 each in a quantity.
New Glock17s run about $400 each on a quantity buy.
Replacement barrel for a Browning would cost about $275 each.
New barrel for a Glock is about $125 each.
None of the replacement parts for a Browning are going to be any cheaper per part than Glock either.
Do the Math.
New Glock17s run about $400 each on a quantity buy.
Replacement barrel for a Browning would cost about $275 each.
New barrel for a Glock is about $125 each.
None of the replacement parts for a Browning are going to be any cheaper per part than Glock either.
Do the Math.
FN, which produces the HP, has dropped it from all their military and police catalogs. Browning still imports a trickle, but I doubt FN has the production capacity for any large order.
I think the Brits made a good choice and wish them well with their new pistol.
The BHP is a great pistol, but producing it today would cost two or three times what a Glock costs.
I think the Brits made a good choice and wish them well with their new pistol.
The BHP is a great pistol, but producing it today would cost two or three times what a Glock costs.
Seven High
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 755
My guess is that the British Government will not pay any more than $175.00 each for their new G17s.
They give the price in the article...it is a bit more than that
- Status
