Browning HP vs. HP "Practical"

[Eightball]

Anyone know the main differences between the two aforementioned models? Held an "original" high power, which seemed blocky in my hands, then got ahold of a "practical" model, which was sweet, light, and awesome (no money=no gun, though ). So, what are the main differences in these models? Is the grip smaller on the practical, or just the finish, or....? Please "edumacate" me, my learnin' ain't too great on HPs

 

[Josh Aston]

It's the grips. The factory wood grips are horrid to say the least.

 

[robertbank]

Same basic gun with different features made by FN in Belgium as are all Browning/FN Hi-Powers.

Difference between a Browning Hi-Power and a FN Hi-Power = Name on the slide both made by FN.

Take Care

Bob

 

[10-Ring]

I believe the only difference is finish & adjustable vs. fixed sights.

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. As was suggested by a previous poster, the "blocky" feeling was possibly from the checkered walnut grips on the "original" Hi Power you handled.

The Practical is based on the newer Mk III version of the Hi Power but the frame size is the same for the Mk III, Mk II, and the older "classic" Hi Powers.

It differs from current Hi Powers in the following ways:

Most Practicals (but not all) come with a factory ring hammer.

I believe they were offered with either fixed or adj sights. The ones I've shot had the fixed sights.

The frame is hard chromed on the Practical and the gun normally comes with Pachmayr grips where the Mk III comes with the blk checkered nylon and the Standard, the wooden checkered grips mentioned previously.

The front sight on the Practical is normally an unserrated ramp, though later runs did come with the semi-post front sight common to the other Mk III variants.

Essentially, the main difference is the hard chrome on the Practical's frame.

Best.

 

[280PLUS]

The ring hammer on the Practical seems to be more prone to hammer bite, especially if you got fat hands.

 

[jubo]

+1 to 280plus... hate to be a "+1 guy", but I have to chime in here.... there was NO escaping that evil bite from that round 'practical??' hammer. Don't know how practical it is to be bleeding all over the range. The 'feel' is wonderful with the rubber wraparound grips... people who hate wide guns seem to magically forget their prejudace when they grab hold.
To make a long story short (sorry) its hard to get parts here, near impossible to get gunsmithing done, so instead of replacing it with a hammer not mated to the pistol or with one that simply 'didn't match' (asthetically)
I just cut mine off! People cringe with someone says DREMMEL in a gun forum, but lemme top it: Nothing like taking a HACKSAW to a brand new gun! ha ha ha.... I'll try get a pic up with a comparison for you.
Okay okay, I'll step away from the smilies now!

 

[Eightball]

people who hate wide guns seem to magically forget their prejudace when they grab hold.

That is one of the main reasons I started the thread. It just seems to fit unnaturally well, much better than most other really "wide" grip guns.

 

[Wags]

Mr. Camp pretty much summed it up on the main differences between the Practical & MKIII. My only complaint (minor) is I never cared for the feel of the Pachmayr grips. To most users they are the perfect fit. Myself they seem bulky in my medium sized hands. A quick fix no matter for this fine pistol.

 

[jubo]

Well my apologies, I've got three batteries for my camera and all three are kaput. I'll get it done tomorrow.

 

[Marshall]

You're looking at great pistols!

The Practical is a nice gun. But all you have to do is throw some thinner wood grips on the BHP Standard and you'll have the feel of a lifetime! The BHP MKIII usually has black plastic grips, unless you are buying an FN version, it may have the wider wood panels like the Standard comes with.