I posted these elsewhere last year:
post 1:
The Hi Point .40 a friend brought to the range a couple of weeks ago had troubles, which I figured were due to the firing pin being gummed up and touching off primers before it was fully into battery. I had to drive the firing pin back with a brass punch to get it out, so I'm fairly sure my diagnosis was correct. Someone had lubricated it with something that turned into glue.
This was the first time I'd ever actually handled a Hi Point. It's a BIG gun; Desert Eagle size, not 1911 size. The grip is long and the mag hangs down past that. I'm sure some people manage concealed carry somehow, but like Mas Ayoob said, "past some point, you just say 'to hell with it' and carry a big gun in a paper bag."
The first thing you notice about the Hi Point is the slide, which is big and blocky. It's a straight-blowback .40, so it needs some mass to keep the breech shut until the bullet leaves. They're supposed to be Zamak castings, so I was surprised to see that the inside has machining marks. Either they made the patterns with dull tools (like AK-47 castings...) or they made some swift finishing passes during production.
The slide is 1-1/4 inches wide by 1-1/2 inches high by 8 inches long; that's roughly the size of an AK-47 receiver. The back of the (fixed) barrel is big and blocky, so the front is mostly a thin shell despite its width. And much of the height is from the long "skirts" on each side, that hang way down over the sides of the frame.
The slide *could* have been narrower; I spent a lot of time looking at the slide, barrel, and frame. I think the main issue is the skirts on the slide; if they were thinner they'd be fragile. And the skirts are important, as we'll see later...
The frame is a BIG piece of plastic, probably some kind of Nylon. It's fairly solid as such things go; there's enough plastic there to make two full size Glock frames. While it's not readily apparent, there are detachable grips on the sides, held with simple Phillips head wood screws into plastic. The grips hold the safety and trigger bar mechanism in place. Take them off, and bits fall out onto the bench. Oops.
To get the slide off the frame, you have to lock it back, then use a punch and a hammer to drive a roll pin out the side. That releases a "doll head" pin that rides in the firing pin track. You lift the back up, then pull the slide off the front. It takes some firm yanking; I think some plastic bits up front have to flex to let the slide pass.
There's a slide stop; a simple pivoted triangular piece that's shoved up against the slide notch when the mag is empty. There is no slide release; the only way to drop the slide is to remove or lower the mag and "slingshot" the slide so the stop is pulled down by a little tension spring.
There's an ordinary 1911-style mag release instead of a Euro-style heel release, which is good.
The mag is single stack. They could have moved the trigger bar up a bit and run a double stack mag. I was surprised they didn't, but double stacks weren't a big thing when the gun came out in 1992.
The recoil spring is smaller in diameter than a 1911 and not particularly hefty. Its only function is to return the slide to battery, I guess.
The FCG is a striker type. I haven't figured out exactly what is going on there... many of the naughty bits are pinned down in deep slots, and I haven't disassembled it that far yet.
The firing pin is a little nubbin at the end of a long spring. The firing pin channel is open all the way out the back, the spring butts against the "doll head" at the back of the gun, sort of like old Browning blowback designs. The tiny firing pin has something like a two inch travel, which is more than twice what a first-generation P17 had, and that was the longest I knew of before... I guess it needs it to get some energy for the little nubbin to set off the primer.
The firing pin also protrudes something like 3/16" out of the breechface. That'd ordinarily be an "oh, ==== no!", except the firing pin spring is very weak, the pin is light, and... the pin is also the ejector. That's right, there's no blade or plunger, just the firing pin.
The extractor is a big sheet metal stamping. I can't move it with my thumb or a screwdriver. I don't know if it's gunked up or if it's supposed to be like that.
The barrel is located maybe 5/16" further forward from the magwell than a 1911, Star, or Glock. The feed ramp is long and shallow, sliding smoothly into the chamber with no steps or joggles. The barrel is also very low in the frame; with no need to link down, they lowered it a lot. It's not obvious from the outside because of the skirts on the slide.
The barrel is a crazy-looking part, with long dangling mounting legs that are pinned to the frame. It's more or less square in back and round in front, and held in place with two pins. The front pin is maybe 3/32, the back much larger. I assume it butts up against solid plastic and the pins just keep it from falling out.
Now for the really interesting part: the slide is one piece, with a hole in the front. It goes over the barrel, like a Glock. But in back, it's held by the doll head in the firing pin channel, the doll head being secured by a roll pin driven through the plastic frame and a hole in the pin. The slide is not retained in any other way; there are no rails, tracks, or guides. And the fit between barrel and slide isn't very tight; the barrel is .662, the hole in the slide is .680. And there's .023" on each side between the slide skirts and the frame. We're not talking about precision fitting here...
The tremendous clearances are obviously intentional; the plastic frame, cast slide, and the FCG bits are all nicely finished. Maybe not like a Glock, but nicer than an S&W Sigma. Someone put some thoughtful design and engineering work into it; it's a cheap gun - supposedly they sold for $79.95 in 1992 - but it's not "the cheapest piece of ==== we can ship without being sued." I see a bunch of places they could cheapen the design and cut costs if that was their only purpose. I'm actually sort of impressed. This thing looks like something Mikhail Kalashnikov might have designed, had he been ordered to produce a pistol; no precision parts or critical dimensions anywhere.
I have plenty of .40 ammo on hand; I think I'll range-test it before I return it.
post 2:
I just (re)discovered a gun similar to the Hi Point. I present to you: the Smith & Wesson Sigma SW9M!
https://www.gunpartscorp.com/gun-manufacturer/smith-wesson/auto-pistols-sw/sw9m
It's the left-hand drawing. The right is the normal locked-breech Sigma.
I actually had a parts kit for one of those once, that the seller thought was a normal Sigma. He was kind enough to take it back after we both made the discovery there were two entirely different S&W Sigma pistol designs...
The SW9M is like a Hi Point, except smaller and lighter. *Much* smaller and lighter. The slide in particular. I found some reviews describing the Sigma's recoil signature as "painful" or "brisk." Net.lore suggests Smith discontinued it due to reliability problems.
The main differences between the Smith and Hi Point, other than size, are that the Smith has little Glock-ish sheet metal "rails" at the back of the plastic frame instead of the doll's head in the firing pin track, and the recoil spring is concentric with the barrel instead of underneath. [the spring isn't shown at all in the drawing, for some reason] The front of the slide wraps around and is guided by the barrel like a Hi Point.
Remember I said that I felt Hi Point could have cut a lot of corners to save money if that had been their primary goal? Smith & Wesson turned their bean-counters loose on the SW9M; it's the Saturday Night Special of plastic blowbacks...
addendum:
The procedure for disassembling the Smith requires driving a roll pin out with a hammer and a punch, just like a Hi Point...
