HiPower 9mm/.40 dual purpose?

[penguinsscareme]

Hi, I'm a longtime lurker here.
So, I have a late model 9mm Browning HiPower that I absolutely love. But, you know, the bug bites, and I just can't leave well enough alone. I picked up a .22 conversion kit at a show...and that got me to thinking. Now my favorite pistol can shoot both 9mm and .22, and that's awesome. So how great would it be if it could also shoot .40? Pretty great.
I've got this near obsession with creating a BHP that can shoot all three. I know there are some companies, Cylinder & Slide, maybe Novak, that can put a 9mm barrel in a .40 slide. I'd be more interested in having a whole barrel/slide assembly in .40 to put on my 9mm frame. Is this possible? Are there differences in the 9mm and .40 frames? If so, what are they? Would it be better to have a .40 frame and put a 9mm slide on it? I know the .40 slide is wider; are the rails dimensionally similar, or would there be some milling required? What about magazines? Do both .40 and 9mm fit the same magazine wells?

Most importantly of all: is this a colossally BAD IDEA?

Thanks for suffering the noob.

 

[rcmodel]

is this a colossally BAD IDEA?

I think so.

The real .40 S&W Browning has been beefed up in several areas, including three locking lugs on the barrel & slide instead of two, and I doubt a 9mm frame & slide would last too long.

rc

 

[raskolnikov_22]

You'll need a .40 Hi Power, then buy a 9mm drop in barrel from Bar-Sto designed to convert .40 HP here:
http://www.barsto.com/category_main.cfm?ID=BHP

 

[penguinsscareme]

You'll need a .40 Hi Power, then buy a 9mm drop in barrel from Bar-Sto designed to convert .40 HP here:
http://www.barsto.com/category_main.cfm?ID=BHP

Brilliant.
Anyone want to trade?

 

[rcmodel]

My buddy has a new .40 HP and it takes both of use to rack the slide!

I think the .40 version would have best been left a 9mm!

rc

 

[penguinsscareme]

Rrrilly. Perhaps I'd better find one I can try out a little before I buy.

 

[raskolnikov_22]

If I were you, I'd just get a .40 HP and have two.
I like having a safe full of complete firearms, not slides, barrels, and uppers.
Just my .02.

 

[jonnyc]

Late model HPs with cast frames are the same for both 9mm and .40. You would need the whole .40 top end, including the recoil spring and guide, and the wider slide stop. The mags are different, but they both fit the same frame.

 

[penguinsscareme]

If I were you, I'd just get a .40 HP and have two.
I like having a safe full of complete firearms, not slides, barrels, and uppers.
Just my .02.

I totally understand, but for some reason I'm drawn to modularity and multiple function like a bee to honey. I'm really intrigued by the Robarms XCR and the T/C Encore for the same reason. If they made a dvd player that could also be configured as an egg poacher, I'd probably be interested in that, too.

 

[chieftain]

is this a colossally BAD IDEA?

YES!

Go figure.

Fred

Stupid should hurt

 

[Jim Watson]

Murphy's Law says that any caliber convertible firearm will be found assembled in the caliber you did NOT want to shoot that day.

 

[rellascout]

The frame strength will not be the issue. All MKIII frames are beefed up. It is still not a good idea IMHO.

 

[penguinsscareme]

is this a colossally BAD IDEA?

YES!

Go figure.

Fred

Stupid should hurt

Do you think it's a bad idea from the get-go, or just a bad idea to put a 9mm barrel in a .40 slide, or a bad idea to put a .40 slide on a 9mm frame, or what? Really, I'm asking.

The frame strength will not be the issue. All MKIII frames are beefed up. It is still not a good idea IMHO.

What do you think will be the issue that makes it a bad idea?

 

[Rangegod]

I have a couple of comments on this idea.

1. As much as I like the .40 BHP, its weight and balance makes it feel like a completely different gun than the 9MM. So when converting a .40 to 9MM you lose the great feel and balance of the classic HP.

2 Buying a new .40 slide, barrel etc is a no go. The last time I checked a HP slide alone was over $700. So it would be cheaper just to buy a new gun.

3. Even if you have the parts, you would still have to change ejectors when switching between 9MM & .40. This is a lot more trouble then its worth.

JAC

 

[chieftain]

Do you think it's a bad idea from the get-go, or just a bad idea to put a 9mm barrel in a .40 slide, or a bad idea to put a .40 slide on a 9mm frame, or what? Really, I'm asking.

What do you think will be the issue that makes it a bad idea?

At best increased wear and tear.

At worst radical and immediate disassembly.

What do you plan to do with the 40 that can't be done with the 9mm, except the obvious, shoot 40 cal ammo? What is the gain.

I to have an XCR. I do like the multi caliber capability, but that weapon was built with exactly that capability in mind. All the gun manufacturers that do swap calibers, advise adding 9mm to the 40S&W or 357SIG, like my SIG 229, but do not advise adding 40 or 357 to the 9mm 229 or 228. Most gun makers I know that can switch calibers recommend the same way. 40 to 9 NOT 9 to 40.

Go figure.

Fred

Stupid should hurt

 

[lechiffre]

Would it be better to have a .40 frame and put a 9mm slide on it?

short answer,yes.


if your hi-power has the cast frame then you can put a .40 top end on it. (good luck finding one)

if your hi-power has the forged frame then you would be better off going with the .40 and converting down.

 

[penguinsscareme]

This idea is getting worse by the second.
Well, thanks for all the input just the same.

 

[Guitargod1985]

My buddy has a new .40 HP and it takes both of use to rack the slide!

Yes, the .40 HP has a pretty stout recoil spring. I find the best method to rack the slide is to pull back with the slide hand while simultaneously pushing forward with the frame hand rather than keeping it stationary. IT takes some getting used to, but you'll get used to it and she'll loosen up quite a bit with use

I remember when I first got a new .40 HP I couldn't believe how heavy the hammer and recoil springs were. After a few hundred rounds, things are much better now, and the slight creep is gone out of my trigger.

 

[420Stainless]

Most importantly of all: is this a colossally BAD IDEA?

I can't disagree with the concept. I bought a 9mm conversion barrel for my .40 S&W SIG 229. Works good and basically gave another option for only $230 (barrel and 9mm magazine). My only problem was timing - When I ordered the barrel late last year 9mm ammo was about 30-40% cheaper. When I received the barrel in March, they were both $20 a box if you could find any.

In my case I didn't want to buy a complete 9mm because I'm not all that interested in the caliber. I was just trying to get access to cheap practice ammo without spending a lot of time at the reloading setup. It works good with the SIG - it only takes about two minutes to do the barrel swap.

 

[TimboKhan]

I totally understand, but for some reason I'm drawn to modularity and multiple function like a bee to honey. I'm really intrigued by the Robarms XCR and the T/C Encore for the same reason. If they made a dvd player that could also be configured as an egg poacher, I'd probably be interested in that, too

Playing devils advocate, I would point out that the T/C encore is specifically meant to be modular. The BHP is not. I like multiple use when the object in question is meant to be a multiple use item. What you propose to do is make a multiple use item out of a platform that really isn't meant to handle what you want to do with it and is going to cost you more money than just buying a .40 BHP. Modularity is cool, but in this particular case, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

However, hope is on the horizon. If you really want a modular handgun that is actually meant to be modular, is priced somewhat reasonably and is built by a company with a great reputation, behold:

http://www.sigsauer.com/products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=54&productid=183

I hasten to add, I own no Sig products currently, nor do I plan on owning and Sig products. Everything I have ever seen leads me to believe that they are quality guns, but they just aren't my cup of tea.

 

[raskolnikov_22]

Quote:
My buddy has a new .40 HP and it takes both of use to rack the slide!

Yes, the .40 HP has a pretty stout recoil spring. I find the best method to rack the slide is to pull back with the slide hand while simultaneously pushing forward with the frame hand rather than keeping it stationary. IT takes some getting used to, but you'll get used to it and she'll loosen up quite a bit with use

I'd wager it has more to do with the 32# mainspring. Cock the hammer first.

 

[Guitargod1985]

Cock the hammer first.

Of course.

 

[Rembrandt]

I'm going to go against the grain of thought here and say it can be done. In fact I've done it and been very happy with the results.

The frames for 9 & 40 are the same, except for the ejector. Swapping a 40 slide and barrel for a 9mm slide and barrel can be done with some minor machining of the recess for the ejector (or change ejectors each time you swap). The other option is to go with a 40 slide and get a 9mm barrel with 3 lugs to match that slide & ejector.

My multi-caliber kit consists of one frame, 9mm barrel & slide, 40 barrel & slide, Ciener .22 barrel & slide, and a Peter Stahls 22 barrel & slide.



This photo shows the differences between the 9 (left) & 40 (right). Note the ejector slot where the pointer is, this can be modified on the 40 slide so the same ejector can be used for both calibers. I'd recommend contacting Cylinder & Slide or a BHP smith to do this.