strykefire, I have been buying and watching guns for decades. Guns are not good investments as a general rule. Quality guns, in fact, often make the WORST investments. Let's say I bought a quality Finnish Lahti back in 2000 for, say, $1,000. That's a quality, valuable piece. Today, it's worth somewhere around $1,500 to $1,700. That's between 3 and 4% return. How about a nice Springfield M1A. I bought on in 2003 for $1,300. The same one sells, used, for around $1,600 today. That's 2% return. Take an M1 Carbine that in 1998 was worth $400 before the Saving Private Ryan and Call of Duty price increase of $900 today. Big jump, right? Nope, that's just 5%. Check out that Hi Power that cost $450 back in my 1995 Guns Annual that costs $800 today. That was an outstanding 3.25% Take out inflation and you grew a whopping .5%. That cheap Finnish 1927 Mosin-Nagant stepped barrel that I paid $50 for brought me $450 ten years later. Now that was 24% return. But, the cheap Norinco SKS I got in 1998 for $99 that I sold for $250 last year earned me 6%. Firearms are not good investments. They are good hedges against inflation.
As far as history with a High Power? What history, pray tell, is there in an FN Hi Power made, say, in 2010? 1995? 1980?
NIB, there is nothing about an FN Hi Power that makes it worth (or even cost in manufacturing) $300 more. OR can you tell me how one cast-frame, fixed barrel-bushing, single-action medium-capacity pistol can be worth $300 more than another cast-frame, fixed-barrel-bushing double action high-capacity pistol? FN had more history than CZ? Really? Read your history and come back. Belgians better than the Czechs? Really? When FN started operation, Belgium was lumped with Spain when it came to cheap arms. Shotguns, revolvers, and autos from either nation were poorly-regarded in the world. Belgian copy and Spanish copy were dirty words. Like FN and Astra, both countries could make quality products, but history if anything shows the opposite from both nations.