Is Browning's Hi-power an improvement over his 1911 design?

[Tirod]

The BHP is the improved pistol. And it's service world wide became the minimum standard for battle pistols. Armies which issue pistols share the same design features - double action, double stack. No getting around that.

The 1911 is a good design and still works for personal protection but it's no longer a combat field pistol for general issue. Single action single stacks are a rare item in weapons inventories and usually only issued to specially trained units who practice weekly - not shoot once or twice a year for familiarization.

There are those who downplay the influence Browning had on the BHP's final form, but the important part to remember is that he did take up the project and was part of it. It's not named the SAIDE Hi Power. It is very much a reflection on how the combat pistol was changing and in which direction, to meet the demands of professionals in the field. And at a time when the Cavalry was no longer a factor in use - first line armies were increasingly mechanized, which is the direction we are still following.

The BHP saw the trends and fixed the shortcomings of the 1911. There's no point in arguing that one is better than another, the simple fact is one is still in service and the other is a for special operators who must keep their skills honed with constant practice. The elephant in the room being ignored is that a lot of those same high risk soldiers practice with Glocks even more.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

There are those who downplay the influence Browning had on the BHP's final form, but the important part to remember is that he did take up the project and was part of it. It's not named the SAIDE Hi Power.

That's because SAIVE was a relative unknown gun designer, while the Browning name was MAGIC in the gun industry. Any business would have done the same thing FN did: use the name associated with the design that was most widely recognized and highly regarded!

The original patent documents show that the gun JMB designed was much different than the final BHP. We also know that the original design, even after much adjustment, wasn't accepted by the French military that had commissioned the work. (The Wikipedia article says that JMB felt that the double-stack magazine wasn't necessary -- but the French wanted it, and Saive's mag design was used.)

There's no question that other JMB-designed features were included in the final BHP design, but some of that came after his death when some older JMB-design features protected by Colt patents had expired. The BHP design includes a lot of JMB concepts, but not because HE put them there. The French didn't want the final design, and Colt (who owned the patents) decided to focus on the 1911, and sold the rights to FN.

Whether the Hi-Power was a pure JMB design, or a mix of design features including some of his better concepts and others from Saive is something only the most astute of gun-savvy historians will be able to answer. But it's pretty clear that Saive was no slouch.

 

[Comrade Mike]

As a service pistol, the Hi Power is an all around better animal. Simpler, fewer parts, easier take down, higher capacity, and more reliable. Military guns don't need match grade triggers.

As a target pistol or a platform for customization it's the 1911 on the trigger set up alone. The 1911 is a symbol of a bygone era but it's become such an American icon that they remain prolific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sergei Mosin]

The BHP is the improved pistol. And it's service world wide became the minimum standard for battle pistols. Armies which issue pistols share the same design features - double action, double stack. No getting around that.

Err...the Hi Power is a single-action pistol.

 

[HexHead]

I find that the BHP with the right grips is one of the slimmest double stack 9mms on the market. I personally can't think of a better double stack for people with smaller hands.

HK P30 with all the small grip panels. My wife started with a HiPower and really liked it, but says her P30 feels like it was made for her.

 

[jeepnik]

Using the example of what armies issue to their troops as an example of the firearms acceptability is a poor analogy.

Think of the M16 in it's original form. Pretty much sucked, I wouldn't trust one with 50 years of "improvements" much less an original.

For a time I switched from a 1911 to a very nice Hi Power. I was young and enamored with the capacity of the Hi Power. When I got older, maybe five or six weeks, I came to realize that if you have to use FMJ amo (all you could find in either caliber) you might as well start with as big a hole as possible.

 

[HexHead]

Whether the Hi-Power was a pure JMB design, or a mix of design features including some of his better concepts and others from Saive is something only the most astute of gun-savvy historians will be able to answer. But it's pretty clear that Saive was no slouch.

Considering he later designed the "Right Arm of the Free World", the FN FAL, no, Saive was no slouch in gun design!

 

[HexHead]

Think of the M16 in it's original form. Pretty much sucked, I wouldn't trust one with 50 years of "improvements" much less an original.

How so?

 

[WVsig]

There are those who downplay the influence Browning had on the BHP's final form, but the important part to remember is that he did take up the project and was part of it. It's not named the SAIDE Hi Power. It is very much a reflection on how the combat pistol was changing and in which direction, to meet the demands of professionals in the field. And at a time when the Cavalry was no longer a factor in use - first line armies were increasingly mechanized, which is the direction we are still following.

The BHP saw the trends and fixed the shortcomings of the 1911. There's no point in arguing that one is better than another, the simple fact is one is still in service and the other is a for special operators who must keep their skills honed with constant practice. The elephant in the room being ignored is that a lot of those same high risk soldiers practice with Glocks even more.

No one is denying that JMB played a role but he was contractually obligated to FN Herstal. FN took on the task of designing a gun for the French contract. It was not like JMB woke up one day and said I am going to make a better combat handgun today. If one were to accept your concep of the BHP as an answer to "seeing" the trends in combat handguns it would be the French not JMB or Saive who should get the credit because it was their concept and their contract.

Did Browning take out patents in Belgium? If he did, the GP was not possible until they expired.
D. Saive put several design features of the 1911 into the GP. I can think of the barrel bushing, disassembly keystoned by the slide stop, and the side of frame thumb safety.
FN already had the cam locking and the awkward walking beam sear connection, along with the double column magazine.

Per Brownings contract with FN and Colt Browning filed patents and FN and Colt maintain and protected those patents. Each one also protected the others interest within their sales area. FN had use of JMBs patent from day one.

As to the 1911 Colt had control of that patent and FN would have had to get permission and pay Colt to use it which they did not do. Had the pistol been adopted early by the French it would look very different but the French dragged their feet and the 1911patents expired and Saive incorporated some aspects of the 1911 into the BHP.

That's because SAIVE was a relative unknown gun designer, while the Browning name was MAGIC in the gun industry. Any business would have done the same thing FN did: use the name associated with the design that was most widely recognized and highly regarded!

Saive was the lead designer at FN Herstal. He was well known at the time but no one was as famous, as a gun designer, as JMB. As others have pointed out he designed the FN FAL which is one of the most widely adopted modern combat rifles ever. It was NATOs gun during the cold war. Alsp do not treat the Wiki article as gospel. It has multiple errors in it. People who study the history of the BHP often point out the errors and recognize them even when the Wiki article is not referenced. In a recent NRA piece on the BHP many of the same mistakes were repeated. Sometimes fictions is repeated enough times become facts.

 

[lsudave]

Quote:
The BHP is the improved pistol. And it's service world wide became the minimum standard for battle pistols. Armies which issue pistols share the same design features - double action, double stack. No getting around that.

Err...the Hi Power is a single-action pistol.

Yeah, I caught that. In addition, the Communist countries (which were certainly among the largest in the world) went from the Tokarev (single stack, SA, and a contemporary to the HP) to a single stack, DA/SA pistol, the Makarov, that bears no resemblance at all to the HP. Of that group, ONLY the Czechs went with a double-stack, the CZ 82, and the mag design was the only feature you might say was inspired by the BHP.

Even the West, which went with the Beretta, took more features from the Walther P38 than the HP. That doublestack mag is basically the only feature the 2 guns have in common.

 

[Tallball]

"A pistol that combined the Hi Power lockup and magazine with the 1911 trigger system might find a lot of fans."

My Star Super B doesn't have the double-stack magazine, but it locks up like the BHP and the trigger feels like a 1911. (Someone else will doubtless know how similar the two trigger mechanisms are.) No wonder I like it so much!

 

[Jim Watson]

The Star trigger and lockwork don't owe anything to 1911. There may be some similarity to other Browning designs if you squint a bit.

Don't forget that Mssr Saive had already designed the SAFN '49 before the FAL. Lots of carryover features and one wag said they both rather resemble a BAR turned upside down.

 

[Jim K]

One odd feature of the BHP is the sear system. It made sense as designed by Browning, because it was coupled with his striker-fired mechanism (see patent drawing). But Saive carried it over to his design, which uses a hammer. It is often believed necessary because the size of the magazine makes a stirrup-type trigger bar impossible, but that is not the case and many later pistols use the trigger bar system with a large magazine.

The problem is that it is a weak and complex design, probably the worst area of the BHP for trouble. Things were not improved when it was combined with the magazine safety, a clever but complex and sensitive design.

Jim

 

[Jim K]

One thing that has to be said is that JMB was no fool. In his dealings with gun companies, part of the contract for using his design was that the company would file patent applications, make up engineering drawings, patent drawings, and all the rest of the "dog work" of getting a big project started. One case where it paid off big for JMB was when Winchester turned down his autoloading shotgun; he took the gun first to Remington, then to FN, where it was first produced. But Winchester was hamstrung by the meticulous patent applications written by its own patent attorneys, but which JMB owned.

Jim

 

[Comrade Mike]

One odd feature of the BHP is the sear system. It made sense as designed by Browning, because it was coupled with his striker-fired mechanism (see patent drawing). But Saive carried it over to his design, which uses a hammer. It is often believed necessary because the size of the magazine makes a stirrup-type trigger bar impossible, but that is not the case and many later pistols use the trigger bar system with a large magazine.



The problem is that it is a weak and complex design, probably the worst area of the BHP for trouble. Things were not improved when it was combined with the magazine safety, a clever but complex and sensitive design.



Jim

Sensitive in what respect? Hi Powers are extremely well known for their reliability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jeepnik]

How so?

When a device, regardless of type, does it's level best to get you killed you tend to not trust them again.

In my case the base of the cartridge ripped off leaving the remainder in the chamber. There were no broken shell extractors available at that time, so it was a job for an armorer.

I "found" an M14 and never looked back. My go to semi auto rifle is a Springfield Scout/Squad.

 

[rodinal220]

No,it is an excellent pistol and I like mine a lot.But it is not an improvement on the 1911.They are two different designs based on what was asked of JMB, and he never even saw a BHP because he died in 1926,he worked on a pistol for the French Military. Dieudonné Saive of FN finished what JMB had started.

Here is some primer from 1911Tuner who sums it up better than I.

http://rangehot.com/obsolete-1911/

 

[Jim K]

I will repeat that the BHP trigger/sear system is not as good as it should have been or could have been with a stirrup type trigger bar.

Comrade Mike points out (correctly) that the current BHP system works (usually) OK. But it is still a poor system. Relatively small amounts of wear or dirt can cause problems.

In most pistols, even high capacity ones, the user pulls the trigger, which pushes or pulls the sear bar to move the sear. There are always a few places where parts contact is subject to problems with wear or dirt, but the better designs minimize those points.

But in the BHP, the user pulls the trigger, which pivots the rear of the trigger back and up, moving the trigger lever up to contact the sear lever. The trigger lever must also be kept backward at the same time, which depends on the proper position of the trigger spring and (if equipped) the magazine safety. The trigger lever then contacts the end of the sear lever, to push up its front end. Now the sear lever is not in the same base part as the trigger, being in the slide. That means that some of the force acting on the trigger lever is expended in moving or trying to move the heavy slide. Once the front of the sear lever is pushed up, the rear pivots down, which pushes down on the sear (which is in the frame), releasing the hammer. In moving the pressure from the frame to the slide then back to the frame, all kinds of pressure will be wasted by being exerted on the wrong parts of the mechanism. The whole thing make achieving a good trigger pull difficult to say the least. More important, there are several points where wear or incorrect fitting can interrupt the transfer of pressure. The trigger lever pivot is a delicate and closely fitted part in the trigger; its dual use as part of the magazine safety system makes things worse. The sear lever interface with the trigger lever is delicate.

I could go on, but to no point. The answer is always, "it works." Sort of true, most of the time. The same could be said about most of Mr. Goldberg's devices, but if I ran a firearms factory I would not hire him as my chief designer.

Jim

 

[tipoc]

Looking at it overly simplified, the 1911 was standard issue during 2 major military eras. Many men came home from the war remembering it as the nazi dropper or the jap stopper. Same can't be said of the BHP.

It's true that the same can't be said of the BHP. The BHP saw wider service from 1935 till today than the 1911 has. It's service life began during the Second World War. When the Nazi's occupied Belgium they took over the FN plant and produced the BHP from there. Saive escaped to England with the design and it was produced in Canada as the Inglis for the Commonwealth from there where it got around the world.

It was adopted by the British as their service sidearm after the war (though used during it as well). It remained their sidearm till about two years ago when phased out in favor of the Glock. That alone is a testimony to the reliability and durability of the gun. Though there is more of course. R. Blake Stevens in his work on the Hi-Power notes that over 100 nations adopted the BHP as their service sidearm, this was as of 1984. The number stayed fairly stable till recent years.

The pistol has seen service in every major and most minor military conflicts of the last 81 years or so.

That also ought to answer any hesitations about the durability of the trigger mechanism...

I could go on, but to no point. The answer is always, "it works." Sort of true, most of the time.

The trigger mechanism works remarkably well. Far from being a "most of the time" reliable gun it is remarkable, and well known, for it's reliability. It has worked well enough and often enough to possibly be the most widely used military sidearm of the last 80 years. Which is not to say that the trigger assembly on other guns is not simpler. Many other designs are simpler in that regard. But it's weaknesses have never effected it's actual performance in any way widely noted.

tipoc

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

What Lallball said. I think the BHP is a more elegant firearm, though, and am carrying it now in-place of one of my 1911s.

 

[PRM]

I have owned 4 1911s over the last 35+ years. And, it is a design that I seem to eventually keep going back too. The gun has a history and there is just so much you can customize on one. Plus - they work. My last one was a Remington R1 and I will say out of the box it had most of the upgrades usually done as standard options. When my son got out of the Marines and moved back home I gave this gun to him.

Currently I have one of the FN (Israeli trade-in) High Powers. I've got to admit, I'm sold on the HP. For me it has a natural point of aim, has functioned flawlessly, and I really like the 9MM round. Extra rounds are always good in magazine capacity.

As far as the HP being an improvement? I would say NO, they are two different designs with a common lineage. Both are equally reliable and are historically proven performers.

 

[czhen]

Nice topic and very well explained.
I'm sure if JMB would live 10 more years he would develop another .45 (1911) with the features of a HBP eg.: double column mag and so on.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I'm sure if JMB would live 10 more years he would develop another .45 (1911) with the features of a HBP eg.: double column mag and so on.

Maybe. Maybe not. And then only if FN or Colt wanted it built!

If nobody had hired JMB to build a double-stack .45, he probably would not have bothered. Even though Tanfoglio offered a double-stack .45 in the late 1980s' in Europe and the nearly 1990's in the US, most gun-makers seemed to ignore that feature for an additional 10-15 years...

JMB's original design for what was to become the BHP had a single-stack 8-round (9mm) mag. If JMB thought 8-rounds of 9mm was enough, I suspect he would have considered 7 rounds of .45 more than enough for a newer .45 design!) Saive designed the double-stack mag for the BHP that met the French requirement for more capacity.

Many of JMB's best designs were protected by patents owned by Colt and other gun-makers (like FN), and those legal protections were still in effect years AFTER his death.

 

[SSN Vet]

I have both and love both... that said..

advantages of the BHP:
1. High cap mags (up to 17 rounds with a bump pad).
2. smaller and lighter
3. it does field strip easier, but since when is a 1911 hard to field strip.
4. ergonomics.... points intuitively and with slim grips, it fits my hand very nicely.

disadvantages of the BHP:
1. the mag disconnect makes for a horrendous, gritty trigger pull.
2. stock hammer spring makes the trigger pull very heavy.
3. not as easy to do a trigger job on.... rarely see them worked to <5#

advantages of the 1911:
1. a more potent cartridge
2. easier to detail strip
3. a lot of different configurations and calibers
4. ergonomics... points intuitively (though slightly less so than the BHP) and fits my hand nicely.
5. awesome trigger pull out of the box
6. awesome trigger that is easy to do a trigger job on.
7. awesome trigger pull that can be dialed down safely and reliably to <2#

disadvantages of the 1911.
1. limited to 8 +1 rounds.

I look at each pistol in the context of it's historical development. The 1911 was the vanguard of the powerful mag fed, auto-loading pistols. The BHP was the vanguard of the Hi-cap double stack mag.

If I could only have one, it would be the 1911

If a clean, light and crisp trigger pull is likened to crack cocaine, the 1911 is highly addictive.

 

[Old Guy]

Seeing this Gentleman's name brings back a big Fail in the High Court in Toronto. (R. Blake Stevens) who also wrote a book on the FN.

I was spending some time wondering about the Court (I was waiting to go on re an Export Witness gig Me)

A Biker was in the mire, to do with a Metric FN. The Witness for Johnnie Sombrero, was being harassed by the Crown. And constantly consulted this huge thick book, little tabs sticking out all over.

Finally the Witness said "Who wrote that book you keep referencing?"

With a humf, the Crown said R. Blake Stevens.

"I am that Blake Stevens!" Said the Witness, the Court broke up. Case was eventually dismissed.
The SAS got good service out of their Hi Powers, but the Mil Spec magazines sucked. I taught a Black Badge Course to some MPs in Ontario Canada.

The Quartermaster said he would re configure the lips, they had been done so before, old, crap. I borrowed a hammer and flattened them all!

That the QM was going to have a Heart Attack. But as they had convinced him I was an ex SAS Capt.? So I could stay in the Officers digs, he said nothing, and new Mags were issued.

But then the pistols performed flawlessly.