Is the Browning Hi-Power still relevant?

[McCall911]

The use of MIM internals, stamped metal, polymer, etc. does not make a gun more or less relevant to shooters. The Mauser 98 action would have passed from this earth long ago if it did. The 1911 by the same criteria is not relevant. It is the usefulness of a gun to shooters that makes it relevant or not. It becomes irrelevant when shooters no longer buy them or when they pass into the realm of a few collectors, like the Frommer Stop.

+1

The argument that modern machining and production methods result in a less expensive product and can also produce a product that is more durable and can do it's job as well, if not better, is a good general point. It is the argument of a bookkeeper, engineer, or a CFO. We are speaking of sidearms here.

I was going to suggest that this was the argument of a bean-counter, but you said it better, sir.

Sure, Browning Hi-Powers are expensive. And simple economics suggests that Browning Hi-Powers are expensive because of....?????


Anybody?


They're expensive because of demand!

 

[1911Tuner]

I have to correct you here. The 1911 was never considered to be the cavalry troopers primary weapon,

Not when they were mounted, Billy. Read your history a little further. The rifles were to be used when dismount was necessary...when enemy fire prevented the horsemen from getting in close, but the cavalryman's mission was on horseback...just like every prior conflict in which cavalry was on line. "Charge!" Like that...

Then allow me to inquire- what would be in your opinion, an exceptionally strong pistol?

Something more massive, to absorb the pounding of recoil, with a stronger method of breech lock than the Hi-Power or the 1911.
The 1911's weak point is its small radial lugs. The Hi-Power shares the same drawback. The 1911's main advantage lies in the fact that it fires a low intensity cartridge and in the fact that it can be quickly and easily rebuilt...in the field if need be, without the aid of a fully-equipped unit armorer. That was what led to the revamping of the specs in the WW2-era pistols. They were manufactured using a standardized gauge system, with all parts select-fitted on the principle of "GO" and "NO-GO" gauges...and the concept of the drop-in part was born. The earlier ones were field armorer friendly...but not to the extent that the later ones were.

 

[atblis]

Yes but

Sure, Browning Hi-Powers are expensive. And simple economics suggests that Browning Hi-Powers are expensive because of....?????

Anybody?

They're expensive because of demand!

You forgot, "and lack of supply". No major contracts, so... guess what? There's your high prices. Plus the darn things just cost more to make. I wouldn't say there's demand, more like lack of supply.

The Hipower is dying slowly but surely. All the kids want Glocks/HKs/Sigs etc.

 

[wristtwister]

Browning owns history

As an old pistol officionado, Browning has owned "pistol history" for a long time. It's only recently when the Sig cult and Glock cults took shape that anybody ever even questioned the usefulness or historical relevance of Browning's design.

"Futureweapons" had a piece on an electronic gun that's been invented that will make all pistols obsolete, so let's ask the question a different way... How relevant are the "replacement pistols" for the Hi Power? It appears that some were replaced by Glocks, some by Sigs, and some by CZ's... but the majority of the pistols "replaced" were Browning Hi-Powers... which tells the tale.

I like my modern guns, and I like my older guns... some shoot better than others, but the Browning Hi-Power rules the roost of history. There are still millions of them out in service, and not replaced by the plastic sissie pistols that everybody rants over. Technology is a wonderful thing, but where it fails is in mechanical advantage. The Hi-Power is a terrific design, and both its original design and clones shoot well under duress... which is the measure of a pistol. It's well designed and it functions at nearly 100 percent all the time.

All autoloaders are quirky, but the most consistent piece that I've seen over 45 years of shooting has been the Browning/FN Hi-Power. I'd carry it in a minute to the biggest gunfight going.

WT

 

[1911Tuner]

As an old pistol officionado, Browning has owned "pistol history" for a long time. It's only recently when the Sig cult and Glock cults took shape that anybody ever even questioned the usefulness or historical relevance of Browning's design.

If you'll take a close look at the two you named, you'll find that they're pretty much the same as Browning's pistols under the skin. Tilt-barrel...Locked-breech...Short recoil operated. Basically, the only real change is in the fire controls and the grip angles.

All autoloaders are quirky,

Another misconception that may apply to bad designs or good designs that are poorly executed...but not to good ones that are well done.

I'd carry it in a minute to the biggest gunfight going.

I'd prefer to carry a rifle, thanks.

 

[Pilot]

The Hi-Power is a fine pistol, but it's not an exceptionally strong pistol.

Tuner,

In your opinion, is the above still true with the MK III Hi Power which was strengthened for the .40 S&W round?

 

[1911Tuner]

In your opinion, is the above still true with the MK III Hi Power which was strengthened for the .40 S&W round?

Dunno. Probably. Recoil impulse is what breaks slides. The slide for the .40 was beefed up to handle the higher forces imposed by the .40 cartridge...so it likely averaged out to about the same.

 

[kwelz]

I personally find them ugly and to have the WORST ergonomics of any firearm I have ever handled. I know they have a cult like status but I just don't understand why.

 

[cronen]

Hmm, I hope they are still relevant. I am (hopefully) buying one today. Well, a clone actually.....and this will actually be my first handgun! I'm very excited to be getting a hi power.

 

[Billy Shears]

Not when they were mounted, Billy. Read your history a little further. The rifles were to be used when dismount was necessary...when enemy fire prevented the horsemen from getting in close, but the cavalryman's mission was on horseback...just like every prior conflict in which cavalry was on line. "Charge!" Like that...

I'm quite familiar with my history thanks. That kind of charge was almost completely a thing of the past by the time the 1911 was issued. Thanks to machine guns cavalry charges were suicidal by then, just as infantry frontal assaults were. Cavalry was pretty much limited to scouting or to acting as dragoons, that is to say riding to the battle and dismounting to fight. The British, following their experience in the Boer war, where Boers who fought like dragoons proved superior to cavalry, withdrew the lance for all but ceremonial purposes, and emphasized dismounted fighting in the training. Other armies, like that of Imperial Russia, followed this same trend at around the same time. Then they did revert to old-style cavalry on the eve of WWI, but combat experience proved what hide-bound, conservative officers hadn't wanted to admit: the old days really were over, and there was essentially no place for old-style cavalry tactics on the modern battlefield. Apart from a few scattered and small scale actions early in 1914, cavalry had virtually no role to play.

Consequently, with a few exceptions, when cavalry troops did see action, they tended to see action in the role of mounted infantry, and to rely on their rifles far more than their pistols.

 

[paul45]

Yet, today, it's typically looked upon as the proverbial red-headed stepchild.

I am late on this, but must add my 2 cents......

You must not get out much.

 

[1911Tuner]

Lemme try again...and let me add that both my grandfathers were there...WW1 vets...and saw how it went down. Remember, too that the call for the 1911 pistol predated WW1 by a good many years, when the cavalry charge was still very much in vogue.

Study the deployment of mounted cavalry in armed conflict...starting with the Middle Ages. Armored cavalry. Heavy horse. Its mission was to ride the opposing infantry down, get in close, and create a break in the infantry line. They were shock troops.

Enter ..."Light Cavalry" and "modern" warfare.

They were sorta like the paratroops of their era, and it remained so until mechanized warfare forced it into obsolensce. Speed was its advantage. That's why large soldiers didn't make the cut for the cavalry. The horse's load had to be kept as low as possible in order to maintain the edge of speed and surprise.

The other strength of light cavalry was its maneuverability. The goal was to flank and ride in amongst the opposing infantry line before they could be moved in time to mount an effective defense. They disrupted and damaged what they could...as quickly as they could...shot everybody they could...and got out with as few casualties as possible. "He who fights and runs away" etc. Hard to accomplish that mission on horseback with a bolt-action rifle.

As we all know, the machinegun largely nullified the massed and/or small unit "Lightning Strike" cavalry charge in WW1, even though it took'em a while and a few thousand dead bodies to come to grips with that, as well as the "Over the Top" tactics. The MGs were even better than cannister and grapeshot was in the War of Northern Aggression from 1861-1865...but the concept was for the pistol to be the cavalryman's primary weapon...at least until they discovered how effective the machineguns were in forcing them to the ground before they got within striking distance. Thus the '03 Springfield and the 1917 Enfield were secondary weapons that allowed the halted, dismounted and possibly pinned-down cavarlyman to remain in the fight, albeit with reduced effectiveness...or to take up a defensive position should the enemy send an infantry unit to kill them.

The enemy's goal when faced with light cavalry was...of course...to make them get off their horses, turn them into static infantry, and bring machinegun fire on them...plunging or grazing... depending on how close the cavalry was able to get before having to dismount and turn to their rifles.

Back on topic!

 

[Billy Shears]

Sure, Browning Hi-Powers are expensive. And simple economics suggests that Browning Hi-Powers are expensive because of....?????


Anybody?


They're expensive because of demand!

Demand alone doesn't cover it. Supply has a role in that as well. Look at really expensive guns like the SIG P210 or the Korriphila HSP701. I own neither one, and likely never will at the prices they charge for them. I don't personally know anyone else who owns or plans to own one either. Demand for these guns does not appear to be high. On the other hand, demand for the Glock is high, and it sells for around $500, which is pretty cheap for a quality autoloader these days.

It's the method of manufacture that allows this. Glocks are cheaper to make, and the high demand has brought their price down, not up, because that demand has made it profitable to produce them huge numbers, and the economy of scale comes into play. The more you produce of something, generally speaking, the less you can charge per unit.

 

[Tribal]

Hi Powers are still relevant because they occupy a niche in the market and have not yet been superseded in that niche. It's hard to define, but it's for a "classy" old-style autoloader which is still as good as its more modern competitors (although its thinness is a pretty good argument as well). Like the 1911, it has a history to it which Glock and Sig and all can't really match. As long as there are shooters who want a history-packed weapon that is still useful for defense, hunting, and target shooting, the Hi Power will remain relevant.

 

[coyotehitman]

You forgot, "and lack of supply". No major contracts, so... guess what? There's your high prices. Plus the darn things just cost more to make. I wouldn't say there's demand, more like lack of supply.

+1

 

[John C]

I do think the Hi-Power is irrelevant. Let me explain.

The Hi-Power is an excellent design, and I know why people love them. But the key design features were evolutionary dead-ends. (The one exception being the replacement of the Browning link with a machined extension. What do you call that?) The single action design, and the barrel with machined top lugs are no longer in use. Other designs are now in the forefront of design.

It's kind of like the '57 Chevy. A great car, the pinnacle of technology and style of it's day. Everyone loves them, and would buy one tomorrow if they could. Current owners use them as daily drivers (CCW), and would happily smoke anyone off the line who would challenge them at a red light (bring it to a fight).

Is the '57 Chevy irrelevant? Yes. Design and use have surpassed it. They, and Hi-Power, are great, and still get you where you need to go, in style. But the advance of technology, for better or worse, have passed them both by.

-John

 

[ccmdfd]

Just so I'm on the same page:

Are we saying that only the early model BHP's are not as durable as more modern semi-auto's, and that the current MKIII's are as durable?

Thanks

 

[tipoc]

Yes the MkIIIs are more durable. The frames are cast and are thicker than the older frames. This has altered the feel of the gun in the hand and it's weight a small bit.

A little more info can be found here. http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/
tipoc

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello,

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Hi Power Longevity.htm


Best.

 

[McCall911]

You forgot, "and lack of supply". No major contracts, so... guess what? There's your high prices. Plus the darn things just cost more to make. I wouldn't say there's demand, more like lack of supply.

Hey, has anyone had trouble locating a Hi-Power in gunbroker, gunsamerica, auctionarms, etc? Maybe I've labored under a huge misconception.

 

[tipoc]

There seems to be confusion about the word relevant.

For self defense and general range work-The gun is used by millions around the world and thus by definition still relevant. It still meets the needs of it's users, it continues to do it's job and does it as well, and for many users better, than it's competitors.

As a military sidearm- It is being phased out. While still widely used within a decade or two it will likely be gone from this role and thus no longer relevant to the military. But that has not happened yet so it is still relevant as a military sidearm. It is in use and does it's job and by definition-relevant. The list of sidearms that have seen unbroken military service worldwide for over 70 years is slim.

Engineering-Improvements have been made on pistol design since 1935. The Petter lockup is more durable than the locking lugs of Brownings design. Both Petter and the designers of the Radom Vis had figured out the weakness of the 1911s link back in the 1930's. The frame and slide of many designs are stronger now. Yet old as it is the basics of the design are still widely in use and production. So while other, stronger, less expensive designs exist production figures, sales and profit margins tells use that the BHP is still relevant. That is it is still in use widely and meeting needs.

The existence of vacuum cleaners does not make the broom irrelevant. Only a first year economics student would argue that it does. Or maybe a professor of economics.

The single action design, and the barrel with machined top lugs are no longer in use.

The sa trigger makes it irrelevant. If so than add the 1911 to the list of irrelevant guns. The number of pistol manufacturers which offer single action guns is growing, someone should send them a note on this bit of irrelevancy.

I personally find them ugly and to have the WORST ergonomics of any firearm I have ever handled.

That a gun does not feel "right" in a fellas hand does not make it a bad design or irrelevant. Such a thing is subjective. What is not subjective is that the ergonomics of the Hi-Power set an engineering standard. That grip angle and shape have been widely copied, adapted and built on.

Folks may want to rethink what they mean by relevancy.

By the way, the basic discussions for the 1911 began about 1905 within the military. 1911 Tuner is correct on this bit of history. The basic features of the 1911 were designed to meet the needs of mounted soldiers.

tipoc

 

[John C]

Tipoc;

You quoted me to the tune that the SA trigger is (one of the) reason(s) that the HP is irrelevant. You state that someone should tell the 1911 manufacturers. I would agree.

The SA handgun is at an evolutionary dead-end. Although these remain specialty pistols, largely for American consumers as range pistols, and to dedicated pistoleros, manufacturers are not pursuing this as the future of large-scale pistol designs. While it's true that some large manufacturers have modified their SA/DA designs to be SAO, this is done to service niche target shooting markets in the US. I can think of the Sig 220 SAO and the S&W 952 and 945. These are not new designs and by no means defence or duty pistols.

I am a die-hard bullseye shooter, and I shoot SAO or SA striker fired pistols exclusively when punching paper. I have an example of what I believe to be the only new SAO .45 design in the last 30 years, the Pardini GT-45. Pardini is hardly a major manufacturer and the pistol is not a duty or defensive pistol. It is, by design, a range toy. An excellent range toy, but a toy nonetheless.

-John

 

[Tribal]

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but the DA/SA trigger seems to me to be more of a "difference" than an "improvement" on the SA trigger. Unless you don't trust yourself to carry in Condition One, what use is the DA portion? It took me all of about five minutes to incorporate "flip the safety off" into my draw (besides, if you're going to carry in Condition Two on a DA/SA pistol, you probably keep the safety on anyway).

The advantages I can see of SA are that it makes it easier to have a good trigger and that it keeps the ignorant (such as a criminal who may grab a cop's gun) from knowing how to use it.

In short, I don't see how the BHP's SA trigger is something that can be declared as anything other than a matter of preference.

What am I missing?

 

[dogtown tom]

Well, I did my part to help the economy (or at least contribute to the "relevance" of the BHP)

Yesterday, I went to the Big Town gun show in Mesquite and lo and behold what did I find amongst a sea of plastic guns, beef jerky, Moisin Nagants and overpriced ammo?

Well, I wasn't looking for one but for $432 OTD I couldn't pass this up:

My new "best friend":



Now to all of those who say that a "real" Browning is too expensive.......ya got to look. This one happens to have a perfect outside and a near perfect inside (it has been fired).

 

[DougDubya]

John C - too many skilled people like the single action autoloader for it to be irrelevant. It is one of the easiest triggers to master shooting well.