Need subjective opinions, Browning Hi-power, 9mm v 40

[Bob79]

I held a Hi-power finally the other day, as I had been interested in them for a while. It felt great in the hand, and I did hold a .40 and a 9mm, and I know the .40 is 3ozs heavier, but to be honest I couldn't tell a difference between the two. I have read a lot of previous threads here, and I know the general opinion is that the BHP is great gun. I also know most people prefer the 9mm version, but that the .40 is good because they beefed up the design. I do not want a caliber war, what I want is some info.

For those who have fired/owned both calibers, please compare the two. Like on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst recoil, what would you give the 9mm, and what would you give the .40? I have a Glock 23 which weighs only 22ozs or so unloaded, compared with the BHP in .40 at 35ozs. I would say the Glock recoil is pretty snappy, but not out of control, nor does it require a "death grip".

Anyone have any first hand knowledge of problems with the .40 cal as far as reliability, as far as proper function, or other break-downs?

I'm leaning towards a .40 cal, and thats mostly because they are much cheaper NIB, at least $100 cheaper, if not more. Also I like how FN took steps to beef up the gun to account for the cartridge, and I do like the performance of the .40 round. I know a 9mm would have almost no recoil, a higher capacity, and 9mm ammo is cheaper. And I said I like the .40 performance, but I know a good 9mm round is a good performer too.

I welcome all helpful info, I only own one semi auto (G23) and about 10 S&W revolvers, so I'm trying to collect a lot of info here.

 

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

I've owned several BHP's and shot a few in .40. To me, the .40 model doesn't 'feel' right, probably because of the slide dimensions. They beefed it up a little for .40, with a heavier slide and some frame changes that you can measure with a micrometer. Recoil between the two, in my opinion, is a 5 for 9mm, a 6.5 for .40.

Myself, I shoot 357sig from a P229. It's significantly snappier than 124 gr. 9mm, but it's not onerous. Neither 357sig nor .40 is hideous to shoot for long range sessions, to my hands, anyway. Dropping back to non +p loads of 9mm will show a perceptible difference. With the current good availability of fine 9mm rounds to choose from, I would have no problem carrying a 9mm in almost any package and being comfortable with it. I DO own several 9mm pistols at this time.

I know it's purely subjective, and you're looking for objective information. The .40 BHP has enough of a different 'feel' to my hand to remove it from consideration for me. At one time I'd considered buying one to have reworked into a custom, but no longer. Some things, in my opinion, are pretty much fine as originally designed.

On a slightly different tangent, I always considered the CZ 75 to be an 'evolved' HiPower. Have you had one of those in your hand? It might open up new options to you that might not have been readily apparent.

Regards,
Rabbit.

 

[Bob79]

Hadn't even thought about a CZ. Do they feel a lot like a BHP? They sure do have a lot of models. It says the single action is good for "sport shooting", but does it operate pretty much like a 1911/BHP? Load up a mag, rack the slide, hammer cocked, but with safety engaged won't fire?

And the other models operate pretty much in double action first shot, single after that?

Are CZ pistols reliable?

 

[DogBonz]

I just went through this same thing

I went with the 9mm version for a number of reasons. The first was that (no caliber war stuff here) I really don't like the 40S&W cartridge. I have owned a few, and always gravitated back to 9mm and 45ACP. I feel that the 40's snap like recoil is more difficult to shoot well than the 45 or 9mm and its benefits do not outweigh its drawbacks. On your scale, I would give the 9mm a 4, 45ACP a 5, and the 40 a 6.5. It is just not pleasant to shoot, IMHO.

I felt like the 9mm HP was more balanced in my hand than the 40, which felt a bit top heavy. It also pointed better in 9mm than in 40.

These are subjective differences, I know, but these are the reasons that I went with the 9mm over the 40.

 

[browningguy]

I currently have two 9's (but one of them is the competition model), and three 40's. I like them both, to be honest the 9's do have less felt recoil, but I shoot as well with either one. My hands are not accurate enough to tell the difference in weight, the slides are only 50 or 60/1000's wider on the .40. The Glock has the advantage of a lower barrel, in relation to your hand, so while I think the BHP will have less recoil it's not as big a reduction as you might think.

I'd rate the BHP 9mm as a 4 on recoil, the .40 as a 5.5.

 

[10-Ring]

Easy....9 mm!

 

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

Bob, the grip angle of the CZ is quite similar to a BHP. Most CZ's use an insert type grip, at least my PCR does. Aftermarket grips are available, but not as widely as for a BHP, let alone a 1911. I've found no reason to modify or change the grips on my PCR (Which is another name for the CZ75 D compact).

CZ's are regarded as being quite reliable. All anecdotal accounts which you will find here indicate that if there is a warranty or quality issue, CZ-USA is right on top of things and their people will take care of you.

The manual of arms for the SA/DA original CZ-75 is similar to any other pistol which can be carried in Condition 1. You do have the option of carrying it with the hammer down, as they're double action, and 'unlocked'. The SA-only variant CZ75's can be carried in Condition 1 like any 1911 or BHP. Myself, I prefer the decocker (D) models, as my PCR is designed that way. The RAMI model is blessed with a more '1911-ish' grip angle than the 75, which mimics the BHP. All CZ's, unlike the 1911, but in the same manner as a BHP, do NOT have a grip safety.

www.cz-usa.com for more information.

Myself, while I'm no adopter of .40S&W, I respect the cartridge. I know what it's capable of. I'm more comfortable with 357sig and 9mm Parabellum. Find what works best for you and use it.

A Glock may have less perception of recoil than a CZ or BHP in .40 due, as browningguy states, to the lower bore axis- that is, the barrel bore center is lower in relationship to the centerpoint of the frame, than the CZ or BHP. Most folks don't find this to be a problem, as all three makers sell plenty of pistols to keep the doors open and the lines running. Training and familiarization are what matter, not the latest gee-whiz engineering marvel mysteries.

Regards,
Rabbit.

 

[brentwal]

I'm with 10-Ring, the BHP was built with the 9mm in mind, way before the .40 was ever thought of. A BHP in .40....well it seems WRONG.

 

[jeff-10]

Bob, I own a Browning Hi-Power in 40S&W and it is my least reliable handgun. Ive done some research on them and ppl seem to experience more problems with a BHP in 40S&W then they do in 9mm. It is my intention to buy one in 9mm one of these days.

 

[the naked prophet]

I have a BHP .40 and I love it. It just feels so much better than my Glock 19. That said, I kind of think I should have gotten the 9mm. The magazines are the same size, so the .40 cartridges don't exactly double stack. There are only 10 rounds in the mag, versus the 13 that should be in a mag that length (vs. 15 for the 9mm). Maybe I'm just getting annoyed by trivial things, but that strikes me as pretty inefficient. Combine that with the ammo cost, and the newer high performance defensive +P loads and the stronger cast frame, I'd go with a 9mm if I had known then what I know now.

But it has been reliable for me, except for some defective magazines. My Glock has been perfectly reliable, though I haven't used anything but factory magazines.

 

[Bob79]

Thanks for the input guys. Looks like the 9mm still remains the favorite choice. I suppose that is why the 9mm's cost more than the .40 cal, demand is higher, so people charge more.

Guess maybe I'll just wait until I can find a good deal on a 9mm, and I'll try to see if anyone local has a CZ, as a lot of people seem to like those as well.

Thanks, and any additional information is welcomed.

 

[DogBonz]

Bob

Check this out.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=253200

 

[distra]

I went with the 9mm for a couple reasons. 1) I not a fan of the .40 cartridge. I think is a solution to a non-existant problem. I know, I know, PD's have gone to this round, but IMHO a .45ACP or 9mm can do the job. 2) HP were made from the ground up to be 9mm pistols. Here is my wife's.

 

[shark40sw]

My very first handgun was a HP. Still have it in the safe and will be buried with it. And although I do like the .40 sw round, I think the HP was designed for the 9mm and works best if left at that. Just as I think the Glock is a better platform for the 40.