New FN High Power - Finally a successor to the 1911 or Blasphemy to John Brownings name?

JMB did not design the gun we call the Browning High Power or Browning Hi Power. His last patent is my avatar. It is not the gun we shoot today. Read the real history of the development of this pistol in books like Vanderlinden's FN Browning Pistols or R Blake Steven's The Browning High Power Automatic Pistol and the truth becomes clear. The main contribution to the pistol by JMB directly was the breech lock design. The rest not so much. He did not even design the mag the gun was build around. He made the original protoypes and then did not directly work on the project again. Only one of the original protoypes featured a locked breech design. The other was a blow back design.





When Le Maître passed sitting at his desk at Herstal he was working on a elegant superpose shotgun not the BHP. Too many people do not know the real origin story of the BHP and continue to post inaccurate myth instead of facts. It gets old trying to correct them in just about every BHP discussion. OK Rant over.....

As to the new pistol it is a High Power in name only. I think of it like the Ian alluded to. It is like the new Bronco. It sort of is an homage to the original but except for some very basic design elements it has little relation to the older version. It is a High Power in name and spirit only. There are many reasons for this but #1 is the tooling at FN was out of date and was too costly to remake. It was also designed in a time when manual labor was cheaper than machine labor. It made no sense in todays modern machining world. The clones which are currently being produced are all coming from Turkey where they basically pay slave labor wages. This is the same reason that labor intensive designs like the HK MP5 are still produced there. The new pistol had to be made differently.

Some of the biggest complaints about the New FN High Power is that it is heavier and that the slide and frame are wider then the original. It was pointed out on another forum that there are reasons for this. They removed the 3 locking lugs from the barrel and the slide. The barrel no longer locks into these lugs. These add time to the production of both the barrel and the slide. The new one has a more modern locking system which uses the front of the barrel locking into the front ledge of the slide. As Ian points out this is much cheaper to manufacturer.

What Ian did not mentioned is that they had to make the only lug massive enough to take the pounding and spread the stresses out over a wider area. The three radial lugs only engage horizontally between 10 and 2. If two of them were removed, it wouldn't take long for the first lug to deform and set back. Once it setback and the barrel lug would set forward and increase headspace by a like amount. This is exactly what most modern manufacturers have done in order to keep from having to hold to close dimensions with three lugs. This meant a larger wider lug had to be used. This of course resulted in a wider slide and frame. I do not own a FNX but I am willing to bet that the barrel is similar if not the same. This might explain why the gun is heavier than the original but still ways less than the CZ Shadow 2.

Leveraging economy of scale is essential to being profitable for todays gun manufacturers. I am willing to bet that they can make this gun on a lot of the same tooling they use for the FNX line. If it does not sell they have not invested in proprietary machinery except for what was needed for the frame since the FNX is polymer.

 

This was because of marketing. There was already a rifle known as The Browning High Power in the US when they started importing them. FN/Browning shortened it to Hi Power to avoid confusion.

 

As I stated earlier the lock work is very different. The 3 lugs on the barrel and the slide are gone. They are using a much more modern method of locking the barrel using a much larger and much wider shelf on the slide and barrel ala Glock and Sig. Also look at the bottom lug. It is massive compared to the original.

 

Yes, I know - that "very small portion of the world" was meant to be sarcastic.

Apart from the different locking lug configuration, which is nothing more than an engineering approach to simplify production, the lower lug serves the exact same purpose - it's basically the same design, just different in execution. Now it just unlocks on the slide lock pin which is forward in the frame, hence that massive rear lug that serves no real purpose except to guide the barrel into lockup via the cut.
I'm using "lockwork" in it's classical, if I can say that, meaning - the trigger & firing mechanism, which bears a heavy resemblance to the original P35. The pistol is rather different, but one can clearly see where it comes from (who's the father, to say it differently).

 

Oh, please. Just look at how wide or narrow the barrel hood is on SIG P365. And that gun run for 80,000 rounds easily. The durability is not a justification for making the new HiPower so fat on top, or at least not a good justification.

 

The 2022 High Power is not having "a fat top", it's just that the original is rather slim for a double stack pistol. Furthermore, a service type pistol is built with the idea to last, to take a high round count without needing a "major overhaul" - something I highly doubt that this little Sig is capable of, no matter what the proud owners claim. So, you need bigger and stronger parts to get the job done successfully, that's it.

 

It is relative to the length and mass of the barrel. 80,000 rounds LOL

 

So does just about every modern pistol that is not a blow back design so it is really not saying much to say that they are similar. Its like saying a Glock is similar to a BHP.

 

No, I'm not claiming that and never will - without too much bragging I can say that I know a thing or two about guns, their insides and how exactly they operate... I'm only saying that the barrel locking is rather similar - there is a big difference. BTW, that configuration it's not called "Browning style locking" for no reason... And Glock uses the same basic style of locking as Hi Power, think about it - instead of barrel cam pin it uses a locking block, because of the polymer frame, but it's the same basic principle. Don't look how the parts appear, look at what they do.

 

Kind of my spin on it. Granted, I've not seen one in real life, so... who knows, it might be my Next Pistol. Doubtful... a heavy, full-sized 9mm isn't really on my To Do list...

Unfortunately, they didn't rollmark it as the New High Power, so we can't have the confusion like we do with Rugers New Model Blackhawks, and the 'New' New Models... etc, etc...

 

It was, of course, Nicola Tesla, who was the man behind several of the inventions Edison got the credit for

 

The amount of misinformation in this thread is appalling.
Everyone knows Jeff Bezos INVENTED Tesla. He expanded on the work begun by Al Gore who invented the internet.

 

1. Sig P365s routinely endure 50,000+ rounds as rental guns at various ranges around the United States. As rental guns they get treated poorly, operated by mostly novices, rarely cleaned, and parts replaced only when they break. Looks like they can run ~50,000 rounds before any parts breakage, as documented here. Not sure how typical that is on a large scale, but for a micro carry pistol in 9x19mm, VERY impressive.

2. The FN P35 and later iterations and clones, are quite svelte and extremely light for a full size, all-steel duty pistol. They are not known for extreme longevity with high round counts, with total rebuilds needing to be done in as little as 30,000 rounds. Just about any full size Glock will far outlast one on a round count basis, and require fewer parts replacements along the way to ultimate slide or frame failure. The owners manual warns against +P ammunition usage:

3. The New High Power looks to be built like a tank. Rated by FN for routine +P ammunition consumption. Wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being far more durable than the old Hi-Power that it supersedes. From the owners manual:

I don't blame FN for making the pistol larger, heavier, and far more robust. But it does make the pistol less appealing to me as a daily carry gun.

 

Plus, he makes cars. Edison drove Fords.

 

The compactness of the original HiPo is what many of us liked. For a time, it was the only double stack that felt good in my hand, in contrast to, say, a Smith 59. Currently have a Belgian and a Springer Turk (anyone here disagree with that provenance?).
Haven't had a chance to handle the new FN, but won't be interested if it is bigger.
Also makes me wonder, just how did they reach the decision to halt production, only to come out with a 'sorta' version a few years later? Worn tooling? Bad judgement? Other gunmakers aren't shy about jobbing out work under their label (Colt), why not just task the Turks with making the originals with a FN label?
Since we have some knowledgeable, technical folks here, riddle me this. The original HiPo made room for its double stack mag by sending its sear motion 'up and over' thru' the slide. Who came up with that? Really thinking outside the box. That said, where is the challenge in giving these guns a better trigger (we'll ignore the mag safety issue). My Belgian's trigger is crisp, but a little heavy; the Turk is better. A departed, firing pin safety model, was much worse.
Thanks,
Moon

 

Ian answers this question pretty succinctly in the video linked in the OP. Worn and very outdated tooling. The design of the gun does not lend itself to modern mass production machining methods, so instead of outsourcing production to sweat shop labor nations, they decided to do a nearly clean-sheet redesign.

 

Tesla was in a rock band for a while, too. Pretty good guitar player.

 

Being an avid fan of Starsky & Hutch TV series, I've always wanted a 6" Python and a S&W 59. The disappoint I felt the first time I grabbed a 59 is only equal to my regret in not buying a Python for $700 at Dallas Market Hall ten years ago.

 

FINALLY !!! Someone who knows what's REALLY going on, here!!!

 

Be easier if people would get past the Hi-power thing and look at the pistol on its own merits. The disdain for the pistol is kind of strange. Its a throwback attempt and appears to deliver. I like what I have seen outside the pricetag. Its very much an 80s/90s throwback pistol IMO. People freaked out on the Browning BDM and FN BDA pistols as well but they are good pistols. This new FN reminds me of something STAR (Spain) would have produced back in the 90s when they were manufacturing all steel quality pistols that took different elements from various designs.

FN Hi-powers fate was sealed once they stopped getting military contracts for the pistols. After that it was just a matter of time. Turks make them still so there is that. Be nice if FEG was still around. Right now If people want a top tier quality Hi-power it would probably be best to petition CZ to make them.

 

In high school one of my friends wanted a model 59; I was a “revolver guy” and admired the Python. Forty plus years later, he has a Model 59. I’ve never managed to land a Python.

 

Can you provide documentation that Springfield Armory is lying about the gun being made in the US? Not that they might be, I'm just curious.

 

I like it. Alot. Just not a fan of the MSRP.

When Jeep brought back the Cherokee nameplate in the US as a midsized crossover with funny headlights, the 4x4 world had an absolute meltdown.

One reviewer, though, remarked "this is an excellent SUV. If it were called 'the weasel' or anything other than 'cherokee', the world would rejoice".

I feel like this is the same. People are so angry about the name and legacy.

But miss the fact that it's a cool gun. Same dudes that hate it also probably get mad that everything is a plastic Glock clone.

Reminds me also of the Rock n Roll guys that hate that no one "makes music like they used to", then a young band comes out called Greta Van Fleet that sounds just like Led Zep... And everyone is all like "tHeY ArE bAsiCaLLy a CoVeR bAnD".

I might just buy one out of spite!!!!

 

Evidence and Springfield's history of 1911 frame importation from Brazil points to rough forgings being sourced from Tisas, with Springfield doing enough finish work for the frame to be considered "Made in USA." This is of course just educated speculation, but the proverbial smoking gun to me is that the SA-35 shares proprietary sight dovetail dimensions with the Tisas Regent BR9, for no particular reason, instead of "real" Hi-Power dovetail dimensions, which the Girsan MC P35 uses.

IF the forgings are being done in the US, I would bet whatever company is providing them to Springfield, bought their tooling from Tisas.

Note that Tisas does not have the Regent BR9 listed as a product on their website anymore.