Tell me about the SFS system on Hi-Powers

[natedog]

Tell me about the Safe-Fast-Shooting system on the Browning Hi-Power. How difficult is it to manipulate the manual safety? I understand that you're cocking the hammer by depressing the manual safety, correct? How does the trigger compare to the standard Hi-Power trigger? Finally, what really is the advantage of this system over cocked and locked? You still have to manipulate the manual safety, so what's the point? Please, spare no technical details.

Thanks,

-Nate

 

[Zak Smith]

It turns your nice single action BHP into something with bizarre manual of arms for no good reason. :banghead:

 

[crucible]

I can't state on HiPowers, but on the 1911 it's hardly a bizarre manual of arms. In fact, the only difference is that once the slide is let home on a new mag, all one needs to do is gently push forward the hammer. This will in turn automatically engage the thumb safety into the same old familiar postion (up), engage it's ingenious FPS in front of the hammer, and render the weapon completely safe (hammer, sear, etc.)

When one wants to fire, disengage the thumb safety just like the normal manual of arms, and the hammer satisfyingly pops back into the firing position automatically, and it operates per normal single action.

I did a long term test on one of my 1911's here (with pics): http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=100323

Again, I have no experience of it on a BHP-especially one from the factory.

 

[Zak Smith]

So if I have cocked the hammer by depressing the "safety", and the hammer gets "gently pushed" forward due to something inconvenient like hitting a barricade or being smashed into a door frame as an assailent body-checks me, I'll have to re-cock it again before I can fire.

Since the weapon is useless when the hammer is forward, I'm now screwed with respect to the normal manual of arms. It's actually WORSE than a DA or DA/SA auto because with the hammer down, I can't even pull through a long DA pull to fire.

If I need to transition to weak-hand, will my left index finger have enough force to cock the hammer again?

THAT is wierd.

C&L is perfectly safe with a BHP or 1911. No need to go screwing it up.

 

[crucible]

So if I have cocked the hammer by depressing the "safety", and the hammer gets "gently pushed" forward due to something inconvenient like hitting a barricade or being smashed into a door frame as an assailent body-checks me, I'll have to re-cock it again before I can fire.

No, it's not like that at all-perhaps I wasn't descriptive enough. It takes a purposefully long and deliberate action to safe the weapon by pushing the hammer forward (which engages the thumb safety in the process); this isn't some flaky system that can move/fall with the slightest touch. Once forward, the hammer is also locked into it's safe position until the thumb safety is disengaged-just like a non-SFS weapon, just a different position for their respective lock.

Using your what-if scenario: if you've gotten body checked into a door hard enough, you're just as likely to damage the hammer/beavertail area on any weapon, SFS or non-SFS, and are as likely (temporarily or permanently)screwed or not. From my long term experience carrying both versions in the same weapon, it's my educated judgment that there's no inherent flaws in an SFS-equipped (1911 at least) that isn't already inherent to the platform in it's non-SFS version.

Here's a what-if for ya: what if you got body checked into a door frame and hit at just the right angle and hard enough that it engaged the thumb safety and it didn't go bang when you pulled the trigger? What do you do then? (After saying oh sh*t! that is.) That scenario is just as likely as yours, and the answer is the same for both weapons: disengage the safety and pull the damn trigger.

Here's yet another what-if: what if the bad guy was really an alien with 12 inch long fingers that could reach and turn on your safety before you could fire? Hmm? Aren't what-if games fun!? We can play them all day, but they don't change anything-especially any fundamental truth.

Since the weapon is useless when the hammer is forward, I'm now screwed with respect to the normal manual of arms. It's actually WORSE than a DA or DA/SA auto because with the hammer down, I can't even pull through a long DA pull to fire.

You clearly don't understand: if the hammer is forward, the SFS weapon is on safe (hardly useless unless safe is useless on every other 1911 and BHP when their on safe as well). Disengage the thumb safety to fire the weapon-it's not a new concept, and it applies to a (back) cocked-and-locked 1911 just as a still (forward) cocked-and-locked SFS 1911.

There is no manual-of-arms changes between the two in any circumstance, save for making the weapon safe initially and during operation. Other than that, again, I repeat: no, nicht, nein nyet nay manual-of-arms changes, and all single action operational aspects remain the same. If you've got a problem with single action weapons not being able to do double action operations, you've got that problem with all single action weapons-SFS or not.

If I need to transition to weak-hand, will my left index finger have enough force to cock the hammer again?

THAT is weird.

Huh? If the hammer is forward, the SFS weapon is on safe (cocked and locked with hammer down). To fire it, disengage the thumb safety, grip properly and pull the trigger-the same thing you'd have to do with any single action, SFS or not. If the hammer is back, the thumb safety is off and the weapon is ready to fire.

If your transitioning to your weak hand and you're needing to put the hammer forward that means the danger is over and you're safeing the weapon before you re-holster it. If the danger isn't over there would be no reason to safe the weapon-again, SFS or not.

I don't understand what you're referring to when you say 'needing to cock the weapon with your weak hand' at all-the only cocking that's done on a SFS weapon is done at the same time as any single action-when the slide comes back at empty magazine lock or during shooting itself. What am I missing here?

This system is a well made, safe and durable design fork for these weapons-not necessarily an improvement as that implies some kind of deficiency, but a design fork. In some weapons, the addition of their ingenious FPS sans series 80 FPS trigger implications makes it safer too. My government is equipped with the SFS, my officer's isn't. I carry both C&L'd to their design specifications, and feel I safe and capable both ways. The SFS gets the nod for the addition of the FPS to my series 70 frame, the trigger improvement of the kind that some folks pay for, the extended slide stop and interesting hammer that comes with the kit, it allows me a the ability to instantly and feel my weapon's complete safety status while CCW'ing by the feel of whether or not the hammer is back (usefully if you've bumped into something, or just want a status check that can be done invisibly and fast) and the fact that it's plain old neat. (My review gives more detail, but only 1911 specific.)

That opinion is an educated one, from longer term carrying and direct experience with it-not internet based innuendo and pontification.

C-

(Nate, sorry for the kinda on-topic hijack, it was not my intention.)

 

[Zak Smith]

So it's somewhere between a gentle push and long and deliberate action, huh?

People have hit their 1911 hammers with mallets and small hammers and not caused damage, and you're telling me that would not "lower" the hammer on the SFS?

I don't understand what you're referring to when you say 'needing to cock the weapon with your weak hand' at all-the only cocking that's done on a SFS weapon is done at the same time as any single action-when the slide comes back at empty magazine lock or during shooting itself. What am I missing here?

While I obtain a firing grip, the safety is disengaged. On a regular C&L pistol, nothing can happen to the hammer to change that conditions. On the SFS, it is possible the hammer can drop under somewhere between gentle and deliberate force, and require another action to make the gun ready again.

Even a series 70 1911 is safe for C&L. Any pathological cases aside (like my example), it's a solution to a problem that does not exist.

 

[Seraph]

Let's see...

With a standard Hi-Power or 1911, carried in Condition 1 (cocked and locked), one must disengage the thumb safety to enable the weapon to fire.

With an SFS Hi-Power or 1911, carried with the hammer down, and the safety up, one must disengage the thumb safety to enable the weapon to fire.

With a standard Hi-Power or 1911, with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked back, one must engage the thumb safety to make the weapon safe.

With an SFS Hi-Power or 1911, with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked back, one must either push the hammer forward, which forces the thumb safety into engagement, or else one must engage the thumb safety and then push the hammer forward, to make the weapon safe.

I honestly see nothing gained with the SFS, except, as said above, a weird manual of arms, and some possible hazzards attenuate to that manual of arms. No offense, but I think the SFS is for people who don't like DA trigs, but are superstitious of SA guns carried in Condition 1.

 

[Marshall]

I see it as having appeal and being very simple without any downside. My 2 cents

 

[Dorrin79]

I have a FN SFS Hi-Power in 9mm and I like it - a lot

To be fair, Zak isn't wrong in that the SFS is something of a solution in search of a problem. I agree with him that a BHP or 1911 C&L'ed is as safe as a loaded weapon can be. On the other hand, it doesn't change the basic manual of arms of the gun (apart from pushing the hammer forward to safe) and in the case of the BHP, gives you a nice bobbed hammer from the factory (a bonus for those who are bite victims of the normal BHP SA). I haven't heard of any problems or reliability concerns arising from the different safety, and my specimen has gone through about 5k rounds at this point with no problems (and is my regular carry gun)

I bought mine because it was $100 cheaper than the FN MkIII SA sitting next to it in the case, and have not been dissapointed in the slightest.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

for the record, the hammer on a SFS gun isn't actually uncocked at any point, as the hammer is two piece. The striking face is pivoted forward, and is released to fly to the rear under spring pressure when the safety is removed.

 

[BluesBear]

I have fired one of each and I don't trust it.

And it's that two piece hammer that I distrust. It's just one more piece to malfunction.

But I'll give proper credit, it is an ingenious design. But I don't trust it.

It felt flimsy in my hand and the thumb safeties on both the BHP and the 1911 felt mushy. The 1911 disengaged WAY to easily and on the BHP it was more difficult to push the hammer forward which means it was too easy for it to slip back to full cock. I wouldn't trust them for EDC.

Now I admit these were early models and were salesman's samples. But I didn't feel comfortable using them. Perhaps they have gotten better. I don't know.

But since I personally feel they are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist I'll never own one. If I ever feel a need for that type of gun I'll get an LDA or swipe Lady45's Colt Double Eagle since I trust both of those.

Just my tuppence. I'm an idiot. YMMV.

 

[chaim]

For most of us I don't see the point (other than if the SFS version is being sold at a discount v. the regular version). Basically it was designed (or at least seems so) so that cops who work for overly PC departments that won't allow "cocked and locked" guns could usa a SA if that is their preference. Ingenious design, yes. More that can go wrong, yes. A solution looking for a problem, for most of us yes, but for police officers in many jurisdictions it is a great solution to a real problem.