Who made it best on the first try- 9mm
- Thread starter NIGHTLORD40K
- Start date
- Status
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
Really?
Mn Fats
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 2,372
I feel like the inclusion of the BHP isn't fair. Is it the best 9 ever made, not sure but it's my favorite. But the Browning's hi power was NOT a got it right first try type of deal. JMB passed before It was fully finished and it was a saved joint effort with Saive. Nit picking here 
.
.
Mn Fats
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 2,372
Coal Dragger
member
Nope Hi-Power isn’t that great. Customized ones can be decent but out of the box there are a ton of better options.
OP
OP
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
The question was first production 9mm Parabellum by that manufacturer. The GP35 was the first production pistol by FN in that chambering.
Coal Dragger
member
OK.
I still maintain that it’s not very good by today’s standards. If it were it might still be in production.
I still maintain that it’s not very good by today’s standards. If it were it might still be in production.
someguy2800
Member
Although I find great benefits in striker fired polymer pistols, I personally think the CZ 75 is the finest semi auto pistol ever made.
The lineage to get there was the FN1900, Colt 1902, Colt 1903, 1911, walther PP, and FN Highpower, P210. I'm sure I'm forgetting or unaware of some other that belong in that list, but nonetheless it's a product of 75 years of continuous improvement.
The lineage to get there was the FN1900, Colt 1902, Colt 1903, 1911, walther PP, and FN Highpower, P210. I'm sure I'm forgetting or unaware of some other that belong in that list, but nonetheless it's a product of 75 years of continuous improvement.
Monster Zero
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 588
I voted for the CZ but really, the Browning, just the way Mister Browning made it... I think I want one.
Sovblocgunfan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 1,483
GP-35.
someguy2800
Member
I would tend to agree. To me it's a 1911 made worse and a double stack magazine added, which was not a first by the way. They don't really do anything for me.
Mn Fats
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 2,372
This type of thinking, in part, killed the 16 gauge.
Last edited:
Coal Dragger
member
Well not to go totally off topic here but the 16 gauge just doesn’t differentiate itself adequately enough in the gap between 20 gauge and 12 gauge to warrant much attention.
Mn Fats
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 2,372
Whoa now. As much as I want to retort, I did lead this thread off course. My fault, continue.
Coal Dragger
member
Yes, as stated earlier I maintain this position.
Let me explain further:
To begin with in 1935 it was absolutely the best 9X19 service pistol design in the world bar none, no contest. Probably the best service pistol in the world to be honest, 1911 included.
The problem with the Hi-Power by today’s standards is that FN never really bothered to address the things about the Hi-Power that make them not fun or attractive to a lot of shooters. They had 83 years of production to come up with an out of the box trigger that wasn’t garbage for starters. In that 83 years they could have made a model without the idiotic magazine safety as well. In 83 years they never managed to put a factory beaver tail on the gun so it didn’t chew up the hands of those who have a high grip. They had 83 years to make the pistol more friendly to duty users by trying to trim weight, and also potentially add a rail for weapon lights. Obviously FN did none of those things. Instead incorporating such improvements in other pistols they produce.
So you have a pistol that costs a lot more money than a modern service pistol, that is heavier, holds less ammunition, has an equally bad or slightly worse trigger, and that will chew up many shooters hands with hammer bite, or slide nicks. Clearly there’s a business in the custom gunsmith world correcting a lot of these issues for even more money.
Only in the gun enthusiast community do we accept substandard products that don’t work right, or that are not easy or comfortable to use, and then willingly pay some other third party a freight train full of cash to make said product work right and not be horrible to use.
Imagine if you bought a car that cut your hands every time you shifted gear, and the gearbox felt like it was full of gravel; you wouldn’t put up with that nonsense, you’d send it back to the dealer to get fixed. Imagine if the manufacturer told you through the dealer that the flaws were how it’s designed and to just deal with it.
The same observation can be directed at quite a few makes and models of firearms to be fair.
OP
OP
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
You make an excellent point in that their only investment in product improvement was the Mk3, which was forced on them anyway by the need to replace worn tooling. It would not have been that difficult or expensive for FN to add a factory beavertail, rail, or better trigger to keep the HP relevant in todays market. Certainly many of the 1911s we see today are a far cry from the orginal and keep selling well. Even the P226 and M92 Beretta have been adapted to try to meet the demands of the consumer in ways FN never really considered.
It will be interesting to see if Tisas/Regent comes out with new and impoved HiPower developments or just keeps cranking out copies of the original. The stainless model is generating some excitement. Makes you wonder why FN didnt produce one at some point......
I may have to change my vote to the CZ......
Toprudder
Member
I'm glad someone voted for it. That is one of the finest guns ever, and one day I will own one. Sadly, it was (is) a very expensive gun, and I think the cost of ownership should be included in the metrics of this poll.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,295
My first Hi-Power was my worst Hi-Power. A "T Series" made in 1966, it was beautiful on the outside, not so pretty on the inside. Never could get an accurate reading on the trigger pull only because it was off the scale. Barrel to slide and slide to frame were very loose, couldn't get a decent sight picture because the sights were too small, and the thumb safety required the use of a mallet to put it on and take it off. Accuracy was your typical Minute of Barn, as in, side of.
All in all it kept me away from Hi-Powers for a number of years until they came out with the new and somewhat improved Mk.II. Finally sights I could see, a trigger that was great right out of the box, and an ambi safety that worked properly without any extra effort required. I didn't have a problem with hammer bite so a beavertail wasn't a necessity; the only thing I would have liked to have seen was maybe a more compact version, like with a shorter slide.
Besides the OP's original question was who made it best on the first try, not who needed to make the most improvements to it.
All in all it kept me away from Hi-Powers for a number of years until they came out with the new and somewhat improved Mk.II. Finally sights I could see, a trigger that was great right out of the box, and an ambi safety that worked properly without any extra effort required. I didn't have a problem with hammer bite so a beavertail wasn't a necessity; the only thing I would have liked to have seen was maybe a more compact version, like with a shorter slide.
Besides the OP's original question was who made it best on the first try, not who needed to make the most improvements to it.
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,248
Blasphemy!
P5 Guy
Member
Well, I voted for the S&W 39 even though the photo is a 639.
The auto-pistol that started the switch from revolvers makes it an important pistol in my opinion. Glock did seal the revolver's fate.
Coal Dragger
member
JR24
Member
I don't understand the question. Relative to what was already on the market, relative to later production versions of the same gun, relative to other models from the same designer/manufacturer? Oh well, 3 full pages of discussion must mean that plenty of others can understand it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll