Browning HiPower in Condition One

[Murdock]

The thread on the Hi-Power's relevance got me thinking about them again. The quality of the P35 has always held appeal for me, and the fit of the gun in my hand has always been comfortable. I've always held off on buying one though, because of the operation of the safety.

How well does the Browning safety work in Condition One? I have little concern about the safety's inherent effectiveness, I just wonder how well (quickly) an operator can wipe the safety off (and put it back on) compared to that of a 1911? And the extended safeties on the Browning always seemed, well, lumpy to me.

Even the unmodified Colt safeties work OK for me. I like the positive "snick, snick" of the 1911's thumb safety; the P35 doesn't seem to operate that way, and the extended safeties on the Brownings don't feel as good in the hand as the extended 1911s types do.

Comments from experienced users are solicited. Thanks.

 

[Marshall]

The MKIII safeties are a breeze to operate. Not too large, not too small.

 

[MK11]

That's a valid point. I love the BHP but riding the factory safety like a 1911 knocks the slide out of battery for me. I've seen grips where the thumb crosses over the other hand instead of riding the safety, that works better. And of course you can get an extended safety from Cylinder & Slide, etc.

I'm sure there's some actual operators who can chime in on actually hitting the safety under duress.

 

[bigmike45]

One thing about the original Browning safety is that the plunger is pinned in limiting travel into the dimples in the frame. This makes a difference in the amount of pressure it takes to move the safety from one position to the other. In other words how much "snick" you hear.

I have been using the C&S parts on my 1911's for years so replacing the thumb safety with an extended one from them was a gimmie for me. The C&S extended thumb safety has no such pin limiting the travel thus allowing the plunger to sit deeper into the frame dimples and adding more tension ("snick") to the movement of the part. Of course this is not a drop in part by any means.

I have actually replaced all the firing group parts with C&S replacement parts. (i.e. hammer, hammer spring, sear, thumb safety and wide combat trigger.)

bigmike45

 

[grimjaw]

I never liked the safety on the MKIII I had. It always felt spongy to me (subjective), hardly any "snick" at all, and would sometimes be disengaged in a holster.

I have a FEG Hi-Power clone with the older style safety, which seems to have more positive engagement.

jm

 

[steveracer]

I just double the little spring in the safety plunger. I got two of them in there, and now it works with a much more positive "snick".
Steve

 

[rellascout]

I like C&S parts. Extended strong safety is the way to go. Never had an issue.

 

[Comanche180]

HP safety

"Snick" , that technical talk always gets my interest.

 

[BHPshooter]

Some are more positive than others. I've found the MkIII safety to be much more positive than the older one, but that's just in my experience.

FWIW, I operate my 1911s and my BHPs the same way, swiping the safety on and off between strings of fire, such as when an IDPA stage calls for movement. I don't find it comfortable to "ride" the safety on the BHP, but I find it fast to operate nonetheless.

YMMV, of course.

Wes

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I run two Hi-Powers; both with the MkIII ambi safety. I have no trouble hitting the safety and working the firearm. First shot is around 0.8 to 1.8 sec. depending on the distance and target (6" plates at 15yds is about 1.8 seconds)

On the other hand, both of mine have had custom work and have positive safety engagement. My primary has a snick-snick that would do a 1911 proud

 

[Moonclip]

My more modern BHP's don't "snick" either which makes me kind of nervous for use of condition 1 especially for carry. I really don't use my BHP's and clones for anything important so it doesn't bug me.

Safeties are kind of "mushy" on mine, hows that for a technical term?!

 

[robmkivseries70]

Hi All,
I couldn't resist this one, the SFS system is pretty obvious in action.
Best,
Rob

 

[Drail]

A little off subject but concerning "snick", I once had a police officer bring his duty Colt 1911 to my shop and he wanted me to modify the thumb safety so it would be LOUDER. He said "When I have some scumbag in a dark alley I want him to be able HEAR it when I pop the safety off!" SNICK!!!

 

[1911Tuner]

Like the 1911, the Hi-Power was designed to let the owner choose the mode of carry, according to need. Neither was intended specifically for Condition One carry. They were both designed..and intended...to allow upgrading to a higher state of readiness should the need arise. If a paticular owner felt the need for constant Condition One...then so be it. The pistols were up to the task.

It's been said that the P35 isn't as "safe" as the 1911 because it doesn't have a grip safety...which is not accurate unless one is going to spend a lot of time on horseback with the pistol drawn, and the safety in the "OFF" position. Like the thumb safety, the grip safety was a US Cavlary thing.

So, the High-Power is no more or less safe than a 1911 in C-1, assuming that the related parts are mechanically sound.

 

[Dienekes]

In this date of microchips,etc., someone ought to make up a sound chip for the 1911 that modifies and amplifies the "snick" to where it sounds like an 870 being racked. Thereby making an intimidating weapon a LOT more intimidating...

BTW my C&S extended strong side safety on my BHP Mk. III snicks ok. Not quite as tactile as the 1911 but it will do.