RNB65
Member
I salute your wisdom, sir. We have 5 pages of insightful discussion about the BHP and your's is the first post that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. Keep up the outstanding contributions.
Is the Browning Hi-Power still relevant?
- Thread starter RNB65
- Start date
- Status
I salute your wisdom, sir. We have 5 pages of insightful discussion about the BHP and your's is the first post that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. Keep up the outstanding contributions.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
From John C.
It's difficult to improve on the basic design of the hammer. Different materials for the handle, different weight heads, different shapes for different tasks, etc. But the hammer remains. (So does the knife, the fork, the shovel, etc. for that matter). A lonely fella could conclude that it had reached an evolutionary dead end. Another fella, me for example, could conclude that the basic simple design works well for it's intended task and is thus relevant to the needs of many.
The sa pistol remains relevant because the simple, basic design works very well at it's job. So much so that manufacturers all want a piece of that pie.
Since the second world war both military and law enforcement have moved steadily towards da/sa, dao and or striker fired pistols. The reasons for this are well known. The possibility for large scale military contracts and declining profit margins fuel competition in this area. But this does not make the sa pistol obsolete or irrelevant. Kinda scholastic to think so IMHO.
The market for target and self defense shooters alone is a very large one. By your line of thinking the bolt action rifle, the levergun and single action handguns are all irrelevant.
If you do agree and believe that a few letters should be sent to encourage them to get on the evolutionary good foot and cease production of sa pistols, then, I think and no offense meant but, you have left the realm of the real and can take up a position in line with the fella who has invented the gizmo that will allow us all to get 200 miles to the gallon except the auto manufacturers bought his patent and won't put his genius idea into production.
tipoc
It's difficult to improve on the basic design of the hammer. Different materials for the handle, different weight heads, different shapes for different tasks, etc. But the hammer remains. (So does the knife, the fork, the shovel, etc. for that matter). A lonely fella could conclude that it had reached an evolutionary dead end. Another fella, me for example, could conclude that the basic simple design works well for it's intended task and is thus relevant to the needs of many.
The sa pistol remains relevant because the simple, basic design works very well at it's job. So much so that manufacturers all want a piece of that pie.
Since the second world war both military and law enforcement have moved steadily towards da/sa, dao and or striker fired pistols. The reasons for this are well known. The possibility for large scale military contracts and declining profit margins fuel competition in this area. But this does not make the sa pistol obsolete or irrelevant. Kinda scholastic to think so IMHO.
The market for target and self defense shooters alone is a very large one. By your line of thinking the bolt action rifle, the levergun and single action handguns are all irrelevant.
If you do agree and believe that a few letters should be sent to encourage them to get on the evolutionary good foot and cease production of sa pistols, then, I think and no offense meant but, you have left the realm of the real and can take up a position in line with the fella who has invented the gizmo that will allow us all to get 200 miles to the gallon except the auto manufacturers bought his patent and won't put his genius idea into production.
tipoc
Last edited:
Well you couldn't be more wrong about that little tidbit.
http://www.fnherstal.com/html/Index.htm
And that's just the ones made by FN, that doesn't include all the BHP clones (Hungarian FEG and the Argentine FM) that have come out as well. Just from the numbers alone I'd say that it's still pretty popular.
jaydubya
Member
I think 'big buys', such as are made by military services and police departments, determine the future of a weapon. I don't know this, but I would bet no such groups are ordering big lots of new Hi Powers. Did y'all see that picture of Prince Harry in Afghanistan with was clearly an old Hi Power (an Inglis?) strapped to his chest? With all the holster wear? That pistol may have been older than Prince Harry. FN Herstal is a world class combat weapons producer. It is completely uninterested in providing Hi Powers to niche markets. I think it is over, folks.
Cordially, Jack
Cordially, Jack
Stephen A. Camp
Moderator In Memoriam
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,430
The grips and ambidextrous extended thumb safeties on the picture of the Hi Power he was carrying were the current blk checkered nylon grips and thumb safeties found on the Mk III. Wear was very noticeable but I do not believe that his pistol was an Inglis.
jaydubya
Member
Stephen, I yield to your expertise.
Cordially, Jack
Cordially, Jack
Phoinex
Member
Browning HP
As a HP fan, I just had to jump in here. I had a nice brushed nickle HP in the 80's and with some home cast loads, the accuracy was amazing, even at distances to and beyond 100 yards! Like an idiot, I let someone talk me out of that fine gun.
Last year, I was able to buy a two tone Browning HP with adj sights and a few clips. I shot four rounds out if late one afternoon and then took it to a bowling pin shoot, and won!! Like most HP owners, I really love my hp and it is built like a Swiss watch. With all the new choices on the market, not everyone is forking out the bucks for a new HP, even though they will gladly pay even more for a Kimber!
I don't see that many HP shooters but like me, if you have one, you love it. That is all the relavience I guess I need.
Have fun out there, that is what counts.
As a HP fan, I just had to jump in here. I had a nice brushed nickle HP in the 80's and with some home cast loads, the accuracy was amazing, even at distances to and beyond 100 yards! Like an idiot, I let someone talk me out of that fine gun.
Last year, I was able to buy a two tone Browning HP with adj sights and a few clips. I shot four rounds out if late one afternoon and then took it to a bowling pin shoot, and won!! Like most HP owners, I really love my hp and it is built like a Swiss watch. With all the new choices on the market, not everyone is forking out the bucks for a new HP, even though they will gladly pay even more for a Kimber!
I don't see that many HP shooters but like me, if you have one, you love it. That is all the relavience I guess I need.
Have fun out there, that is what counts.
Guess I will have to stop by the safe and reassure my Inglis and FN that they are still relevant in my life.
Whereas Glocks, SIGs, and one polymer Ruger have come and gone.
Don't get me started on all those irrelevant revolvers in there with the High Powers...
Whereas Glocks, SIGs, and one polymer Ruger have come and gone.
Don't get me started on all those irrelevant revolvers in there with the High Powers...
wristtwister
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 419
1911 Tuner
Uh, "quirky" means that every gun has it's own "personality", as in "features"... not that they are finicky or hard to cycle or anything like that... each gun is "its own design". Some cars have power steering, others have rack and pinion... etc... those are "quirks" of the design.
Interesting that the Browning is supposed to be "like a glock or sig"..."except for the trigger"... Is that like a Chevrolet is "like a Ford... except for the tires, motor, and looks"? Similar is still different... and in the world of pistoleros, I find it interesting to "equate" them in a thread about the relevance of JB's design, and then turn around and discount them because of the features of that design.
From that "ideal", then Glocks and Sigs would also be irrelevant, if the Browning HP is irrevelant... and I just walked out of a gun show this afternoon that was rift with them... matter of fact, I picked up a Model 92 Beretta (M-9 for the military wonks) that probably has a few "quirks" of its own. Is it irrevelant too? It has many of the same features of the Browning HP.
It seems hypocritical to dismiss a design that took 14 years (1921-1935) as irrevelant, when after the first pistols were produced (the Model 35) and went through at least 17 different revisions to that design... adding features and taking them away, as technology advanced with "field information". I suspect that if the truth of the matter was known, the only reason that the BHP isn't a hot production gun right now, is because the advertising is all focused on those little sissie pistols for concealed carry and the "lightweights" made out of carbon fiber materials.
It would be more expensive to set up the cnc machines to machine good quality steel than the new plastic and carbon fiber materials, but while the technology might be new, the designs and majority of pistol parts still look the same. Field strip almost anything and you still come up with about 4 or 5 main pieces... slide, barrel, recoil spring and guide rod for the upper, and the frame for the bottom. The design isn't a major change if it has a DA or SA trigger set... it's still part of the frame... it's a feature... and from the morphing of the original Browning design (that went through at least 17 versions) the major parts are still the same.
I have a Ruger SR-9, and when I field strip it, there are all kinds of "little parts" all over the inside of it, but it's still a slide, rail, recoil spring, and frame... it's difference is that it's a striker fired pistol, but do changes being made for it's safety make the design "relevant" or irrevelant? They are evolving with field information.
The Browning was the choice of field weapon for 15 different countries, NATO, and many other police and military agencies of those countries, so trying to erase it's memory by telling people it's design is"irrevelant" is something we're all getting used to seeing in the news any more... false advertising. The arguments that the design is irrevelant is like the argument that the wheel is irrevelant... way too much depends on what we learn and use from the design for it to ever be irrevelant until pistols completely change into something else... which they have now, with the invention of the electronically fired weapons.
WT
Uh, "quirky" means that every gun has it's own "personality", as in "features"... not that they are finicky or hard to cycle or anything like that... each gun is "its own design". Some cars have power steering, others have rack and pinion... etc... those are "quirks" of the design.
Interesting that the Browning is supposed to be "like a glock or sig"..."except for the trigger"... Is that like a Chevrolet is "like a Ford... except for the tires, motor, and looks"? Similar is still different... and in the world of pistoleros, I find it interesting to "equate" them in a thread about the relevance of JB's design, and then turn around and discount them because of the features of that design.
From that "ideal", then Glocks and Sigs would also be irrelevant, if the Browning HP is irrevelant... and I just walked out of a gun show this afternoon that was rift with them... matter of fact, I picked up a Model 92 Beretta (M-9 for the military wonks) that probably has a few "quirks" of its own. Is it irrevelant too? It has many of the same features of the Browning HP.
It seems hypocritical to dismiss a design that took 14 years (1921-1935) as irrevelant, when after the first pistols were produced (the Model 35) and went through at least 17 different revisions to that design... adding features and taking them away, as technology advanced with "field information". I suspect that if the truth of the matter was known, the only reason that the BHP isn't a hot production gun right now, is because the advertising is all focused on those little sissie pistols for concealed carry and the "lightweights" made out of carbon fiber materials.
It would be more expensive to set up the cnc machines to machine good quality steel than the new plastic and carbon fiber materials, but while the technology might be new, the designs and majority of pistol parts still look the same. Field strip almost anything and you still come up with about 4 or 5 main pieces... slide, barrel, recoil spring and guide rod for the upper, and the frame for the bottom. The design isn't a major change if it has a DA or SA trigger set... it's still part of the frame... it's a feature... and from the morphing of the original Browning design (that went through at least 17 versions) the major parts are still the same.
I have a Ruger SR-9, and when I field strip it, there are all kinds of "little parts" all over the inside of it, but it's still a slide, rail, recoil spring, and frame... it's difference is that it's a striker fired pistol, but do changes being made for it's safety make the design "relevant" or irrevelant? They are evolving with field information.
The Browning was the choice of field weapon for 15 different countries, NATO, and many other police and military agencies of those countries, so trying to erase it's memory by telling people it's design is"irrevelant" is something we're all getting used to seeing in the news any more... false advertising. The arguments that the design is irrevelant is like the argument that the wheel is irrevelant... way too much depends on what we learn and use from the design for it to ever be irrevelant until pistols completely change into something else... which they have now, with the invention of the electronically fired weapons.
WT
Northslope Nimrod
Member
Are Glocks Irrelevant?
Since Hi-Powers are soooo much sweeter to shoot than a Glock.....doesn't that make Glocks irrelevant?
An earlier poster suggested they were not relevant as a combat pistol.....The Beretta 92 IS relevant but NOT the Hi-Power? Can anyone explain that to me?
Try finding many threads where people are dissapointed with their Hi-Powers. They are hard to find indeed. There aren't many firearms that can claim that.
Also, why is the 1911 so relevant when the Hi-power is not? (both are clearly relevant) Many agencies (especially SWAT and bigger budget cities are dropping their Glocks and picking up 1911's again).
EDITED TO ADD: Weird! I wrote my post before reading the one directly above it...by wristtwister. I could have just put "DITTO"
Since Hi-Powers are soooo much sweeter to shoot than a Glock.....doesn't that make Glocks irrelevant?
An earlier poster suggested they were not relevant as a combat pistol.....The Beretta 92 IS relevant but NOT the Hi-Power? Can anyone explain that to me?
Try finding many threads where people are dissapointed with their Hi-Powers. They are hard to find indeed. There aren't many firearms that can claim that.
Also, why is the 1911 so relevant when the Hi-power is not? (both are clearly relevant) Many agencies (especially SWAT and bigger budget cities are dropping their Glocks and picking up 1911's again).
EDITED TO ADD: Weird! I wrote my post before reading the one directly above it...by wristtwister. I could have just put "DITTO"
/shrug
IMO the BHP is THE 9MM pistol PERIOD. I owned a glock 9mm, fired the beretta, a sig, and a couple of others and NONE fit my hand OR shot as well as the BHP passed down to me by my father. He picked it up during a tour in Viet Nam in 71', and carried it until he passed away.
The BHP is not only still relevant, it is the bar that ALL other 9mm's should try to meet, and that MOST fail to do imo.
If I carried a 9mm, it would be the BHP.
It is still so much relevant COMBAT PISTOL; Time tested decades after decades and field tested through out the world from Sahara to the poles.
I do not mind whether it has a lawyer proof trigger system or not.
It is one of the few pistols I would not hesitate to bet on it my life when it is on the line just right out of the box.
I do not mind whether it has a lawyer proof trigger system or not.
It is one of the few pistols I would not hesitate to bet on it my life when it is on the line just right out of the box.
atblis
Member
So
That's great. So which US police department issues this thing? Which hundred countries and do they even issue them to their main army? Andorra? Zimbabwe? Your link proves nothing. That's just like CZ making this assertion
Okay, great what did they actually just say?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Not a consideration. What our police departments issue is based on the individual agency's requirements...and made on what a committee decides is the best compromise that will fill those requirements. It also very often...not always, but often...comes down to the lowest bidder.
Just because X doesn't fit a given US police agency's criteria is not taken as proof that it doesn't fit anybody's.
Diff'rent strokes and all that.
Ghost Tracker
Member
The BHP was designed & used primarily during a period of time when the VAST majority of adult males were quite accustomed to the general use of long-guns (shooting, hunting) well before their first introduction to handguns. So issues of safety, trigger control, manual-of-arms, etc. were more or less ingrained by the time someone began training to use a 1911 or BHP.
Now days, it's common for a firearms "rookie" to be introduced to handgunning as his FIRST exposure to guns of ANY sort. Many have never before seen, held or (much less) fired a gun. In light of this cultural shift, handguns were then necessarily designed to be more "rookie proof". So trigger-pulls were made longer & heavier, safeties were made more indirect, locks & chamber-indicators were added...all in an effort to prevent the inexperienced user of a handgun from being a walking liability-lawsuit waiting to happen.
More modern GLOCKs, Kahrs, S&W M&P, SIGs, etc. are ALL designed with an eye toward specifically addressing this legal (not functional) issue. So it could be argued that the BHP's fall-from-grace ("irrelevance?") has nothing to do with its capability as a fighting handgun. But more to do with its lack of corrective & protective features to compensate for inexperienced shooters...and EXPERIENCED lawyers!
Now days, it's common for a firearms "rookie" to be introduced to handgunning as his FIRST exposure to guns of ANY sort. Many have never before seen, held or (much less) fired a gun. In light of this cultural shift, handguns were then necessarily designed to be more "rookie proof". So trigger-pulls were made longer & heavier, safeties were made more indirect, locks & chamber-indicators were added...all in an effort to prevent the inexperienced user of a handgun from being a walking liability-lawsuit waiting to happen.
More modern GLOCKs, Kahrs, S&W M&P, SIGs, etc. are ALL designed with an eye toward specifically addressing this legal (not functional) issue. So it could be argued that the BHP's fall-from-grace ("irrelevance?") has nothing to do with its capability as a fighting handgun. But more to do with its lack of corrective & protective features to compensate for inexperienced shooters...and EXPERIENCED lawyers!
robctwo
Member
Hmmmmm. As a lawyer, I guess I'll need to explain to the next new shooter that once the Glock 34 has a round in the chamber it is MUCH more difficult to get the gun to fire than the BHP with a round in the chamber and the safety engaged. Legally speaking.
While I agree with your post in general, I think the cultural shift has been less from lack of familiarity with guns and more from people trying to win the lottery through frivolous law suits. The lack of personal responsiblity and honor in more and more people is to blame. SOME lawyers may promote this behavior through advertising and legislation in order to proft. However, no client, no case, so the ultimate responsible or irresponsilbe party is the client not the lawyer.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Legally speaking...yes. On a practical level, the cocked/locked SA pistol is more difficult in that it requires two separate, deliberate actions to make it fire. Once the safety is in the OFF position...both only require one. With a finger on the trigger, the DAO pistol is the more difficult in that it requires more deliberation...or at least a longer brain dwell time...and there's the catch. Some brains are just slower to fully engage before directing the nerves to twitch.
And that, ladies and laddies...is what most often drives decisions to adopt pistol X instead of pistol Y. It's known as the lowest common denominator.
Ghost Tracker
Member
Well, you being a lawyer and all, I would expect that sort of pretzel logic.
Don't mistake my post as a lawyer-bashing. I like, need & appreciate y'all!
My point is; traditional, single-action, manual-safety, centerfire, autoloading handguns (1911, BHP) aren't the ideal platform from which to launch a shooting novice into high-stress, defensive shooting situations. For better-or-worse, from a ready-to-fire condition,...it IS easier (quicker, with less effort) to get a BHP to fire than a G34.
I'm just offering an explaination as to why the G34 (etc,) is now more often issued than the BHP or 1911 by LE departments.
Don't mistake my post as a lawyer-bashing. I like, need & appreciate y'all!
My point is; traditional, single-action, manual-safety, centerfire, autoloading handguns (1911, BHP) aren't the ideal platform from which to launch a shooting novice into high-stress, defensive shooting situations. For better-or-worse, from a ready-to-fire condition,...it IS easier (quicker, with less effort) to get a BHP to fire than a G34.
I'm just offering an explaination as to why the G34 (etc,) is now more often issued than the BHP or 1911 by LE departments.
easyg
Member
Nonsense!
The military has done it for years and years....and continues to do so.
How do you figure?
A loaded Glock has no manual safety and does not have a heavy double-action trigger....just point and shoot.
How is a BHP "easier quicker, with less effort"?
As I see it, the Glock is easier and quicker for novices to shoot than any pistol with a manual safety.
atblis
Member
Not my point
Had nothing to do with the suitably/performance of the firearm in question. Hipowers no doubt perform just fine in many roles.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Not my point, either. Mine addressed the comment/question:
What the police choose generally has little to do with the "combat" superiority of one over another and more with the reduced liklihood of departmental liability. Other considerations like reliability and ease of familiarization/training for people who have never fired a gun before entering the profession also enter the equation. The rank and file LEO service sidearm must be a generally-suited weapon rather than a specialty or "Expert Required" platform. The P35 is like the 1911 in that it requires more dedication to handle safely and effectively under the oddball situations that beat cops often become tangled up in during the course of a shift.
What the police choose generally has little to do with the "combat" superiority of one over another and more with the reduced liklihood of departmental liability. Other considerations like reliability and ease of familiarization/training for people who have never fired a gun before entering the profession also enter the equation. The rank and file LEO service sidearm must be a generally-suited weapon rather than a specialty or "Expert Required" platform. The P35 is like the 1911 in that it requires more dedication to handle safely and effectively under the oddball situations that beat cops often become tangled up in during the course of a shift.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
