You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Cylinder & Slide Shop's SFS System for the Browning Hi-Power...Opinions Sought
- Thread starter Anthony
- Start date
Robert the41MagFan
New member
Played with one at Shot Show in January. Very Cool! Best product I've seen for a single action pistol in a long time. Takes that fear of carrying cocked and locked away. Springfield now has the same system on certain 1911 models.
Robert
Robert
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Personally, I don't see it as an improvement since I am comfortable carrying condition one.
However, if you aren't comfortable with that mode of carry and don't mind spending the money, this system may be the answer for you. Check out http://www.fnhipower.com/ and do a search for SFS there. At least one person has had two Hi-Powers converted to this system and did a nice write-up of their experience with it.
However, if you aren't comfortable with that mode of carry and don't mind spending the money, this system may be the answer for you. Check out http://www.fnhipower.com/ and do a search for SFS there. At least one person has had two Hi-Powers converted to this system and did a nice write-up of their experience with it.
I believe that I am probably who Bartholemew is referring to.
You can go to www.fnhipower.com and invoke the search function for "SFS" and/or "conversion" and you'll probably find all of the threads.
I really like the SFS system. It is not so much a reflection that C&L is unsafe or that I find it disconcerting or uncomfortable, but more a reflection some of the drawbacks to the locked back hammer itself, and the usual downfalls of the safety latch. I find that the SFS system is potentially better if you CCW in dress clothes/shirt & tie as the hammer is down as well as having a lower profile spur so it absolutely does not catch on anything. It is also VERY ergonomic for shooting and moving. I find it far easier to apply the safety (i.e. you simply push the hammer forward) than to thumb up any of the thumb safeties on BHPs or 1911s I have handled to date. I also like the tactile and visual cue that the weapon is safed (the hammer is down), which is far easier for me to check while holstered than with a standard thumb safety.
Additionally, the trigger pull you get with installation of the stock SFS is excellent. It is, out of the box, one of the best combat trigger pulls I have felt. Both of my pistols measure between 4.5-5# pulls that are crisp, crisp, crisp.
One additional comment: it probably is a survivability asset. What I mean by this is that few folks are knowledgeble about the system and how it works; thus if your weapon is taken by someone who is used to DA/SA pistols it will take them a minute to figure out the safety deal. If taken by someone familiar with 1911 or SA pistols, they will think it is condition3 and try to rack, then drop safety and rack again. This buys you time to either get it back or get out of Dodge. Both of the above reactions are what I've seen when fairly experienced pistoleros handle the guns the first time.
C&S did a 10K round durability test without problems. I'm closing in on 5K through one of the guns with no problems. I learned about the SFS after shooting a friend's BHP that was so equipped. This guy has spent a good portion of his life in the IDF Special Ops community and knows the BHP better than anyone I have ever met. He has one on his carry BHP; this was quite an initial recommendation of the system for me. You should know that the Israelis carry condition 3 and need to draw and rack so condition 1 carry was not in his lexicon for the BHP.
I'd be happy to entertain any further questions. I don't work for C&S and have no commercial interest in them. I just like this system.
You can go to www.fnhipower.com and invoke the search function for "SFS" and/or "conversion" and you'll probably find all of the threads.
I really like the SFS system. It is not so much a reflection that C&L is unsafe or that I find it disconcerting or uncomfortable, but more a reflection some of the drawbacks to the locked back hammer itself, and the usual downfalls of the safety latch. I find that the SFS system is potentially better if you CCW in dress clothes/shirt & tie as the hammer is down as well as having a lower profile spur so it absolutely does not catch on anything. It is also VERY ergonomic for shooting and moving. I find it far easier to apply the safety (i.e. you simply push the hammer forward) than to thumb up any of the thumb safeties on BHPs or 1911s I have handled to date. I also like the tactile and visual cue that the weapon is safed (the hammer is down), which is far easier for me to check while holstered than with a standard thumb safety.
Additionally, the trigger pull you get with installation of the stock SFS is excellent. It is, out of the box, one of the best combat trigger pulls I have felt. Both of my pistols measure between 4.5-5# pulls that are crisp, crisp, crisp.
One additional comment: it probably is a survivability asset. What I mean by this is that few folks are knowledgeble about the system and how it works; thus if your weapon is taken by someone who is used to DA/SA pistols it will take them a minute to figure out the safety deal. If taken by someone familiar with 1911 or SA pistols, they will think it is condition3 and try to rack, then drop safety and rack again. This buys you time to either get it back or get out of Dodge. Both of the above reactions are what I've seen when fairly experienced pistoleros handle the guns the first time.
C&S did a 10K round durability test without problems. I'm closing in on 5K through one of the guns with no problems. I learned about the SFS after shooting a friend's BHP that was so equipped. This guy has spent a good portion of his life in the IDF Special Ops community and knows the BHP better than anyone I have ever met. He has one on his carry BHP; this was quite an initial recommendation of the system for me. You should know that the Israelis carry condition 3 and need to draw and rack so condition 1 carry was not in his lexicon for the BHP.
I'd be happy to entertain any further questions. I don't work for C&S and have no commercial interest in them. I just like this system.
KODP,
This is the first time anyone ever said anything about the SFS that made any sense to me whatsoever! Until your post, I agreed with Clint Smith's remark. However, your point about it confusing a BG is a good one. Personally, it still isn't worth the cost, but I see your point.
This is the first time anyone ever said anything about the SFS that made any sense to me whatsoever! Until your post, I agreed with Clint Smith's remark. However, your point about it confusing a BG is a good one. Personally, it still isn't worth the cost, but I see your point.
Coupla things
1. In general, I agree...its not broken, don't fix it.
...
but...
...
2. The ergonomics argument is sound, IF you are carrying concealed in a manner that could cause the hammer to jab or snag on clothing. They make 'hammerless' revolvers for this very reason, no?
3. For LEOs and security types- some departments refuse to allow SA autos, but will allow Glocks or similar pistols...so obviously their hang up is the 'dangerous' cocked hammer. This eliminates that argument quite nicely.
Mike
1. In general, I agree...its not broken, don't fix it.
...
but...
...
2. The ergonomics argument is sound, IF you are carrying concealed in a manner that could cause the hammer to jab or snag on clothing. They make 'hammerless' revolvers for this very reason, no?
3. For LEOs and security types- some departments refuse to allow SA autos, but will allow Glocks or similar pistols...so obviously their hang up is the 'dangerous' cocked hammer. This eliminates that argument quite nicely.
Mike
As a side note; we recently took those guns to Thunder Ranch for DHG1 and Team Tactics (great courses all around!). ALL of the instructors, including Clint & Heidi, appeared dubious at first. After seeing the guns in use the comments mellowed out, and while I don't think anyone there is rushing out to put them on their guns we did get a fair amount of positive feedback for how they worked and felt from staff and other students alike.
Mike: your #3 above is also dead on for LEOs who wish to carry a SA pistol but are foiled by departmental paranoia/idiocy regarding Condition 1 carry. For those in this pickle it eliminates the argument (after all the hammer is down and it is "decocked") yet you still have what I refer to as a "Condition 1.5" SA firearm (round chambered, pistol cocked, "ring" hammer down; depress safety and ring hammer springs back and weapon ready to fire before you can even get sights on the target) ready to go.
I do not think that this system is THE way for everyone. It sure works great for US as a CCW primary sidearm. We like 'em!
Regards,
Bob
Mike: your #3 above is also dead on for LEOs who wish to carry a SA pistol but are foiled by departmental paranoia/idiocy regarding Condition 1 carry. For those in this pickle it eliminates the argument (after all the hammer is down and it is "decocked") yet you still have what I refer to as a "Condition 1.5" SA firearm (round chambered, pistol cocked, "ring" hammer down; depress safety and ring hammer springs back and weapon ready to fire before you can even get sights on the target) ready to go.
I do not think that this system is THE way for everyone. It sure works great for US as a CCW primary sidearm. We like 'em!
Regards,
Bob