Difference in HiPower trigger pulls

C

croyance

New member
While playing with my guns the other day, I noticed a difference in the quality of trigger pulls of my Hi Powers. One is a 1984 model made in Belgium, the second is a 1994 Practical assembled in Portugal.
The 1984 model has a much better trigger pull. The take-up is less, and has a more solid feel. The trigger is also more crisp.
The 1994 model has a "springier" feel in the take-up. On the positive side, the safety is easier to use and the sights are more visible.
I don't know if this is the difference production quality, or just a random difference between two guns. I lack the funds to buy a valid statistical test group.
I do know about Hi-Power forums, but I thought I'd try here first.
 
Might be the magazine disconnect...

I've heard it was in and out of production....maybe your '94 had a mag disconnect and the '84 doesn't?

If both have a mag disconnect, then the surface finish of the respective magazines may make a different in the amount of "grit" you feel in the pull. Rough magazine means more grit in the trigger feel. Try swapping mags.

I've only shot two HP's. My FEG clone and a 10-year old FN model. Not much difference that I could tell.
 
Trigger pull is the biggest complaint I have with my BHP and a clone. Taking out the mag disconnect does help but it improved the clones trigger pull much better than the BHP. I found taking out the mag disconnect rather easy but you may want to take it to a pro if you are uneasy about pounding on your BHP with a hammer and a punch.

As much as a BHP costs the trigger pull is a major disappointment. Will have to spend even more money to get a COMPETENT gunsmith to make it nice. Other than that I love the way a BHP feels in my hand. Damn nice gun.
 
Dave R hit the nail on the head. Polish the side of the magazine that contacts the disconnect, and you'll have a much smoother pull. If you have stainless factory mags, the polishing will suffice. If you have blue aftermarket ones, take the blueing off in that area.
 
There may be another factor at work here. In the late 80's or early 90's the BHP was fitted with a firing pin safety and still is in present production. This introduces another spring into the system which is located under the sear lever.
Also, I believe, but cannot be certain, that a couple of spring changes were made in that time period. The trigger spring was changed from a two coil to a three coil and the firing pin spring may have been made heavier.
 
Actually, the "firing pin safety" of newer HP's is the sear lever itself. The lever always had a return spring so no additional springs are added to the series of components. The "safety" is accomplished by opening a hole in the slide where the end of the sear lever rests on the rim of the FP keeping it from moving until the sear lever is moved via the trigger.

K5Blazer hit it: trigger pulls on HI-powers vary a lot from the factory. Some people say they got one with about 5 pounds and no creep, some like me got one closer to 8 pounds with horrible creep. Luck of the draw. From what I read on posts, the older ones were better made so I suspect they put more effort into setting up the trigger on those. For whatever reasons, the older guns are prized and seem to shoot better.
 
FWIW, there was a different trigger-return spring used with the inception of the Mk IIIs. You might head over to Wolfe's http://www.gunsprings.com/ and pick up an earlier spring (they're only $5, and Wolfe's is the greatest) and see if it helps. (My recollection, though, is that the earlier ones are actually heavier. I put an early type one in my Mk III because it cut down on "mushiness".)

If you want a whole lot of Hi-Power nuts to answer this question definitively, post over at http://www.fnhipower.com/ Many of those guys know more about Hi-Powers than seems prudent! (If you do go to the Hi-Power forums, use Internet Explorer, though, 'cause Netscape is slow over there.)
 
Sorry, I have to disagree.:(
My Mk II does not have a spring under the sear lever. The Mk III does (with firing pin safety). The sear lever on the Mk III has a paddle that engages the firing pin. The slide is cut for this "paddle". The spring holds the paddle against the firing pin.
The Mk II I have does not have the spring or the paddle.
Removing the firing pin on my Mk III is much more difficult than the MK II due to the spring.
 
I always put a dab of high-quality grease on the magazine disconnect where it bears against the mag tube of my 1996 BHP. Also a bit of grease on the sear, the ends of the sear lever, etc. This is not the equal of a custom trigger job, but it's easy, cheap, and definitely helps.

OTOH, my 1968 BHP has a good trigger with little or no effort on my part. I think this is because the front surface of the mag tube came polished in those days, and also because of the lighter mainspring that was used then. Any original roughness has worn smooth, too.
 
Shoot, no problem here! I'm just repeating what they told me over at the Hi-Power forum and on Wolfe's site. I've never taken a Mk II apart.

Anyway, I agree the trigger pull is the weak link on the BHP (tho the trigger action certainly works well). They are remarkable pistols otherwise.
 
Erich, I'm sorry, I wasn't disagreeing with your post. I agree with your observations on the trigger spring. The Wolff heavy duty spring for the Mk III is really a MK II type spring. They even say so on their website.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top