Why didn't modernized Hi Powers ever catch on?

[FairWarning]

I think likely because the gun culture, and the many proponents of the 1911 at it's heyday, led us down that path. Cooper, Seyfried, Chuck Taylor, all shot 1911's, and the pistol was prevalent in the competitions of the day. The custom 'smiths and accessory people responded....and we all shot Colt's instead of Brownings.

Even today, there is still a blatant anti-9mm bias among more than a few gun writers, not even counting the legions of internet types who simply believe that bigger projectile = better, and won't listen to any argument.

Again, this is part of the culture that saw the 1911 as a proven sidearm for many decades. I would definitely say that .45 hardball as used by the military is likely to be more effective than 9mm hardball, but with the SD ammo available today, 9mm is among the top tier of defensive calibers in an easy to use hi-cap platform, which is why the FBI and other agencies are starting to warm up to it again.

 

[mavracer]

A good complex question.

I disagree, It's quite simply a matter of the trigger.

I haven't read all the responses but quite simply it takes a lot of work to get a BHP trigger as good as a average 1911.

 

[tipoc]

I disagree, It's quite simply a matter of the trigger.

I haven't read all the responses but quite simply it takes a lot of work to get a BHP trigger as good as a average 1911.

It'll never get as good as the 1911. But name another gun that is?

It also doesn't take all that much work either. Replacement of the original trigger groups in Glocks and S&W M&Ps is common these days.

No, I think it's more that it was never adopted by the U.S. military or any significant number of police departments. In the U.S. that's what it takes. That also would of solved the issue of the trigger-would have been a whole lot easier to smooth them out as it would of become common to do so.

When Glocks first showed up they had wretched triggers. Far worse than the BHP. Same is true for many others.

FN has never really made an effort to smooth the triggers out for the import market unless a military contract called for it.

For decades FN did not upgrade the safeties or the sights, that was done only after sales of the gun had dropped off big time, and in an effort to recover market share.

The trigger was not a big obstacle in Europe, Africa, the mid east or Asia where the BHP and it's clones have sold very well over the decades.

It ain't the trigger.

tipoc

 

[UncleEd]

When it came to the U.S. government purchases of the BHP, there were some custom guns for the FBI and during Viet Nam War a slew were picked up by the CIA.

As to a heavy trigger, with all the work done on the 1911 since WWII, American users of the 1911 became fairy wimps. (DA revolver shooters retained their manhood. )

 

[tipoc]

Yep and the FBI Hostage Rescue Team used them and a few SWAT teams and units here and there. But never enough to push it forward.

tipoc

 

[Chris_B]

My pop has two FEGs, one of which is the direct BHP clone. Wonderful and smooth triggers. Both still have the mag disconnect.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Remember that right up until a few years ago, the BHP was being used around the world in more countries by more armies and police than any other pistol.

CZ can and does make the same claim. The big difference is that the actual total number of countries using the weapon wasn't that great, and none of them had large militaries or used large numbers of those weapons. The High Power was widely used during WWII by the Axis (after they invaded Belgium); and a clone (Inglis) was used by some of the Allies. 9mm wasn't a common round among the allies, either -- but the Germans liked it.

The United Kingdom continued to use them after WWII, and some were used in the Middle East by a number of ME armies -- but so were many other guns, including copies of Berettas and later copies of CZs. With the 70's, other guns (SIGs, Berettas, and Glocks) were far more popular and far more widely used than the High Power.

The High Power is a good solid 9mm gun. But so are the guns offered by the competition, most of which were available for very good (and likely much lower) prices starting in the 70s.

The BHP never made it big in the U.S. LEO market -- arguably for the same reason the 1911 didn't: it was single action. (It took a while for LEOs to get over their infatuation with revolvers, too, and they still don't seem to like SA weapons.)

In Europe and South America, civilian handguns were limited by law or culture/custom to .380 or less. The Communist Bloc never went above 9x18 in their militaries, and in some countries, 9mm was a military-only caliber.

FNH, the owner of the BHP design (which was created and owned by FNH and much later marketed by Browning, primarily in the U.S.) seemed more focused on military rifles, carbines, sub-machine and machine guns, and continues to be heavily focused on those types of weapons. They're now making some great handguns, but aren't pushing them as strongly as some companies push their weapons -- probably because the military weapons are their bread and butter.

 

[tipoc]

If you go over here...

https://forums.1911forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15

You can see a good many gunsmith worked on P35s as well as some of the factory variations.

Take a look at the pics and particularly "Some BHP leather".

tipoc

 

[rodfac]

WvSig, thanks for the tips..I do like those low-riding S&W sights. I've got a first rate .40 S&W BHP that's as accurate as I can hold.

I'm looking to add a 9mm. I carried one for half of my first tour in Vietnam in 1970...flying FAC missions near An Loc, lll Corps. The Berets that I lived with in the B camp kept me in ammunition and I got them Air Force issue 5.56 ammo which they seemed to prefer for their sojourns into the bush. I'd give a lot to have that old Browning back on my hip.

Thanks again, Rod

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

To answer the OP, I think the the gun was never modernized is because it is made in Europe, which has no history of practical handgun shooting and because access there is so restricted. If the gun had been built in the US by an American company from the beginning, it would be running parallel to the 1911. The BHP trigger' long reset needs fixed, though...

 

[Pilot]

My personal, uneducated opinion, is that folks just aren't interested in single action hammer fired pistols. Yeah SIG has that option on some of their pistols I believe(?), and maybe a few CZ models, but its a plastic and striker fired world out there these days.

CZ sells every all metal, hammer fired pistol they make. Yes, they make polymer, and are coming out with a striker fired, polymer pistol, but their traditional hammer fired guns are still in very high demand.

 

[ttarp]

CZ sells every all metal, hammer fired pistol they make. Yes, they make polymer, and are coming out with a striker fired, polymer pistol, but their traditional hammer fired guns are still in very high demand.

I've seen several CZ's at the store and at the range, but I've never seen a single action CZ in person. Yes I know they make and sell them, but every CZ I've laid eyes on is DA/SA, so I'm fairly confident my point still stands.

 

[jmf552]

Bill DeShivs: I get what you're saying about hollow points in the 80's, that's when they became popular, but FWIW, my Dad EDC'ed a BHP in about 1970 because he was getting credible death threats (long story for another time). He loaded it with Israeli-made JHPs that were higher-than-normal pressure, essentially pre-+Ps. They came in a yellow box. The box said they were for pistols, so they weren't the infamous Uzi ammo. He got them at a local police supply store. So they were around way before the 80's.

 

[tipoc]

Just on the original supposition of this thread...

FN has made improvements to the gun over the decades. From the Mark I to the variations of the Mark 3 which were introduced in the late 1980s. The latter featuring improved sights (quite good fixed ones actually) an enlarged safety, differently shaped ejection port, feeds jhp reliably, etc. The introduction of guns in 40 S&W was also done though that may not have been the best idea. It's been brought out in a double action model to try to get a share of the leo market in the 90s. There has been more.

The BHP has always sold well in the U.S. since 1954. I don't mean "well" like McDonald's hamburgers but well like it's always been there and not in danger of going under or being too hard to find. That latter may be changing as FN has been moving to selling other pistols.

There are plenty of pistol smiths who work on it. There always have been. The BHP has been the "King of the nines" for along time.

Some of the gunsmiths who work on it are:

Nighthawk Custom:

http://www.nighthawkcustom.com/browning-hi-power

Robar

https://robarguns.com/custom-weapons/handguns/browning-hi-power/

Cylinder and Slide:

http://www.cylinder-slide.com/bhptoday.shtml

Jim Garthwaite

http://www.garthwaite.com/services/browning-custom-work.php

Morris Custom

http://www.morriscustompistols.com/browning hipower.htm

and a whole lot more.

tipoc

 

[WVsig]

FN has made improvements to the gun over the decades. From the Mark I to the variations of the Mark 3 which were introduced in the late 1980s.

There is no MK I designation. There are MKIIs and MKIIIs no MK I.

You are right that the pistol has evolved over the years but honestly the stock gun from FN is a bit dated compared to other guns. I love it but I also see it for what it is.

 

[larryh1108]

Isn't the Inglis model marked Mark I?

 

[WVsig]

Isn't the Inglis model marked Mark I?

I would argue it is not a true Hi Power. It is a clone. no MKI was ever made by FN.

 

[tipoc]

That's true no Mark 1 was made by FN. Ruger never made a Mark 1 .22 either. But nevertheless there is a Mark 2 and 3.

You are right that the pistol has evolved over the years but honestly the stock gun from FN is a bit dated compared to other guns. I love it but I also see it for what it is.

If you see it for "what it is" and love it, then what else do you need? It works as well as it ever has, better actually than decades back, and if that's enough to love then it's good to go. If not you can always have a smith touch it up some.

On the Inglis. Folks can read some on it here...

http://www.ai4fr.com/main/page_militaria__collectibles_canada_inglis.html

Clone or not it was a legitimate version of the Hi-Power made from prints taken from the FN plant and with Saive's co-operation.

tipoc

 

[WVsig]

If you see it for "what it is" and love it, then what else do you need? It works as well as it ever has, better actually than decades back, and if that's enough to love then it's good to go. If not you can always have a smith touch it up some.

On the Inglis. Folks can read some on it here...

http://www.ai4fr.com/main/page_milit...da_inglis.html

Clone or not it was a legitimate version of the Hi-Power made from prints taken from the FN plant and with Saive's co-operation.

I think you misunderstand me. I love the BHP. It is my favorite 9mm but I understand its limitations and its short comings. I also understand 100% why they contribute to its lack of overall popularity in the modern gun world.

For me the BHP sort of like the 1911 during thr 70's and 80s. The guns straight for the factory, whose days for 1911 basically Colt, were good but not great. In order to unlock the potential of the gun you have to know how to improve it yourself or you have to send it to a smith.

In the 1911 world people like Kimber changed the game. They created a production gun with all the features of a Colt + custom work and sold it for a reasonable enough price that people choose it vs the Colt + smith route. They used economy of scale, MIM parts and modern production techniques to improve their production gun and the 1911 marketplace changed forever.

This has never happened with the BHP. People like FEG, Charles Daly & FM all tried to produce clones with limited success. None of them produced a clone which incorporated the updates people desired.

Charles Daly with the use of FEG frames, XD big dot sights, Spegel designed grips and extended safety was the closet to an improved production clone but the triggers still fell short. They were also undermined when they move production to Magnum Research, Inc. IIRC

This makes the BHP very expensive. Base gun + custom smith = Expensive. More modern guns like the Glock 19, Sig P320, even 1911s are getting the same thing done for less money and effort. That is why the BHP is still sort of a niche gun. IMHO

As for the Inglis it is the definition of a license clone. I am not going to go over every detail but the article you linked to like so many articles on the BHP and its variants is somewhat flawed and inaccurate.

For example JMB was not an employee of FN. He was a contracted designer for FN. Saive was not his assistant. Saive was the head of design at FN Herstal. IIRC the Inglis were produced by tracing existing pistols and with Saive who by memory filled in the gaps. They did not get the blue prints from the FN plant in Herstal.

 

[mavracer]

Ruger never made a Mark 1 .22 either.

How many times can a guy be wrong in one thread?