View Full Version : Any Experiences With .40 Cal. Hi Powers?
My assumption would be shorter service life than a P229?
I've read the triggers can't be taken down reliably below about 6 lbs. Is that true?
Something else I noticed handling one - that slide takes some effort to rack.
I would welcome any other feedback, too.
Thanks
They have durability issues. I can't give you a specific number but they're certainly not nearly as durable as the 9mm variants (which themselves are not usually known to have service lives that meet modern expectations).
The recoil spring, as you mentioned, is about 500# ... my wife was unable to rack the slide on my BHP40, so we had to buy her a BHP9.
I sincerely doubt there's any meaningful difference in the limits of a trigger job between the 9mm and .40 variants since both rounds use the same primer and require the same SAAMI indent. I've certainly handled BHP9's with triggers well below 6#.
It's not a bad gun, but it's another example of a 9mm that someone abused with a CNC shoehorn to make it run in .40 S&W.
They have durability issues. I can't give you a specific number but they're certainly not nearly as durable as the 9mm variants (which themselves are not usually known to have service lives that meet modern expectations).
The recoil spring, as you mentioned, is about 500# ... my wife was unable to rack the slide on my BHP40, so we had to buy her a BHP9.
I sincerely doubt there's any meaningful difference in the limits of a trigger job between the 9mm and .40 variants since both rounds use the same primer and require the same SAAMI indent. I've certainly handled BHP9's with triggers well below 6#.
It's not a bad gun, but it's another example of a 9mm that someone abused with a CNC shoehorn to make it run in .40 S&W.
Todd,
Can you elaborate on what you mean by durability issues? Are there reports you've seen that show they are breaking more so than the 9mms?
In regards to the trigger pull, I think it has to do with the balance of the hammer/mainspring weight to retard the slide velocity.
John Fettes
10-21-08, 12:29
http://forums.1911forum.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=45&f=15
and here:
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/
John
They have durability issues. I can't give you a specific number but they're certainly not nearly as durable as the 9mm variants (which themselves are not usually known to have service lives that meet modern expectations).
Just out of curiosity's sake; what kind of service life have you been seeing with 9mm BHP's?
Thanks
cc
I cannot put my hands on hard data re: durability. Folks I've spoken to with more direct experience using the .40-cal version have reported to me that they see more breakages with the .40's. Nine millimeter BHPs are uncommon enough these days, I can't recall the last time I saw a .40-cal version in a class.
As I understand it -- and I'm no gunsmith -- the 9 and 40 are using the same mainspring, thus I wouldn't expect trigger pull to be different. This may have changed, since my BHP40 (long since sold) was a very early model. Recoil was handled by a third locking lug, heavier & wider slide, and 15% greater recoil spring rate.
Todd, I respectfully disagree with you on the durability issue regarding .40 vs. 9mm Hi-Powers. If anything, the .40 should be MORE durable than the 9mm (except for post-1994 production 9mm Hi-Powers with cast frames).
I've had 3 of the .40 Hi-Powers, and experienced problems with only one; a sear needed to be replaced after I'd had the gun for over 10 years.
FN/Browning significantly re-designed the gun to deal with the .40 cartridge with reliability and durability, including a through-hardened cast frame, thicker (and wider/heavier) slide, thicker ejector, redesigned three-lugged barrel, a more effective magazine ejection spring system, re-designed extractor and other changes. The gestation period was protracted and intense, as FN wanted to provide a gun with exceptional reliability with any factory manufactured .40 cartridge/bullet configuration.
The standard recoil spring weight of 20 lbs DOES make for a more difficult slide manipulation and re-assembly after field-stripping. Slide manipulation is eased if you cock the hammer first.
Some good websites that provide in-depth coverage of Hi-Powers are Stephen Camp's www.hipowersandhandguns.com and www.1911forum.com, as mentioned by John Fettes previously. The highpowersandhandguns site is a treasure-trove of excellent, indepth information on running a Hi-Power, mostly provided by Stephen Camp-he also has an excellent book, "The Shooters Guide To The Hi-Power," available from the websites.
There are several gunsmths who can provide reliable sub-6 lb action jobs for a Hi-Power, such as Novak's and Cylinder and Slide. My current FN Hi-Power has a decent triggerpull out of the box (somewhat heavy, but not gritty, and with a crisp break). Realistically, expect to need a action job with a new Hi-Power...it's kind of part-and-parcel of the package...
The reward is an exquisitely shaped gun in a fairly compact package that indexes beautifully with most people. John Browning and Dieudonne Saive really nailed down the basic ergonomics on this puppy in the 1920's when it was designed.
I have both a .40 Hi-Power and a SIG P229 DAK in .40/.357 SIG; I enjoy them both!
Best, Jon
Todd, I respectfully disagree with you on the durability issue regarding .40 vs. 9mm Hi-Powers. If anything, the .40 should be MORE durable than the 9mm (except for post-1994 production 9mm Hi-Powers with cast frames).
I've had 3 of the .40 Hi-Powers, and experienced problems with only one; a sear needed to be replaced after I'd had the gun for over 10 years.
This begs the question, how many rounds through each of those three guns?
Jon,
Interesting. Have you put a lot of rounds through your .40 HPs? I've also wondered how some of the .357 HPs in Texas that Novaks has done over the years have held up?
By the way, Novak's is the one that told me they only go down to 6 or 7 lbs. on a .40 HP. This is also from their site:
"Trigger Job (5-6# 9mm , 6-7# .40S&W)"
Charlie explained the reason to me, but it's been a while and I don't remember their reason.
In the 9mm HP, I don't expect it to hold up like a Glock. I know that going in. I've shot and enjoyed 9mm HPs for years. The .40 just doesn't get much feedback, though. I suppose it's because there just isn't any agency that would use them, so they're not getting a lot of rounds through them.
I second the Stephen Camp book recommendation. I'll tell you, too - Wayne Novak seems to have as much knowledge about the HP as anyone I've ever talked with. He knows his stuff.
Thanks for the info.
Todd and Race-A fair question regarding my Hi-Power round counts. My first Hi-Power, which I had roughly from 1997-2006 was a blued .40 Standard, which had been gone through at Novak's by Kurt Wickmann-I gave them a carte blanche regarding action work, but Kurt felt that it literally had the best Hi-Power trigger he'd felt, and recommended just leaving it alone, which I did (they cosmetically upgraded it, adding Low-Mount bar-dot tritium sights, tuning the extractor, and refinishing the slide in a bead-blast/high-polish blue combination). I then added a set of Craig Spegel kingwood presentation grips. On that Hi-Power, I probably put some 5,000-8,000 rounds through it; that was the one that eventually had the sear problems(probably at about the 7,500 round count as I recall); I sent it to Browning for a replacement, and on its return I found it to be fully repaired, but the exquisite trigger was lost in the process, being degraded to a merely average (but acceptable) trigger pull. I later traded it.
My second .40 Hi-Power was a Mk III, which I sent to Kurt Wickmann (then on his own) for tuning; he performed an action job, polished the trigger face, and tuned the extractor. Although he did a nice job, the trigger was just not quite as good as the original factory pull on my first Hi-Power. I probably put about 2,000 rounds through that gun; after several years, I traded it.
My third, and current .40 Hi-Power is a FN MkIII. It has a slightly heavy, but smooth and crisp triggerpull; the only thing that I've done to it is to replace the grips with a set of Hogue rubber fingergroove grips, as I find the Hi-Power grip to be slightly too slim for me; to get the optimal finger positioning on the trigger I need a slightly bulkier profile, which the Hogue grips nicely provide (no, they're not particularly attractive-but they work!). I probably have slightly less than 1,000 rounds through that gun; it's a keeper.
I freely admit that Hi-Power possession is a bit of a disease, for which there isn't necessarily a huge amount of logical explanation for. They are an excellent gun, and quite functional, but there are certainly much more modern, more ergonomic, more durable (particularly in the long-term heavy use category) pistols-the Glock 17/19, HK P30/45, and probably the SIG P229 (among others) come to mind. There is just a certain undeniable appeal to a Hi-Power-in it's fit, in it's classic status, and just in how it feels (and shoots). The trigger pull is not the best, the trigger reset is long, there are some fiddly small parts, the magazine safety is of questionable merit, etc.
I still think that they are great guns, and perfectly viable as a combat/defensive handgun, and a durable one at that (with the durability {particularly regarding long-term use/use with +P ammunition} caveated to mean those with the cast/hardened frames, both .40 and 9mm).
I can't provide any feedback regarding .40 guns converted to .357 SIG, as I've never owned or handled one. I don't recall seeing much feedback on them on any of the Hi-Power sites either.
Best, Jon
Most Hi-Powers I've seen, be they 9 mm or .40, last to around 35,000 rounds or so before locking lugs shear and frames crack. They are NOT as durable as 1911's, 9 mm Glocks, 9 mm Sigs, HK's, or the new M&P.
Most Hi-Powers I've seen, be they 9 mm or .40, last to around 35,000 rounds or so before locking lugs shear and frames crack. They are NOT as durable as 1911's, 9 mm Glocks, 9 mm Sigs, HK's, or the new M&P.
Doc,
When he was at Novak's, Kurt Wickman once told me that original 9mm HP barrels usually lasted around 13,000 rounds before they broke (the 2-piece barrels separated around the breach). Have you seen this?
Thanks.
Yes. While ergonomic, the HP is not a very durable pistol.
Durable in what sense. Gary? It's one thing if the guns break within an early round count, quite another if they break at a higher round count.
I believe most military/police contract guns assume (and/or specify) a 20K-30K forecastable lifespan.
If that's correct, within those parameters a Hi-Power is a "durable" gun if as a rule/average they perform without needing significant attention (other than normal operator maintenance and scheduled spring replacements) to that round count.
Outside of a 35K round count, I'd probably agree with you-there are certainly other guns designed for, and with proven performance well beyond that round count, such as the other guns previously mentioned.
Best, Jon
I guess there is the rub--what are the needs of the shooter?
For casual shooters, firing 500 rounds a year, an HP will last a long time.
For moderate shooters, like many LE officers around here, shooting 500 rounds a month, a HP will last 5-6 years or so. OK, but not great.
For a motivated shooter firing 500 rounds a week, a pistol with a 35K service life won't even last a year and a half... Unsat.
I read an interesting article about the BHP (http://www.cylinder-slide.com/bhptoday.shtml) on the Cylinder & Slide website. C&S is one of the leading customizers in the U.S. of Browning HP's, particularly their owner Bill Laughridge. Here's what it says about the relationship of the .40 and the 9mm (the whole article is well worth reading, it originally appeared in Guns Magazine Feb. 2004).
"In the 1990s, Browning announced a .40 S&W caliber version; but there was a long stutter between announcement and availability. The reason was that the very high pressure of the .40 cartridge and the high slide velocity it engendered gave reliability and durability problems. This writer had been dubious: if hot 9mm wrecked P-35s, what would .40 do to them?
It turns out that Browning did it right. The slide on the .40 version is much heavier, more like that of a Government .45 ACP. That plus a stronger recoil spring seem to allow the .40 Browning to stand the gaff. Indeed, Laughridge says that the trick set-up is to get a .40 Hi-Power and convert it to 9mm. Now it will take the hottest 9mm without damage, have even less recoil than the origina19mm P-35, and be convertible to .40 S&W at will. "
I think if I were going to run a modern BHP, I'd take Bill's advice and get a .40, then convert it to a 9.
Bill customized all quite a few of the HP's I've had, in both 9 mm and .40--and he warned me they would not be as durable as my 1911's. Guess what, he was right...
No doubt. Doc, I know Bill as well (he's friends with my Dad, and we're from the same town), and while he's a huge fan of BHP's and thinks they are great pistols, there's no question you're right, that he'd rank 1911's ahead of them in durability.
The thing is though, I guess that a LOT of pistols would probably not last as long as 1911's do, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad pistols. For example, my Ruger LCP will probably not outlast my 1911's either, but the Ruger is a good tough little pistol, and seems to work well thus far for the limited purposes I am using it, which are: pocket carry, backup gun, very limited shooting. A typical well made 1911 is exceptional in its durability, and very hard to beat in that area. But I know that Bill would still say a BHP can be a really great pistol, if a person understands its clear limitations and what purposes you intend to use it for. As Doc said earlier, it's the needs of the shooter, ultimately.
Personally, I would probably not choose a BHP over a 1911 (and haven't; I own two 1911's now, have owned several others in the past, and have zero BHP's), nor would I choose the BHP over modern designs (like the M&P, and the CZ), but those are my choices. And definitely, as Doc implies, I probably wouldn't get one for a duty-type gun. It's not that the BHP wouldn't work, it's just that there are some better modern designs available, and when it's your life in the balance...... Still, there could still be plenty of situations where a person might find that a well-tuned BHP is a great choice. For one thing, it gives shooters who are particular about triggers something that is not widely available today: a high-cap, true single-action, all steel pistol, with an external extractor, and is an alternative to the 1911 design. With a tuned trigger, a BHP is still no 1911, but I've shot them and those triggers are definitely in the category of being among the "next best" triggers you can get, after 1911 triggers.
If you read that article I linked to above, it gives a very good technical overview of the strengths and weaknesses of a BHP, and may help you decide whether it's the right kind of pistol for your intended use. I think Bill Laughridge is probably one of the best guides you could get on that question. In addition to reading that article, it might be worthwhile to call Bill at C&S and ask him about the custom BHP's he makes, and he could give you an idea of how the BHP compares to both the 1911, and to modern designs like the Glock. He does custom designs on all these pistol platforms, so he can be a great source of input about the differences between all of them. Heck, maybe you could even buy something from him. You could hardly find a better gunsmith or guy to work with! Of course, I'm a little biased....;)
Good luck, whatever you get!
Jon -- Not to bust your balls, but of the three BHP40's you owned you fired at most 11,000 rounds combined ... and the one with the highest round count broke (at 8,000 rounds max). That isn't what I'd consider proof of durability.
But the question "how durable is durable?" certainly seems like a fair one. Many government agencies assign a service life of 10,000 rounds to their weapons. That's intended to cover initial training (usually a few thousand rounds) and quarterly qualifications for ten years with a decent buffer for requals, in-service training, etc.
When the .mil hinted that their was-going-to-be-new .45 would be tested to 30,000 rounds, a lot of gun companies got very scared. The fact is that most companies simply don't do testing which is that extensive. 10k used to be the standard, and it seems to have shifted upwards to 20k in recent years. When I worked at SIG, I was instructed by my boss to inform my customers (fed & mil) that any gun with a round count in excess of 20,000 rounds was considered beyond its service life and we wouldn't take any responsibility for problems or breakage beyond that point.
And even when we talk about 20k or 30k service life limits, that's for the major components ... frame, slide, barrel. Other little parts will wear out, will break with some regularity, and will cause problems. Some companies provide maintenance schedules to avoid those problems ... others issue bland statements that "there is no way to estimate based on varying ammunition and maintenance conditions" blah blah blah.
So "durable" for a guy who shoots 1,000 rounds per year is going to mean something much different than it will to a guy who shoots 25,000 rounds per year. It means something different to an armorer who knows how to swap parts than it does to an owner who needs the manual to help him field strip the gun for cleaning. It means something different to the guy who keeps his guns on a felt pad in a dehumidified safe than it does to a cop riding around on a Harley eight-on six-off.
One last comment on durability, and this is just a pet peeve. I'm incredibly skeptical of most folks' round count reports, especially the ones trumpeted on the internet. I recently saw a guy who claimed he had over 100,000 rounds through his SIG P226 without ever changing a single part, even a spring. Sorry, BS. The same goes for all the "I put 80,000 rounds through my G23, all of it lead reloads" and similar extraordinary stories. Show me your record-keeping. Explain to me how you kept count.
(and Jon, that last comment wasn't directed at you in any way ... your "5,000 to 8,000" comment is a great example of people being honest about the hazy recollection of such details)
I agree about the durability aspect. If someone is looking for a new pistol and above all else, they are concerned about long-term usage, high round counts, and/or the ability to fire hot loads, then the BHP may not be the best choice on the block.
Here's a related comment again from that article:
"There is, however, one other short- coming with the 9mm Browning. The P-35 is not the most rugged of 9mm pistols. It was designed back in the '20s, remember, before using submachine gun ammo in pistols became the military paradigm, and before today's high-pressure self-defense loads. The gun being slim, the parts are relatively small and therefore relatively fragile. In addition, many pistolsmiths consider the Browning's parts comparatively soft in virtually every incarnation of the gun.
From Venezuela to Great Britain; I've seen quantities of broken Brownings in government arsenals whose slides and frames were cracked by the brutal hammering of 9xl9 NATO ammo. +P and +P+ loads also seem to be contraindicated. Listen to Bill Laughridge, who said to me, "Tell your readers in all caps, DON'T USE +P IN HI- POWERS! It's been my experience that even a few magazines of +P will upset the locking lugs."
I still doubt you'd hear Bill saying that you shouldn't get a BHP, or that it is not a fine pistol. But given the other great choices available today, you probably don't want it for a duty gun, a heavy competition gun, or anything that you had to fire a lot of +P through. But it might serve quite nicely for a number of other uses, ranging from home defense gun, to target/range shooting, etc. I'm not getting one anytime soon, as I like my CZ's, 1911's, and M&P's just fine. But having shot a Cylinder & Slide BHP, I can see why somebody would still find them a joy to shoot.
Discussions like this are one of the reasons that I really like this forum (and Todd, I consider my balls unbusted-your critique was incisive and fair). Doc, as always your comments incorporate your personal and empirically obtained/observed/relayed experiences, taking things beyond my personal data base of 3, which nicely flesh out this discussion.
In the back of our heads, I suspect that we're all looking for that "holy grail" of handguns-the one that is ergonomically superb, shoots 1" groups at 50 yards, requires zero maintenance, lasts forever, and costs less than $300. Out of the guns currently available, probably the Glock and HK guns (and possibly the Smith & Wesson M&P) come the closest to this ideal.
But while I appreciate them, and carry them (well, in my case, my Glocks) the most, and give them the hardest use, and trust them the most (particularly in hard use/extreme environmental conditions) that doesn't mean that I'm going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I still appreciate the feel and viability of other guns in my battery (such as my .40 Hi-Power) that probably wouldn't meet the performance or longevity criteria of the other guns. It just means that I appreciate them for what they are, and am a bit more selective in their use.
The original poster's question is a fair one, and he later stated that he is in full realization of the long term durability constraints of the Hi-Power versus a Glock. I think we've given him a great feel for what he's getting into with a .40 Hi-Power, and one that shouldn't eliminate a .40 Hi-Power from selection.
Best, Jon
Like I said (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=20197&page=3), I like Hi-Powers and shoot them very well. I also recommend the .40 Hi-Power as a good CCW choice for sheeple stuck in states with asinine magazine restrictions. Nonetheless, they are not particularly durable... If I planned on regularly carrying a Hi-Power, I would purchase 2 identically set-up ones and use one for training, one for carry.
Out of curiosity as to what most people are getting new custom BHP's for, I emailed Bill (at C&S) last night. I also asked if he still felt the same way about durability as the article from 2004 indicated, and in his reply, he confirmed that he did, which is also pretty consistent with the picture of durability that has emerged in this thread. But he also had some useful tips, that any new BHP buyer might want to be aware of.
Bill said that with a BHP in 9mm, they should be good to go for 20K to 30K rounds if you..
1) Change the recoil spring every 2K rounds, and
2) Don't shoot any +P or other super-hot ammo. He added that really hot or +P ammo can destroy a BHP 9mm in as few as 300 rounds, because BHP's aren't heat treated to the same degree as many others, plus the locking lugs are shallow.
He also repeated the point that the best scenario for running a robust, long-lasting BHP, is to get one of the .40 models (which gives you a stronger pistol, overall) and convert it to a 9mm. In this scenario, he believes you can get at least 50K rounds out of it, as long as you change the recoil springs every 2K rounds.
So, while it's true there are some more durable options out there among modern pistols and 1911's when comparing to the BHP, if you still want to get a BHP, the above figures suggested by Bill indicate that you could get a pretty decent lifespan out of them if you just take care of them. And you can drastically improve the durability by converting a .40 to a 9.
maximus,
Did he mention what he thought the lifespan of a .40 BHP is going to be?
Maximus, thanks for contacting C&S and passing on their comments vis-a-vis our discussion. Did they say anything specific about the expected durability/lifespan of the .40 Hi-Power in .40 itself?
The advice about spring replacement is very much on point, and I'll probably replace the .40 recoil/firing pin springs every 1,500 rounds just to be on the safe side of the longevity issue.
Best, Jon
Sorry, no he didn't. I was mostly asking him some questions about my personal 1911's, and also asked him a couple of things about BHP's. Most of his response seemed to revolve around the BHP being converted to 9mm, he didn't mention specifically how long the .40 would typically last.
I sent him another email and will let you know as soon as he gets back to me.
During hard training, 1500 rounds is just a couple days of shooting...
What really makes the BHP be "less durable"?
See Bill Laughridge's comments as posted above.
Then during hard training I'd simply carry extra spring(s)-the same as for my SIG GSR/1911 Government, whose springs I'd change out per manufacturers' recommendations/implicit industry standards at the 2K level, or my Nighthawk Talon II/Commander/Combat Commander, whose springs I similarly change out at the 1.5K round count as well.
Best, Jon
crebralfix
10-26-08, 06:13
I had no problems in 10-15k rounds between my two Hi-Power 40's. I saw no signs of excessive wear, nor did either drop accuracy. Novaks did trigger jobs on both and the hammer did not follow when the slide slammed shut. I think I had a grand total of two jams between them, but were caused by my reloads.
crebralfix -- While it's great your two pistols are running well & meeting your expectations, 10-15k rounds combined through two pistols isn't really a measure of durability to most people.
Cagemonkey
10-26-08, 11:17
My assumption would be shorter service life than a P229?
I've read the triggers can't be taken down reliably below about 6 lbs. Is that true?
Something else I noticed handling one - that slide takes some effort to rack.
I would welcome any other feedback, too.
Thanks
I had one. Beautiful gun, but not made to handle the higher .40 cal pressures. The only problem I had with mine was the slide catch locking the slide accidentally at random times. I think the extra recoil made my thumb hit the catch.
Cagemonkey -- FWIW, I do that pretty consistently with all BHPs regardless of caliber. It's just a function of the size and position of my weak hand thumb on the gun. If I'm very conscious about it I can run the BHP fine, but if I'm not paying 100% attention to that thumb I lock the slide back every single shot.
I suspect that both of you are using a "high thumbs" grip, which increases the possibility of inadvertant slide lock-back, particularly on a Hi-Power. Out of personal preference (the "high thumbs" grip just doesn't work well for me on any automatic, period) I use the "thumb over thumb" (or "thumb over thumbnail") grip, where the thumbs are lower on the receiver, beneath the slide release-which also keeps things from inadvertantly actuating the slide lock/release.
Best, Jon
Jon -- Correct, at least in my case, on the grip I'm using.
Don't want to drift the thread into "grip vs. grip," but if you'd like to start a new thread I'm sure there are lots of interesting discussions to be had about that subject. :cool:
Cagemonkey
10-26-08, 16:29
Cagemonkey -- FWIW, I do that pretty consistently with all BHPs regardless of caliber. It's just a function of the size and position of my weak hand thumb on the gun. If I'm very conscious about it I can run the BHP fine, but if I'm not paying 100% attention to that thumb I lock the slide back every single shot.
Thanx. I thought it was just me. Never had a problem with a 1911 or M9
For the guys who asked what Bill L. of Cylinder & Slide thinks about the service life of a BHP in .40, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. Bill can be busy sometimes, and I just finally connected with him. Also I had a family member pass away, so I haven't been on forums much lately and have a hectic week coming up.
Anyway, here's the gist of Bill's take on the .40 BHP: though he's only seen a few .40's with higher round counts on them (thus there's a limited "sample"), he estimated that you could probably get around a 25,000 round service life out of a .40 BHP. That is, IF you change the recoil springs earlier as recommended in this thread. Obviously, using hotter loads would accelerate the wear as well.
One other thing he repeated that was mentioned earlier: he feels that by far, the best thing you can do with a BHP, is buy a .40 (as it is made stronger), and have C&S convert it to a 9mm. Then you can shoot 9mm most of the time, still shoot .40 when you need to, and will probably extend the life of the gun (to the extent that you shoot more 9mm than .40) as well as giving you more flexibility.
I have no connection with C&S other than knowing Bill, but they do some of the best work in the country on the BHP. If you are thinking of having a custom BHP set up as Bill suggested, it's definitely worth contacting Cylinder & Slide (http://www.cylinder-slide.com/).
I currently own 4 HP's all 9mm. The oldest was my Dad's from the fifties - we shot it alot as a kid and after he gave it to me, I put over 20,000 rounds thru it. The slide finally cracked so I found a used one and had it fitted. It is still working great with another 5000 rounds thru it. I also have a Novack HP - entry level - reliabilty package, 4.5lb trigger, opened ejection port, bobbed hammer.- It have functioned well for the past 12 years - maybe 15000 rounds. I have a bone stock HP I bought back in the 80's - never been fired. I also have Novack's 2007 Shot show HP - fully worked - It is a joy to look at and shot. I have only put about 4000 thru it. I have had others during the last 40 years that I slod or traded. Never had a "bad"one just some better that others. Never had a good stock trigger pull and I hate the effect of the mag safety on the pull, most of the older sights were small but over alll it was a great gun to shoot and carry.
My "love" preferance is: 1911's, HP's, Revolvers (S&W, Colt) and Glocks. After these, I just "LIKE" my other guns. They are "ALL GOOD"!
Maximus, thanks for getting back to us with Bill Loughridge's comments. Stephen Camp also has an excellent discussion on Hi-Power longevity on his www.hipowersandhandguns.com website, but he primarily concentrated on 9mm Hi-Powers. He personally routinely changes his recoil springs every 1,000-1,200 rounds, and recommends regular cleaning/lubing, and not reducing the mainspring weight.
In terms of Hi-Power longevity, the concept of longevity needs to be broken down into three areas: 1) Overall longevity/forecastable usable lifespan (which assumes that scheduled maintenance, lubing, and parts replacements {i.e., recoil spring} has been performed; 2) small parts breakage, and 3) barrel longevity.
My gut feeling (i.e, feelings without a meaningful personal statistical database to draw upon!) is that the small parts of the Hi-Power would be more susceptable to breakage, other, than say, that of a 1911 or a Glock, simply because you're dealing with a smaller platform dealing with the explosive forces of cartridge detonation containment, action reciprocation, and recoil dissipation. That said, I can't really recall many reports of specific small parts in a Hi-Power (particularly post-1994 cast frame .40/9mm guns) that have been called out for breakage. Hopefully some of the other participants in this discussion can help here with better input on this.
Stephen Camp relates that high round count guns don't blow up, they just become looser with wear. He also relates that he's had several high round count 9mm Hi-Powers with high (but unspecified) round counts that he's had for years that are doing just fine (but on his older guns, he's restricting them to non-+P loads now). I've anecdotally heard of the cam piece that the barrel lug moves on breaking (and Cylinder & Slide offers a replacement service for), but I have no idea how often (or at what round count) such tends to occur. Although it may be an indecia of nothing, I have seen recent photos of UK troops (most notably, Prince Harry) deployed to Iraq still being issued 9mm Hi-Powers; my guess is that most were probably made in the 1950's through 1960's.
Barrel round count as we've discussed is probably about on target. Barrels in and of themselves are replacable. And, regarding small parts breakage, a crucial question would be whether or not parts susceptable to such breakage tie up the gun when broken; in the field in a life-or-death situation, a gun with 10K rounds through it suffering a small parts breakage that ties up the gun is, for all practical purposes at that moment in time a 10K gun...(well, actually, a 9.9K gun).
So-Where are we? I guess regarding Race's original question, for a hard use gun, comparing a .40 Hi-Power versus a SIG-Sauer P229 in .40, I'd defer to the recent ICE tests, which were noted for their use of some fairly hot .40 ammunition-the P229/P226/P239 passed with flying colors (as did several of the HK guns also competing). Frankly, those test results were one of the reason I acquired my current P229 DAK(chambered/barrelled in both .40 and .357 SIG).
But I still like, trust, and occasionally carry (and compete with) my .40 Mk III Hi-Power. I have no intention of replacing it.
Best, Jon
Jon,
You bring up a point of interest to me. I've been trying to decide on a .40 pistol.
I have a G23 and G27, but it seems those are classified as problems by many.
I have a .40 HP (that I've not fired) that I had planned to keep, but this thread has made me decide to sell it.
If I could get a P229 .40 that would have made it through the ICE tests, I would do so. I foolishly sold one a while back that was probably the best vintage. However, I think a current Sig is a luck-of-the-draw. Sig lost me a long time ago and I have no faith in their current capabilities.
So - I'm standardized on .45 and 9mm for the moment. I would like to have a durable .40, but it seems to be a trick to settle on one. Every time a think about an M&P, I either read some posts about problems or I look at one in the store and it just doesn't click with me. They are very ergonomic, but it just doesn't get me excited. (Not to mention, I handled a couple of M&P .45s, which I may still get one day. They had triggers that felt like they were full of ground glass and felt like 9lbs to boot.)
This is not to argue with anyone over their choice or success with a platform, it's just my current state.
Thanks again for all the info.
I hear you, Race. I'm personally concentrating on both 9mm and .45ACP platforms myself; the only .40 guns I've retained are my Mk III Hi-Power and my P229 (which was an old-stock{rounded triggerguard/no frame light rails}gun produced in 2005/2006; once a 300 round break-in period was concluded, its been flawless.
In 9mm, I'd recommend either a Glock 17 or a Glock 19. I think that you'll find many experienced users on the forum here (and elseware) have decided that these guns are kind of the gold standard for 9mm combat/defensive use.
In .40, I think that you'd be fine with your current G23, or a G22, so as long as the recoil spring assembly is replaced every 3K rounds, and the magazine springs annually. I'm assuming that your G23 has had all the upgrades, and/or if you get a G22, that it'll be a new one. Frankly, given the state of performance in currently available 9mm ammunition such as Federal HST, Speer 124gr +P, and Winchester Ranger 127gr +P+, for example(and I cheerfully defer to DocGKR's expertise here) I'm not really sure that you need to go from 9mm to .40, unless such is organizationally mandated (or you just desire it-there certainly isn't anything wrong with currently available quality .40 ammunition).
While I personally think that they're significantly overpriced, the HK P30/P30L guns have played to some excellent reviews, both in terms of function and durability/reliability.
At any rate, it's been interesting, educational and fun hashing out the .40 Hi-Power issue here. Best of luck in your ultimate decision!
Best, Jon
Just an aside, as the ICE test has been mentioned repeatedly:
The ICE test only went to 10,000 rounds.
The test included all scheduled small parts replacements.
The test involved lubricating the gun every 250 rounds; field stripping & cleaning every 500 rounds; and regular detail strip/cleaning (I don't recall the interval off the top of my head)
A substantial number of the German-made parts used in the ICE test guns have since been replaced in current vintage US-built SIGs by other vendors from North America, Asia, and the Middle East.
The ICE test data is more than 4 years old at this point, and obviously did not include any guns which have been introduced since that time.
A substantial number of the German-made parts used in the ICE test guns have since been replaced in current vintage US-built SIGs by other vendors from North America, Asia, and the Middle East.
Todd,
Thanks for the info. This bullet point is one of my reasons for not wanting a current Sig. There are others, but that's one reason.
Thanks.
All I'll say about the article in Velocity is this: it was in Velocity, written by people who were paid by SIG for a SIG-published periodical. Not all of the information was accurate, and everything was slanted very much by the marketing nature of the whole thing.
I was actually present for quite a bit of the test-firing during the ICE test, and pulled the trigger literally tens of thousands of times on those guns. I wrote the technical package that explained how the SIGs worked, the different models, and how well they met the various enumerated specification requirements from DHS/ICE. I was at the kick-off meeting between ICE and SIG, and was the primary liaison between ICE and SIG for the first three years of the contract. So ... I'm not just pulling stuff out of my butt. :cool:
The SIGs definitely ran very well during those tests, don't get me wrong. But the guns being produced today are substantially different than the guns tested in 2004.
The SIGs definitely ran very well during those tests, don't get me wrong. But the guns being produced today are substantially different than the guns tested in 2004.
Just in terms of the fact that many internals are now made by different vendors??
Thanks
cc
Internals are different. That's a much bigger deal than you might think.
Barrels are different.
QC is much different.
That all adds up ...
Hi all,
I've been following this thread & thought I could add a few points and maybe clear a few things up.
Jon, I have not met you, but you seem to enjoy going to the range and shooting the guns you have as a hobby - and that describes most of us on this part of the forum. Of the 3 high powers you owned, you did not go much past 10K rounds - which is more shooting than most civilian shooters do (I give you a lot of credit for that). Its good input that you provide and its useful for the casual civilian shooter/hobbyist (as is the work of Stephen Camp).
Todd on the other hand, is an industry insider and he earns his living through employment for the gun industry and through firearms training. Todd showed up with a select-fire, LEO-only, short-barrel Sig 552 machinegun (and a LOT of 556 ammo courtesy of Sig) for a "Sig night" shoot we hosted a number of years ago when I first met him in person; the gun was a Sig dealer smaple and Todd was then a factory rep. for Sig. Todd's job at that time was, in part, to meet with the end users of Sig products and deal with any complaints - including issues with academy training guns that saw tens upon tens of thousands of rounds in daily use as trainers. He was also there, in person, and part of the ICE tests of several modern designs - which he rightly criticizes as only going to 10K rounds. He further participates at many of the same venues as I do in this area, including IDPA and USPSA, where a shoot easily requires 120 rounds a day; that volume of shooting quickly adds up and separates the "durable" designs from the less durable ones.
In short, no one on this thread is better equiped to discusss the durability of various handguns than Todd.
Now, concerning the P-35 High Power, can it be considered "durable" ??
That depends on how you define "durable."
The ONLY way I can see defining the P35 as "durable" when compared to other brands is if you
1) limit the gun to fewer than 10K rounds
2) do not use +p loadings (which can destroy a P35 in as little as 300 rounds) and absolutely NO +p+.
In such a role, the P35 would not meet our military's current requirement, as our NATO spec ammo is +p. The few units that have SMGs are issued 9mm +p+ ammo that would quickly demolish a P35.
Comparatively then, are there any guns more durable than this 1930s design?
Yes - there are many.
The Glock 17 for example, can survive a lot of +p+ and in fact, one of our own moderators here on M4.net proved that:
-he personally fired and a entire 1200 round case of a NATO loading known as Hirtenberger L7A1 through his Glock 17 with NO ill effect.
How hot is L7A1?
-hot enough that the BATFE issued a safety warning about its use in handguns and
-I have personally tested this round over a chronograph at 1355 FPS for a 124 grain bullet out of a Glock 17 (for comparison, that is close to .357 Sig velocity).
I have also used that ammo in 75s with no il-effects, as I have in my Steyr M9s.
I would not try even a single round of this +p+ in a P35. I could go on with examples, but it should be clear that the P35 is not the most durable 9mm alternative out there - as one would expect from such an old (but good for its time) design.
Historically, is the p35 an interesting design? Yes, of course. Does it have a useful place today as a defense and carry gun? Certainly, as long as its maintained and used as above (low-velocity 9mm only). It speaks well of the p35 that it was once the HRT's choice. AND it clearly inspired the designers of the 75, since I have early Browning P35 barrels that will fit right inside of the slides of my 75s and they even have the same hood and lug dimensions; clearly there is a close relationship.
But the 75's design and material make up is clearly much more robust (as are the designs and make up of many other more modern 9mm designs). That is simply a fact.
Regards,
D.
TY44934, I'm certainly not questioning ToddG's credentials and experience; over the years I've been aware of his employment at both Beretta and SIGARMS/SIG-Sauer, and that he's consistantly well-regarded throughout the industry/firearms arena (as well as on this and other forums).
My own background, such as it is, is more along the lines of the "recipient/user" sort-I'm a former field-grade Army officer, with fairly extensive troop leadership experience, primarily as a company commander and group XO. While I'm a Realtor in the Seattle metro area, I'm heavily involved in IDPA and GSSF (and steel plate competitions) in the local area.
I definitely agree that my experiences with my personal Hi-Powers is not among the highest of round counts. I also have concurred that the Hi-Power (even the post-1994 ones with their cast frames and other upgrades) are not the ne plus ultra of handgun durability or longevity; but the original poster was aware of this, and our discussion really is one of the relative durability of Hi-Powers within their forecastable lifespan, which I certainly feel is greater than a mere 10K rounds, as has been pretty thoroughly hashed around earlier in the discussion.
While it may not be the most durable in the long run (i.e., in excess of a 30K round lifespan), I note with interest that it STILL appears to be the standard issue sidearm of the British Army, who certainly use the hot NATO 9mm round. This suggests several things; 1) that their guns have a relatively low round count, 2) that sidearm replacement with an updated gun (save units like the SAS, which I believe HAS upgraded to both Walther P5Cs and SIG-Sauer P226s) is a relatively low priority within the UK defense budget, given the presumed acceptable servicability of existing Hi-Power inventories within forecasted use within their projected servicable lifespan at the unit level.
I'll be among the first to admit that my Hi-Power would not be among my first choice of a heavy-use/long lifespan pistol (those honors would fall to my Glock G17, G19, SIG P229, and, believe it or not, my late-production Ruger P89 {and possibly my SIG GSR and Nighthawk Talon II in the 1911 realm}). It's interesting that you mentioned the Steyr; I previously had a "first generation" M40; while I liked the ergonomics and build of the gun, I consistantly had ejection issues with my personal gun, to the point of where at least once in a roughly 100 round match I'd encounter an ejection-induced jam. My understanding is that the succeeding -A1 generation of Steyrs successfully resolved that problem.
I heartily agree with you that the best way to achieve a healthy longevity and durability in a Hi-Power of any caliber is to constrain oneself to standard-pressure loadings (ESPECIALLY so regarding pre-1994 forged receiver guns).
Best, Jon
You shoot GSSF? Well, then I am in good company then! We had a team at Shooters Paradise during the 2003-2005 season around here and I miss traveling with my shooting buddies to those shoots.
At any rate, I think this has been a VERY worthwhile discussion (every post & page) of the Hi Power for those so inclined to learn more about them.
As an interesting bit of trivia, take a look at the Sarco surplus page; they are selling what I believe are the UK's P35s which have become unserviceable over the years; apparently the Brits first paint them red, weld the firing pin hols shut, remove the frame mounted recoil cam pin, and use the guns for training purposes. Eventually, they are sold to Sarco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.