SIGforum
Curious... Why Hi Power didn't go the way of the 1911
October 13, 2018, 03:43 AM
SIGWolfCurious... Why Hi Power didn't go the way of the 1911
Classic as it is.
The 1911 design is apparently in the "public domain" and no one really owns it I guess. Perhaps FN has the design for the Hi Power locked up. Although there are some clones out there.
It's surprising there isn't a market for the Hi Power similar to the 1911. Although I've heard it before, no one really calls a 1911 by someone other than Colt a "clone". But that is common with CZ style and Hi Power style guns.
Was it the use of Military contracts with various makers more extensive than the Hi Power? Was it the caliber? The Hi Power was used extensively by other military as well.
Both by Browning, although he didn't finalize the design of the Hi Power. Just curious.
"By the beginning of 1917, a total of 68,533 M1911 pistols had been delivered to U.S. armed forces by Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company and the U.S. government's Springfield Armory. However, the need to greatly expand U.S. military forces and the resultant surge in demand for the firearm in World War I saw the expansion of manufacture to other contractors besides Colt and Springfield Armory, including Remington-UMC and North American Arms Co. of Quebec.[14] Several other manufacturers were awarded contracts to produce the M1911, including the National Cash Register Company, the Savage Arms Company, the Caron Bros. of Montreal, the Burroughs Adding Machine Co., Winchester Repeating Arms Company, and the Lanston Monotype Company, but the signing of the Armistice resulted in the cancellation of the contracts before any pistols had been produced."
Seems like the design was not patented or exclusive from the beginning whereas the Hi Power was an FN exclusive.
October 13, 2018, 07:29 AM
Jim WatsonEarly days, the US Army contract for the 1911 specified that Springfield Armory could make the model after Colt had delivered 50,000 guns.
Obviously there was similar language allowing other manufacturers in wartime.
Argentina and Norway made licensed copies after their initial purchases of Colts.
The BHP's manufacturing history was different. The French reneged on the original deal and Belgium did not adopt the final version until years later. Belgium was not a major military power and neither were the few early export customers for FN. During WWII, Inglis made guns for China and England.
After the war, a lot of Western countries adopted the BHP. Most found it simpler and cheaper to buy from FN although there were licensed copies made in Argentina. There are a few copiers, FEG in Hungary and Kareem in Israel, plus a very luxy low production full custom from Chuck Warner.
One reason for the 1911's greater popularity in the USA is because it is an American product and we are allowed to buy them. There is a lot less scope for private ownership of Brownings in the countries where it is or was GI.
October 13, 2018, 09:12 AM
soggy_spinoutGood question. Maybe it's the case of there only being room for one at the top, and the 1911 is it. If the US military had adopted the Hi Power at some point along its life, I think things could have been different. Other armies and agencies across the globe did, but that's not the same. All anyone has to do is look at the recent and intent interest in the M17 by our civilian marketplace to know what I mean. We in the U.S. civilian world have a strong emotional tie to the 1911, fueled primarily by its decades of service with OUR military.
We also have a powerful emotional tie with making the size holes that its original caliber is capable of as well. 9mm may be the most popular caliber these days, but the big old
'forty-five' will probably never leave the heart and soul of anyone who bleeds red, white and blue. And besides, anyone who thinks of a .45 pistol will likely envision a 1911 first over anything else (sorry, M1873). And thinking of a 9mm pistol, and the first thing that comes to MY mind is a Glock 19 or perhaps a Luger, not a P35.
October 13, 2018, 09:19 AM
RHINOWSOI think it's due to it's adoption by the US military / service from WW1 through the mid-1980s. Several generations of American servicemen qualified, carried, and used them in combat.
I think you also see this, to a lesser degree, with the Beretta 92 lately. A resurgence of people being interested in the weapon since they carried them in wars, etc. Especially since a new Beretta is much better than some of the ones they carried in the service (same can be said of the M1911).
October 13, 2018, 09:22 AM
hjs157quote:
Originally posted by Jim Watson:
One reason for the 1911's greater popularity in the USA is because it is an American product and we are allowed to buy them. There is a lot less scope for private ownership of Brownings in the countries where it is or was GI.
This is an excellent point. To generations of Americans, the 1911 is an iconic symbol of freedom and ingenuity. And while the BHP may have some
features which are more favorable than the 1911 (e.g. simplified take-down and the elimination of both the removable barrel bushing & barrel link), it is not necessarily an
overall improvement per se of the 1911 platform - a statement which is often regurgitated as fact when discussing the BHP.
October 13, 2018, 09:27 AM
arcwelderquote:
Originally posted by Jim Watson:
Early days, the US Army contract for the 1911 specified that Springfield Armory could make the model after Colt had delivered 50,000 guns.
Obviously there was similar language allowing other manufacturers in wartime.
Argentina and Norway made licensed copies after their initial purchases of Colts.
These days, it is important to note that the language you're talking about, meant that Colt was ceding its right to sole production to a Government Armory. Not explicitly so other commercial manufacturers could make it, though that is a "side benefit." The idea was that after Colt got its "due," the US Government could make more by commissioning whoever it liked, primarily federal armories, with some contracts going to commercial manufacturers.
Just a finer point on it, in case anyone is confused between the historical Springfield Massachusetts institution, and the fraudulent Springfield Armory Inc. in Geneseo IL. Why Springfield Armory Inc. chose that name, is linked to the development of the semiautomatic M14, due to the use of the M14 in National Matches, and that competitors couldn't take them off base. So practice was difficult.
As time goes by, and more companies acquire these historic names to bolster their brand, I'm afraid it's going to lead to confusion about the real history.
Arc.
______________________________
"Like a bitter weed, I'm a bad seed"- Johnny Cash
"I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel." - Pee Wee Herman
Rode hard, put away wet. RIP JHM
"You're a junkyard dog." - Lupe Flores. RIP
October 13, 2018, 09:30 AM
esdunbarFor me it comes down to a couple issues with the BHP.
First the safety: it’s mushy and doesn’t flick on and off. Also it’s shape is weird. If it swept more like a 1911 safety, it would be much better. As much as I love the beretta 92, I think its safety holds it back too.
Second the slide release: it’s long and looks/feels old. The 1911 slide release looks/feels modern.
I’ve long thought about a custom BHP with those two issues fixed, but they’d be custom parts which means expensive and I can’t find new ones if I need them.
Otherwise, it has a good trigger, is super thin and has a relatively short overall height (think g19).
I would love to see the industry update those older two parts and make it a viable modern contender. In its original form, the 1911 wouldn’t be a contender today. It was only because we settled on some new updates for it. (Safety and sights being the main ones that come to mind).
October 13, 2018, 10:28 AM
sigfreundquote:
Originally posted by SIGWolf:
Was it the caliber?
Although as discussed by the other posters there were many possible and likely factors, there’s no doubt in my mind that the fact the Hi-Power was chambered for the 9mm Parabellum cartridge was a significant reason why it never enjoyed the popularity in the US that the 45 ACP 1911 did.
Today with the widespread belief that all common handgun cartridges are equally effective for defensive purposes (for reasons I won’t bother exploring), the 9mm’s lower cost, greater magazine capacities, and less recoil has made it the favorite of the day. Anyone who was paying attention in the 1970s through at least the 1980s, however, knows that that belief about ballistic effectiveness was not always true. Most American shooters believed that the 45 ACP was far more effective as a defensive round than the 9mm, especially with the ammunition and bullets available during the era.
In addition to the 45’s supposed superior “stopping power,” we must not forget that for most of the 20th century the only legitimate reason for non-LEOs to shoot handguns regularly was in formal bull’s-eye type competitions. Although revolvers were commonly used for the purpose for some decades, that changed radically after World War II when competitors realized the benefits of the 1911 for the purpose (and vast amounts of inexpensive pistols and ammunition became available). Not only were autoloading pistols better for rapid fire events, with the targets of the disciplines and their small scoring rings there was an immediate scoring advantage to shooting larger bullets. A competitor’s point of impact can be farther from the center of the target with a 0.451 caliber bullet than with a 0.355" projectile and still be successful in scoring a 10-ring hit.
And then of course when “practical” shooting of the type championed by people like Jeff Cooper came along, the 9mm was, if anything, at even more of a disadvantage compared with the 45 ACP because of the “power factor” thing. Early competitions of the type were clearly biased in favor of 1911 shooters and therefore it was no mystery why that’s what most competitors of the day used.
All that may not be obvious today, but it certainly was at one time. The fact that the Hi-Power was almost without exception chambered for the 9mm cartridge may not have been the only reason why it was never as popular as the 1911, but it was a big reason.
► 6.4/93.6
“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”
— Plato October 13, 2018, 10:37 AM
FenderBenderFind an all metal SAO .45 with 8 rounds in a better package than the 1911.
now
Do the same for a minimum 13 round all metal SAO 9mm
I like the BHP, the problem is there is a lot more competition in that space then the 1911 ever had.
October 13, 2018, 11:03 AM
HayesGreenerI have always admired the Hi-Power for its quality and the number of nations that made it their standard issue handgun is testament to its qualities. I agree with Sigfreund that the 9mm cartridge put the brakes on it for many years. That caliber didn't catch on in the US until the 70's, and even when we transitioned to the 9mm NATO cartridge there was much grumbling. The 9mm has come into vogue in the US again but too late for the HP.
There was a time before the M9 when the HP was favored by USAF general officers. There was also a lively "gray market" of HP's among fighter pilots during the Vietnam war when their issue option was the 38 spl M15.
CMSGT USAF (Retired)
Chief of Police (Retired)
October 13, 2018, 11:10 AM
FN in MTAs a kid in the 60's and into the early 70's , 9mm was always much more spendy than .45 ammo. I don't think that helped any of the nines very much.
I can remember reasonably priced, surplus GI ball ammo ,well into the late 60's.
October 13, 2018, 01:28 PM
ScotP7You know, this is a fascinating question and thread.
I understand the thinking that the 1911 in 45 will have an advantage because of history, and I understand it had an even greater advantage during the long period before 9mm came to be seen (correctly or ont) as nearly as effective as the 40 and 45 calibers (or close enough).
But that period is over, and 9mm rules to an incredible degree. Why wouldn't someone want to refine the BHP (see esdunbar's post) in a more mass produced fashion?
For perspective, EVERYONE wants to make a 1911 (primarily for 45), but almost NO ONE wants to pursue a 9mm SAO (that is slim and incredibly ergonomic). Nighthawk did its overly expensive thing, but I don't think they sold a bunch. And Wilson's EDC X9 is a bit of a 21st century BHP -- or at least an homage to the value of a really good SAO 9mm for defensive purposes (at a high cost). But you would think other manufacturers would take the starting point of a BHP, and slap on modern updates and improvements, given the widespread favor of the 9mm.
It seems that, with the BHP, we are now in a period like we were with the 1911 thirty or forty years ago, when you started off with a base 1911 and sent it off to a custom gunmaker for the upgrades, before every Tom Dick and Harry started selling a 1911. Now, if you want a modern BHP, you send it off for customizing, which is great, but costly and time consuming.
The modern CZ's are lovely alternatives, but though I love my PCR and related variations, they aren't BHP's.
I think the OP is onto something. Or I hope he is.
October 13, 2018, 01:55 PM
jimmy123xI think it was a combination of several things.
1. Caliber- Americans really thought 9mm was a very inadequate round up until around the 1980's and wanted only .45 or .357 magnum.
2. Capacity also wasn't a concern for most buyers back then for some reason. Most people were perfectly happy carrying 6 rounds in a revolver and that included police.
So the 13 rounds (9mm) versus 7 rounds (1911) didn't much matter.
3. The magazine disconnect and heavy trigger for a single action firearm. Let's face it, the 1911's had way better triggers, and the S+W revolvers always had incredible triggers in SA.
4. I think if someone wanted a 9mm, they favored a luger back in the day, and plenty of cheap surplus 9mm's did pop up from time to time back in the day.
5. The grip is boxy and trigger reach is very short and it really favors someone with smaller hands.
6. A lot of former soldiers were afraid of carrying a BHP cocked and locked without a grip safety like the 1911 had.
7. The 1911's were inherently more accurate than BHP's.
8. Personally I think a CZ75 SA took all of the things BHP's did and did them better. Better trigger, capacity, ergonomics, accuracy, etc. etc.
October 13, 2018, 04:14 PM
jbourneidentityquote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
quote:
Originally posted by SIGWolf:
Was it the caliber?
Although as discussed by the other posters there were many possible and likely factors, there’s no doubt in my mind that the fact the Hi-Power was chambered for the 9mm Parabellum cartridge was a significant reason why it never enjoyed the popularity in the US that the 45 ACP 1911 did.
Today with the widespread belief that all common handgun cartridges are equally effective for defensive purposes (for reasons I won’t bother exploring), the 9mm’s lower cost, greater magazine capacities, and less recoil has made it the favorite of the day. Anyone who was paying attention in the 1970s through at least the 1980s, however, knows that that belief about ballistic effectiveness was not always true. Most American shooters believed that the 45 ACP was far more effective as a defensive round than the 9mm, especially with the ammunition and bullets available during the era.
In addition to the 45’s supposed superior “stopping power,” we must not forget that for most of the 20th century the only legitimate reason for non-LEOs to shoot handguns regularly was in formal bull’s-eye type competitions. Although revolvers were commonly used for the purpose for some decades, that changed radically after World War II when competitors realized the benefits of the 1911 for the purpose (and vast amounts of inexpensive pistols and ammunition became available). Not only were autoloading pistols better for rapid fire events, with the targets of the disciplines and their small scoring rings there was an immediate scoring advantage to shooting larger bullets. A competitor’s point of impact can be farther from the center of the target with a 0.451 caliber bullet than with a 0.355" projectile and still be successful in scoring a 10-ring hit.
And then of course when “practical” shooting of the type championed by people like Jeff Cooper came along, the 9mm was, if anything, at even more of a disadvantage compared with the 45 ACP because of the “power factor” thing. Early competitions of the type were clearly biased in favor of 1911 shooters and therefore it was no mystery why that’s what most competitors of the day used.
All that may not be obvious today, but it certainly was at one time. The fact that the Hi-Power was almost without exception chambered for the 9mm cartridge may not have been the only reason why it was never as popular as the 1911, but it was a big reason.
Agree wholeheartedly Sigfreund on caliber.
Back in the early 20th century, the 9mm was viewed as very European; the .45 ACP as the all American round. The 1911 was also greatly helped by being the US military's service handgun for 75 years.
I've always wondered about the OP's question, too. Every BHP I ever pulled from the box was 100% reliable. Not so with 1911s.
October 14, 2018, 04:30 AM
g26s239I suspect the horrid trigger was a factor. The only BHP I ever fired was a late 80s commercial model from Belgium with beautiful bluing and the shittiest SA trigger pull on any auto pistol I ever tried.
October 14, 2018, 06:41 AM
SIGWolfquote:
But that period is over, and 9mm rules to an incredible degree. Why wouldn't someone want to refine the BHP (see esdunbar's post) in a more mass produced fashion?For perspective, EVERYONE wants to make a 1911 (primarily for 45), but almost NO ONE wants to pursue a 9mm SAO (that is slim and incredibly ergonomic). Nighthawk did its overly expensive thing, but I don't think they sold a bunch. And Wilson's EDC X9 is a bit of a 21st century BHP -- or at least an homage to the value of a really good SAO 9mm for defensive purposes (at a high cost). But you would think other manufacturers would take the starting point of a BHP, and slap on modern updates and improvements, given the widespread favor of the 9mm.It seems that, with the BHP, we are now in a period like we were with the 1911 thirty or forty years ago, when you started off with a base 1911 and sent it off to a custom gunmaker for the upgrades, before every Tom Dick and Harry started selling a 1911. Now, if you want a modern BHP, you send it off for customizing, which is great, but costly and time consuming.
Exactly!
Although there are also so many 9mm 1911s now, that with the popularity of the 1911 already in place, it's got to take some significant umph out of a BHP resurgence.
The single stack magazine is 10 rounds on a 1911, not up to the 15 round standard now moving to 17 rounds for double-stack 9mms. With a little extension magic, the 1911 could be 12 rounds.
As you say, I don't really understand entirely why someone hasn't gone and run with an updated BHP design in a quality firearm unless it's a patent ownership thing.
Perhaps it's just like many other things, the window of opportunity passed. Some here have hinted at that. There have been other examples in other realms where a product failed to improve and redesign at a critical time and then lost the window of opportunity.
October 14, 2018, 08:27 AM
Jim Watsonquote:
As you say, I don't really understand entirely why someone hasn't gone and run with an updated BHP design in a quality firearm unless it's a patent ownership thing.
There is no patent in force. In fact the BHP owes its final configuration to expiration of Colt/Browning patents. Msr. Saive plowed several features into the GR to produce the GP as they came off patent protection.
With the discontinuance of the FN, there is a good deal of interest in the Turkish copy. But it is not "product improved", it is in fact a slavish copy of the previous generation of BHP without even FN's few improvements in things like the thumb safety and firing pin block. Strange, it would have cost them no more to tool up for a gun with prominent safety, beavertail, no magazine disconnect, and maybe a bright idea on the walking beam trigger-sear linkage.
October 14, 2018, 08:50 AM
Rodfacquote:
There was also a lively "gray market" of HP's among fighter pilots during the Vietnam war when their issue option was the 38 spl M15.
Yep and I'd be one of them. The pistol was always a last ditch weapon (I carried a CAR15 in the Birddog with me during my first tour in Vietnam), but the lure of add'l rounds, and the fact that my predessor had left me a Clark tuned, Browning Hi-Power, was all it took to change over from the USAF issued S&W Model 15. Too, at one point or another, I carried a 1911-A1 for a part of my tour. I never shot the HP in anger while there, but did with the 1911. In either case, the carbine was always near at hand, but the pistol, of what ever make was ALWAYS with me, even in the occasional shower point.
5th Spl Forces, Air Force Bird Dog FAC, lll Corps RVN 69-70.... We enjoy the Bill of Rights by the sacrifices of our veterans;
Politicians, Preachers, Educators, Journalists and Community Organizers are beneficiaries, not defenders of our freedoms.
October 14, 2018, 01:29 PM
Jelly"Why Hi Power didn't go the way of the 1911" That an easy question to answer. The 1911 is a American icon. The Hi Power is not.
October 14, 2018, 02:07 PM
capp325The 1911 is so popular for three main reasons:
1) It is by far the best platform for the .45 ACP cartridge, which is still popular in America.
2) It has excellent ergonomics.
3) It has an excellent trigger.
The Hi-power also has excellent ergonomics, but it is not the best platform for launching 9mm projectiles. Many others are just as good at it, or better. But the main shortcoming of the Hi-Power is the trigger, which can only be described as "the worst of both worlds". It is a single action trigger, requiring the use of an external safety, and yet it is ridiculously heavy (in fact, heavier than many double action triggers). Even with the magazine safety removed and a trigger job done by a competent gunsmith, the trigger can never be made as nice as that of any half-decent 1911.
If FN redesigned the trigger, added a beavertail to prevent hammer bite for those with larger than average hands and did a better job marketing the the Hi-Power, it would still be popular today. It's a fundamentally solid gun, with excellent reliability, build quality and ergonomics. It's quite aesthetically pleasing as well.