Shooting the .40 High Power

[Jeep]

I only fired a .40 Hi-Power once. It had the hardest slide to rack of any auto pistol I ever fired, and I found that it generally required cocking the hammer first to get the slide back. Perhaps I just was shooting a bad example (it was a rental gun) but ever since I've regarded the .40 BHP to be yet another example of something that worked well as a 9mm but was much less successful in .40. Maybe, though, I just made up my mind too fast.

[serialsolver]

I had a 40 hi power. Very accurate, good trigger. The recoil spring was stiff. The spring reminded me of the recoil spring in those smith 1006’s, man those springs were strong.

I liked it but not enough to keep it. I guess I was too used to the 9 hp and the top heavy 40 just didn’t feel right. Then there is moving away from the 40. I also prefer a handgun in the caliber it was designed for not in a caliber it was adapted to.

I tried the polymer buffers and didn’t like them. When new the buffers make the slide hard to lock open. I prefer a flat bottom firing pin stop.

I’m out of random thoughts for now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MattyD380]

I've owned an "assembled in Portugal" MKIII since November. It's quickly become the gun I enjoy shooting most--and probably the gun I shoot the best. I have small hands and it feels like it was engineered for my mits--the trigger reach is perfect yet the grip still has enough "meat" to provide lateral stability in the hand. I never feel like I have to "fight the gun" to get shots on target. It shoots consistently tight groups, it's been 100% reliable, and it's slim enough to be comfortable IWB. I ran it in a steel match and I had some of my best runs (used mainly a PX4cc before). For me, hammer bite isn't an issue.

I don't shoot the kind of round counts that kill guns, so I'll likely never know the upper limits of the BHP's durability. But I'm not sure I'd expect any gun to go tens of thousands of rounds without something breaking. 10 to 15 k for a barrel seems less than figures I've heard for other guns. But... I'm not sure what would make a BHP barrel more susceptible to wear than other handgun barrels. I mean, maybe there's a good reason... just not sure what that would be.

I tend to think the BHP was designed to be more than just a bullet-launching appliance... it was designed to excel in the more intangible elements of shooting. Which, for me, it does. So, even if Glocks and HKs might be able to take more abuse... I think what the BHP offers is well worth the tradeoff. And... it's slim.

[JonInWA]

I only fired a .40 Hi-Power once. It had the hardest slide to rack of any auto pistol I ever fired, and I found that it generally required cocking the hammer first to get the slide back. Perhaps I just was shooting a bad example (it was a rental gun) but ever since I've regarded the .40 BHP to be yet another example of something that worked well as a 9mm but was much less successful in .40. Maybe, though, I just made up my mind too fast.

Yours wasn't an aberration. The .40's 20 lb recoil spring was an exceptionally hard spring to stuff in the platform; FN deemed both it and the increased slide weight necessary to tame and provide the requisite durability for the platform with the .40 cartridge. Essentially, the entire top end of the High Power was rebuilt to successfully accommodate the .40 and it's quick-spiking,hgher chamber pressure characteristics. I haven't personally handled or shot one, but reportedly the only 20th century semiautomatic with a similar or heavier recoil spring set-up was the Astra 400.

There is even a special tool created to ease the insertion of the recoil spring assembly into the slide, but it's unnecessary-there's an overhand insertion technique that works nicely with a bit of practice. But I won't deny that you're the only one who felt compelled to cock the hammer to facilitate slide retraction. In that aspect, the .40 High Power is a bit of an acquired taste, but I still like it, as again there's a manipulation technique to retract the slide, and I like the overall characteristics and performance of the High Power and .40 cartridge marriage. But it isn't a pistol I'd casually hand off to a new shooter, or a shooter who's a bit challenged in possessing the necessary upper body strength and expect them to have an enjoyable road test with the gun.

In the mid-/late 1990s, I think the the platforms that best harnessed the .40 were the SIG-Sauer P229, the HK USP and the High Power. A shared characteristic is that all three were either specifically designed around the .40 (the P229 and USP), or had specific engineering redesigning (the High Power) to accommodate the .40. All featured heavier slides and/or recoil assemblies featuring a buffer to ameliorate the pressure and recoil characteristics of the .40, and have acceptable durability/forecasted platform lifespans.

Best, Jon

[Pit]

Guess I have to see if I can pick up a 40 S&W Hi Power to replace the one I let go. The only 40 I've come across that is about the equal to the Hi Power is the M&P M2.0 Compact.

JW

[TiroFijo]

Yours wasn't an aberration. The .40's 20 lb recoil spring was an exceptionally hard spring to stuff in the platform; FN deemed both it and the increased slide weight necessary to tame and provide the requisite durability for the platform with the .40 cartridge. Essentially, the entire top end of the High Power was rebuilt to successfully accommodate the .40 and it's quick-spiking,hgher chamber pressure characteristics. I haven't personally handled or shot one, but reportedly the only 20th century semiautomatic with a similar or heavier recoil spring set-up was the Astra 400.

There is even a special tool created to ease the insertion of the recoil spring assembly into the slide, but it's unnecessary-there's an overhand insertion technique that works nicely with a bit of practice. But I won't deny that you're the only one who felt compelled to cock the hammer to facilitate slide retraction. In that aspect, the .40 High Power is a bit of an acquired taste, but I still like it, as again there's a manipulation technique to retract the slide, and I like the overall characteristics and performance of the High Power and .40 cartridge marriage. But it isn't a pistol I'd casually hand off to a new shooter, or a shooter who's a bit challenged in possessing the necessary upper body strength and expect them to have an enjoyable road test with the gun.

In the mid-/late 1990s, I think the the platforms that best harnessed the .40 were the SIG-Sauer P229, the HK USP and the High Power. A shared characteristic is that all three were either specifically designed around the .40 (the P229 and USP), or had specific engineering redesigning (the High Power) to accommodate the .40. All featured heavier slides and/or recoil assemblies featuring a buffer to ameliorate the pressure and recoil characteristics of the .40, and have acceptable durability/forecasted platform lifespans.

Best, Jon

Great review!
The normal SAAMI pressure por 9 mm luger is the same as the 40 S&W, 35,000 PSI. 9 mm +P is of course higher, 38,500 PSI.
The problem with the 40 S&W is that has about 30% more recoil impulse than the 9 mm, about 20% than 9 mm +P. This gets the slide velocity in a pistol designed for 9mm way out of their comfort zones.

[JonInWA]

I've owned an "assembled in Portugal" MKIII since November. It's quickly become the gun I enjoy shooting most--and probably the gun I shoot the best. I have small hands and it feels like it was engineered for my mits--the trigger reach is perfect yet the grip still has enough "meat" to provide lateral stability in the hand. I never feel like I have to "fight the gun" to get shots on target. It shoots consistently tight groups, it's been 100% reliable, and it's slim enough to be comfortable IWB. I ran it in a steel match and I had some of my best runs (used mainly a PX4cc before). For me, hammer bite isn't an issue.

I don't shoot the kind of round counts that kill guns, so I'll likely never know the upper limits of the BHP's durability. But I'm not sure I'd expect any gun to go tens of thousands of rounds without something breaking. 10 to 15 k for a barrel seems less than figures I've heard for other guns. But... I'm not sure what would make a BHP barrel more susceptible to wear than other handgun barrels. I mean, maybe there's a good reason... just not sure what that would be.

I tend to think the BHP was designed to be more than just a bullet-launching appliance... it was designed to excel in the more intangible elements of shooting. Which, for me, it does. So, even if Glocks and HKs might be able to take more abuse... I think what the BHP offers is well worth the tradeoff. And... it's slim.

Boom! MattyD380 has identified a critical aspect of the High Power's attraction-it's overall sense and feel of rightness, of how a pistol essentially conceived in the 1920s and 1930s has captured both operational efficiencies and a beautiful period style and remained effective and relevant (albeit not without some quirks and vicissitudes that need to be taken into account).

In handling, shooting and carrying a High Power, one has the ability to use and appreciate a piece of design and manufacturing practical art from the hands of John M. Browning, Dieudonne Saive, and Joseph Rousseau. This is manifest to me in several very concrete, and several intangible ways-the tangible being the reliability and ergonomics of the pistol, and in the overall excellence in manufacturing, exemplifying the use of quality materials and execution. The intangibles to me are in the grace of the design; the High Power has a bit of an Art Deco feel and appearance to me, particularly in the execution of the slide bullet nose where it fits into the dust cover, in the ball cuts, in the step in the slide, how the receiver gracefully incorporates the triggerguard with symmetrical flowing compound curves, and the domed curvature at the back of the slide; in the .40 variant, such is exemplified in the beveling on the left of the slide to incorporate the slide stop flange. and the flattening of the top of that flange.

Are there quirks and vicissitudes inherent to a High Power to be accounted for, decided upon, and mastered or modified? Absolutely; the square, unbeveled magazine well makes speed reloading difficult, there are sharp edges to the rear corners of the magazine floorplates which make magazine storage and pouch selection more of a concern than on most other magazines today, the hammer spur has relatively sharp edges, and, as we've discussed, can bite, and the reset is long (i.e., the trigger must be fully forward), and on some, the safety levers can have a bit of a mushy feel. The High Power is noted for having a potentially coarse and heavy triggerpull, although all of mine have had good-to-excellent pulls out of the box, which I think is a general characteristic of the post-1993 High Powers, much more so than their predecessors. I'm also of the opinion that the slide release pad could be a bit more ergonomic; ditto for the safety levers. And we've already discussed the exceptional weight and issues with the .40's 20 lb recoil spring. But none of these foibles are show-stoppers for me, either individually or collectively.

As I've said before, I'm not one who wails that the end of the universe as we know it came with the advent of polymer-framed guns. Nor do I particularly ascribe them as being "soulless" (or, conversely, for metal-and-walnut guns being "soulfull."). I'm an appreciative user of HKs and Glocks in particular. But in the High Power, there's just a certain "je ne se quoi," a French phrase that elegantly captures that difficult to define quality of inherent beauty and function that sometimes just is, and that some things just have...And that's before we factor in the historical cachet inherent to the High Power that its acquired from various users, both individual and organizational (and national).

And that is something that we can appreciate and enjoy. Yes, a pistol is a tool, with specific operating expectations and parameters. But that's not to say that they can't be concurrently enjoyed concurrently with their essential operational characteristics.

Best, Jon

[M2CattleCo]

Spectacular OP. I shot two MkIII 9mms hard in the 90s and they were as reliable as any Glock I've had. Totally sat OEM triggers.

I hate dwelling on the dumb software reason for parting with them. Reset.

Yep. I had a damn good pair of MK IIIs that carried really nice in an old Milt Sparks Mike's Special. Those were my first 9mms and I loved 'em.

I went to Glock because USPSA. What a bad decision.

[Aray]

Anyone else have an issue with the BHP slide inadvertently locking to the rear during firing with a thumbs forward grip? I have a Novak Hi-Power I had built in the mid 90s and recently broke it out feeling all nostalgic. This was an issue every few rounds with every magazine. It has been a safe queen for awhile and my pistol shooting technique has definitely evolved since the last time I fired it. I was able to replicate it non-firing by running the slide and making contact with the slide stop. Seems that the pressure of my support hand thumb was causing it. When I modified my grip where there was no contact with the slide stop it worked as designed.

Yes. I shoot them with "thumb forward, but down". See the attached pic of Scott Warren who shot Hi Powers quite a bit back in the day.

[MattyD380]

Boom! MattyD380 has identified a critical aspect of the High Power's attraction-it's overall sense and feel of rightness, of how a pistol essentially conceived in the 1920s and 1930s has captured both operational efficiencies and a beautiful period style and remained effective and relevant (albeit not without some quirks and vicissitudes that need to be taken into account).

In handling, shooting and carrying a High Power, one has the ability to use and appreciate a piece of design and manufacturing practical art from the hands of John M. Browning, Dieudonne Saive, and Joseph Rousseau. This is manifest to me in several very concrete, and several intangible ways-the tangible being the reliability and ergonomics of the pistol, and in the overall excellence in manufacturing, exemplifying the use of quality materials and execution. The intangibles to me are in the grace of the design; the High Power has a bit of an Art Deco feel and appearance to me, particularly in the execution of the slide bullet nose where it fits into the dust cover, in the ball cuts, in the step in the slide, how the receiver gracefully incorporates the triggerguard with symmetrical flowing compound curves, and the domed curvature at the back of the slide; in the .40 variant, such is exemplified in the beveling on the left of the slide to incorporate the slide stop flange. and the flattening of the top of that flange.

Are there quirks and vicissitudes inherent to a High Power to be accounted for, decided upon, and mastered or modified? Absolutely; the square, unbeveled magazine well makes speed reloading difficult, there are sharp edges to the rear corners of the magazine floorplates which make magazine storage and pouch selection more of a concern than on most other magazines today, the hammer spur has relatively sharp edges, and, as we've discussed, can bite, and the reset is long (i.e., the trigger must be fully forward), and on some, the safety levers can have a bit of a mushy feel. The High Power is noted for having a potentially coarse and heavy triggerpull, although all of mine have had good-to-excellent pulls out of the box, which I think is a general characteristic of the post-1993 High Powers, much more so than their predecessors. I'm also of the opinion that the slide release pad could be a bit more ergonomic; ditto for the safety levers. And we've already discussed the exceptional weight and issues with the .40's 20 lb recoil spring. But none of these foibles are show-stoppers for me, either individually or collectively.

As I've said before, I'm not one who wails that the end of the universe as we know it came with the advent of polymer-framed guns. Nor do I particularly ascribe them as being "soulless" (or, conversely, for metal-and-walnut guns being "soulfull."). I'm an appreciative user of HKs and Glocks in particular. But in the High Power, there's just a certain "je ne se quoi," a French phrase that elegantly captures that difficult to define quality of inherent beauty and function that sometimes just is, and that some things just have...And that's before we factor in the historical cachet inherent to the High Power that its acquired from various users, both individual and organizational (and national).

And that is something that we can appreciate and enjoy. Yes, a pistol is a tool, with specific operating expectations and parameters. But that's not to say that they can't be concurrently enjoyed concurrently with their essential operational characteristics.

Best, Jon

Thanks! "Overall sense and feel of rightness." I like that--and I think it succinctly captures the inherent appeal of the P35. But in that subjective appeal, I think there's utility: the BHP does one hell of a good job of putting rounds right where you want them.

Now, I know there's guys who can carve 1.5 inch groups with a G19. But I'm not one of them. Nor can I with an M&P or most other SFA guns. Even with a classic Sig--I can git 'er dun--but shots will slip left if I don't really focus. With a BHP... it's simply more intuitive. And I don't think it's "just me."

To be honest, I've never actually seen anyone shoot what I'd call a tight group with a Glock, M&P, XD, etc. Obviously, that's more a function on not being around skilled shooters (I kinda fly solo as a shooter)... but... suffice to say... if the market made Hi Powers and 1911s available at Glock prices (and pushed them) I think we'd see overall better shooting from most people. I think such guns are just easier to shoot well.

Long story short: the intangibles that make guns intuitively accurate don't seem to be priorities in the modern pistol market. It's as if capacity, size, weight are the only criteria. I guess that's what's measurable (and thereby marketable)--but there's something to be said for picking up a pistol and being able to put a round right where you want it.