Yet Another High Power?

[Tokarev]

The thing is...

Sure you can still use a HP for serious LE/MIL/self defense use, but WHY?

There are better, lighter, cheaper, easier to service designs out there for most practical uses.

Just like most revolvers, "be differerent", cool, "I simply like it", and nostalgia are the major factor in their modern day use, and most makers recognize this and make these retro guns to a "recreational" standard. Gone are the days when X, Y, Z countries .mil or LE depended on them and FNs reputation was on display in each sample.

As we've discussed, the new improved HP doesn't seem really retro or throwback. We're really not sure what market FN was going for here.

Also I'd argue with you on the "easier to service part." The legacy HP design is very well executed and thought out. Taking the slide apart is as simple as taking a 1911 or Glock slide apart and can be generally done without tools.

Later guns had the external extractor and transfer bar pinned in. Still easy to take apart but punches are needed.

Field stripping is easy (and requires no trigger press while doing so) . It is also easy to completely take apart the frame for parts replacement, etc. The hardest part of detailed stripping is probably getting the trigger pin out.

If by easier to service you mean replacing internal parts then the HP may not be as easy as a Glock. But the only part that legitimately needs fit is the safety to the sear. That's not terrible and could probably be fixed with some 21st Century tolerances.

The design was made to be svelte and light. Durability was often a concern but most of this was probably a result of hotter NATO 9mm ammo combined with a general lack of armorer support. I'm sure the Brits and Aussies probably took good care of the guns. Is that the case with some of the other countries or agencies using these?

Later guns were cast frames which was supposed to be more durable. These were used on the 40 S&W guns and probably most of the commercial MK3 guns sold in the US. Externally they really don't look different but there is more meat inside especially in the mag well area. Has anyone heard of a MK3 frame cracking from hard use?

Canadian guns, unless I'm mistaken, were all WWII Inglis. Maybe a very few post war guns but probably nothing newer than 1947 or so. That's a pretty impressive run.

I'd guess, as others have, that a modernized MK3 just for the US and a few other markets would sell better than the new FN gun. But I'm basing that all on guesses. I do not know how the new guns are selling. They may be selling well and meeting FN's expectations.



Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Robinson]

It could be because they brought over a noted 1911 gunsmith to work with them on their manufacturing process. Who it was escapes me. In contrast, as Jon has pointed out, their HP clone may just be a product of reverse engineering. The demand for 1911s far outstrips that for the HP, so there may be more focus on the former.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....=1#post1440958

[TiroFijo]

Anybody who is not completely blind can see that this HP has no resemblance whatsoever to the original Inglis guns or the FN models of that era.
Why choosing that name if you don't at least try to look similar?

[Tokarev]

[Timbonez]

Based on that video, these are not made by Tisas for SDS. It’s some other Turkish based manufacturer. It’s also interesting that SDS did the CAD work and modeling, which is how I suppose they reverse engineered the BHP.

[Stephanie B]

I'd really like for there to be viable copies, or upgraded revisions to the High Power, with modern steels (or modern polymer...), improved ergonomics, etc.

FN is making one, if "upgraded revisions" is the criteria. Ford still makes Mustangs, though a 2024 model has nothing in common with a 1964 model, other than the logo.

[Tokarev]

Ford still makes Mustangs, though a 2024 model has nothing in common with a 1964 model, other than the logo.

I'd counter that automobile technology has changed dramatically over the last sixty years. Handgun technology has not. Probably the most revolutionary change in design is the switch to polymer. But even then, the basic designs are all essentially what was around in the 1930s.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Bruce Cartwright]

[QUOTE=Tokarev;1550348]

Later guns were cast frames which was supposed to be more durable. These were used on the 40 S&W guns and probably most of the commercial MK3 guns sold in the US. Externally they really don't look different but there is more meat inside especially in the mag well area. Has anyone heard of a MK3 frame cracking from hard use?

Tokarev:

My understanding is that gun writer Patrick Sweeney commissioned Wayne Novak to build him a Browning MK III Hi Power. There are photos of it in Sweeney's hardcover book about the 1911. At any rate, in speaking with industry folks, Sweeney would let anyone who attended one of his classes shoot that gun as long as they ran factory ammo. The last round count I heard was 23,000 rounds with no signs of breakage or damage. I think most of the concerns about Hi Power longevity are overblown and relate to early forged frames in military guns that were shot to pieces. Look at some of the 1911s that the Marine Corps used. They constantly had to rebuild their guns when they returned from deployments/floats due to using WWII frames time and time again. I run MK IIIs and have quit worrying about the issue. I believe that MK IIIs will outlast you and your children. I am planning on finding out. I would also note that I gave a MK II to my son after shooting the dog snot out of it and its still running strong. I may be wrong and am willing to be educated. That said 23,000 rounds of ammo is nothing to sneeze at. Just my two cents worth and food for thought.

Bruce