Browning Hi Power & CZ-75: Are They Related?

Hello. Not infrequent discussions on various firearm sites suggest that the Hi Power and the CZ-75 are relatives. Some opine that the latter is a descendent of the former. Let's take a look at these two pistols and see where they share common traits and where they don't in order to see just how true their being "family" is…or is not.


Both the Hi Power and the CZ-75 are popular 9mm (and .40) handguns. Both have their fans and detractors, but how much are they alike and where do their designs differ? (Shown is a Browning Mk III and a Pre-B CZ-75. (The right-side extended thumb safety lever has been removed on the Hi Power.)

As most readers here already know, the Hi Power was John M. Browning's last known pistol design and that he passed before it reached finalization. Building upon Browning's foundation design, Dieudonne J. Saive (also a talented gun designer at FN) refined the original striker-fired pistol into the external hammer, single-action, recoil-operated, locked-breech pistol now known for generations. It has undergone some changes along the way, such has ring to spur hammer, internal to external extractor, and sights, but it is for all practical purposes the same gun.

The Hi Power was born of two fathers, John M. Browning and Dieudonne J. Saive after first being "conceived" about 1926.

Likewise, the CZ-75's earliest versions hit the ground during 1975-76, fifty years after the Hi Power was a sparkle in the eye of John Browning, but it, too, had two fathers. They were the brothers, Josef and Frantisek Koucky. A parallel continues. A large firearm manufacturer also employed both of these men. Where Browning and Saive were at FN, the Koucky brothers were with CZ in Czechoslovakia.

So far, the story sort of sounds like the "parallel world" thing sometimes shown in science fiction stories doesn't it?

Other similarities between the Hi Power and the CZ-75:

Both are chambered for 9mm. (Later versions of both are also chambered in .40 S&W.)

Both were conceptualized for military use.

Both are similar in size & weight, with the CZ being slightly larger.

Both have a 1:10 twist.

Both utilize barrels with locking lugs, which is straight from John M. Browning.

Both are recoil operated.

Both have the mainspring below the barrel.

Neither uses a detachable barrel bushing.

Both pistols' grip panels are secured with one screw each.

Both have external hammers.

Both have thumb safeties.

Both are capable of cocked-and-locked carry.

Both use detachable double-stack magazines.

Both use external pivoting spring-loaded extractors, although the early Hi Powers used an internal one.

Both use pivoting triggers.

Both have a relatively few number of internal parts compared to some other designs.

Both guns have lightening cuts on the front of the slide. (Later versions of the CZ-75 do not.)

Both guns (CZ-75 Pre-B) use a slide stop retaining plate to secure the firing pin and spring.

Both guns use a push-button magazine release located at the rear of the trigger guard.

Both guns originally came with ring hammers. (The Hi Power and CZ-75 were produced with spur hammers for a number of years. CZ went back to an abbreviated ring hammer. The Hi Power used the old factory ring hammer in the Practical model.)

Both use a one-piece feed ramp.

Both have been copied and used outside of their respective nations of origin.

So far it would seem that the Hi Power and the CZ-75 are like peas in a pod, but let's take a look at differences.

Dissimilarities:

The original Hi Power is single-action only. The hammer must be cocked before the first shot can be fired.

The original CZ-75's were selective double-action. In other words, only pressing the trigger could fire the first shot. If desired the shooter could manually cock the CZ's hammer and apply the thumb safety so that each shot, first to last, could be fired single-action. (Currently there are versions of the CZ that are DAO and one that is strictly single-action.)

The original (and subsequent) CZ-75 pistols have a magazine "brake" consisting of a leaf spring in the rear of the magazine well. The Hi Power does not although its sear spring is located there.

The CZ-75 does not have a magazine disconnect. The Hi Power does.

The bottom lug on the Hi Power barrel is open on one side and uses a cam, which is pressed into the frame.

The bottom lug on the CZ-75 is closed and cams on the slide release lever's shaft.

The recoil spring guide in the Hi Power is internally spring-loaded and holds the slide release in place.

The recoil spring guide in the original CZ-75's is short like the Hi Power but is not spring-loaded and does not hold the slide release in the gun.

The CZ-75 and Hi Power magazine release buttons are retained by different methods.

The thumb safety on the Hi Power has an internal spring-loaded detent to tension it.

The thumb safety on the CZ-75 does not. Pre-B versions use a separate piece beneath the safety to tension it.

The Hi Power slide rides outside the frame.

The CZ-75 slide rides inside the frame.

The internal parts on the Hi Power and CZ-75 do not interchange and are entirely different.

Parallels continue. Neither pistol originally had an internal firing pin block. Now, both do. This was first incorporated by FN on the Hi Power in the latter runs of the Mk II pistol and by CZ with the introduction of their "B-Series". (FN did produce Mk III pistols without the internal firing pin block, at least at one time for the Israelis, but all NIB Hi Powers sold in the US are actually the Mk IIIS version, the "S" standing for the firing pin block.)

But is one descended form the other? In my opinion, the Koucky brothers did not copy the Hi Power. They definitely appear to have used the advances made by Mr. Browning with regard to locking lugs and magazine release location. I am not convinced that the CZ-75's external appearance was intended to be similar to that of the Hi Power.

Most handgun makers were utilizing John Browning's method of locking the breech to the barrel for higher-pressure cartridges. It worked and was simple in design. We can look at semiautomatic handguns from Star, Llama, Smith & Wesson, SIG-Neuhausen and others and see the same thing and before thoughts of the CZ-75 entered its designers' brains.

Mr. Browning came up with the idea to be sure and it was so good that we can say that the world's pistol makers adopted it in droves. By the time that the Josef and Frantisek Koucky came along with their gun fifty years later, this was "old hat." To this day, Browning's system is retained by most major handgun manufacturers albeit with some modification in some cases. (Glock and SIG-Sauer come to mind immediately.)

If we want to say that the CZ-75 is descended from the Hi Power, the same must be said with regard to the SIG P-210. The CZ-75's slide rides inside the frame, as does the P-210's. It preceded the CZ-75 by decades. It may also be "descended" from the Star A, B, and P series of single-action handguns if we are looking at the way in which the thumb safeties are tensioned. All of these use a spring-tensioned piece below the safety to do it (and all are damned easy to lose during detail stripping!)

I think that the Koucky brothers were fine enough handgun designers to not have to copy the Hi Power or make a thinly veiled copy. Their gun stands on its own merits. (Perhaps this is another parallel for the Hi Power is still regarded highly by more than a few users.)

Instead of a double-action in which the hammer is pulled rearward and released, the CZ-75's trigger-bar arrangement essentially uses a pushing motion. This results in a pretty smooth trigger out of the box, particularly in some of the Pre-B versions. Because of its double-action capability, CZ-75 internals will necessarily be more complicated than the Hi Power's, but the system does seem to work and the design does not seem to require constant detail stripping to be reliable. It is more complicated to detail strip than the Hi Power.

The Browning Hi Power and the CZ-75 are similar in some ways, but not in others, but in my view the most important similarity they share is this:

Both are very popular firearms. Both have proven themselves more than adequately accurate for their originally intended purposes. Both have reputations for reliability and fans of either will say that they just have that "special feel."

The Browning Hi Power as well as most automatics that followed were definitely influenced by the genius of John M. Browning to be sure, but neither the Hi Power nor the CZ-75 were entirely spawned from his genius. In my opinion, Mr. Saive made some very fine changes to the Hi Power and the two Czech brothers are to be commended for their use of a proven system as well as their other CZ-75 design features.

I do not see the CZ-75 as "Son of Hi Power." (Perhaps a second or third cousin.)

Neither do I see this belief as a slam against the CZ. Both designs have proven themselves to be very fine pistols in their own, separate rights.

What do You Know About the Hi Power & SFS System?

Not much, but I'll share what I believe to be true. I have shot one but not extensively and have no long-term experience. Bill Laughridge of Cylinder and Slide sells the parts to convert a conventional single-action Hi Power to the "Safety Fast System".

(If the link is no longer valid, contact Mr. Bill Laughridge of Cylinder & Slide.)

It can be installed and used or removed and with the original parts back in place, the gun functions as it did before, i.e., single-action.

Hi Powers can also be purchased through the maker Fabrique Nationale (FN) in the SFS form. FN manufactures the Browning Hi Power. Browning Arms simply imports the gun, but Browning doesn't offer the pistol in the SFS configuration.

In a nutshell, here's how it works. A round is chambered and the pistol is cocked. The hammer is pushed forward with a thumb and the ambidextrous thumb safety engages. When the safety is disengaged, the hammer automatically springs into the cocked position for a single-action press of the trigger. There is no longer and heavier double-action shot to contend with. Trigger pull is consistent from first shot to last.

The most obvious way to recognize a Hi Power having the SFS system from the conventional is that the SFS Hi Power will have a very abbreviated hammer spur. The slide stop lever and thumb safeties will appear a bit differently shaped as well.

Downsides to the system is that the slide cannot be locked back for disassembly as it is with the standard Hi Power and it does add a greater number of parts to the pistol. More parts can mean greater potential for malfunction or breakage. Users are not reporting problems.

Do I intend to get one? Probably not but having said that I do not rather boorishly reply, "It's a solution to a non-existent problem" as have some others. I have no safety issues about Condition One Carry. Others do but would like to carry a Hi Power. The SFS system allows them to do that without the hammer actually being cocked. If the safety inadvertently wipes "off" on a single-action Hi Power, a press of the trigger is all that's required to fire the pistol. If this occurs with the SFS, the hammer is instantly cocked and it possible that this would alert the carrier to the mishap. Either pistol in a holster covering the trigger guard is still safe. If nothing can touch the trigger, a properly working Hi Power will not fire.

Other people are prohibited from carrying single-action automatics by policy. The SFS allows them to carry the Hi Power (or 1911) as it no longer to be a cocked-and-locked single-action. The hammer forward looks "safer" to administrators, city managers, and others not really competent to judge what is and is not safe.

For myself, the jury is still out on the SFS. I've not used one much at all (I've shot three) and I'd like to see how they function over time. Relatively few folks will use these guns compared to all those using Glock, SIG-Sauer, or HK handguns, so getting much long-term information/observations will probably take longer than with more popular handguns. I do think it may prove a viable and dependable system.

PS: Since this was published, an SFS owner/user contacted me wanting to make the article more accurate. Here is what he had to say:

"I read your article on SFS configured High Powers on your newer blog. You claimed no expertise on the subject, but did a good job of describing what it does -- except for one point. You stated that, with the SFS system installed, it was impossible to lock the slide back in order to remove the slide stop. This is a true statement, but it needed to be developed. One does not HAVE to lock the slide back in order to remove the slide stop. One simply cocks the hammer, push/pulls the slide stop out of the frame, and eases the slide off forward. I would add that it took about a dozen field strippings to free things up. My SFS-configured High Power is the easiest autoloader to field strip that I have ever dealt with. And at my age, this is a blessing.

For what it is worth, the Extended Slide Stop I had purchased from Brownell's a few years prior to getting C&S's SFS kit does exactly the same thing. In fact, it looks identical to the one in the SFS kit. Brownell's cost me $26 then, and slipped right in. It eliminated the need to lock the slide all the way back in order get the slide release out. I have no idea how it changed things, but it sure did.

Sig 556 Classic Carbine 16 Inch Barrel LTD

Price: $1,768.99 Manufacturer: SIGARMS INC Manufacturer Item #: SIG556307 Impact Item #: 798681412648 Available online, ships in 48 hrs

Phoenix Arms 22 Pistols ready to ramble to the range - Get One

Phoenix HP22 Pistol 22LR 2 Tone Nickel/Black $129.99 Item #: 753733102236 Out of stock, accepting orders. [Add to Cart]	Phoenix HP22A Black $129.99 Item #: 753733102335 Out of stock, accepting orders. [Add to Cart]
Phoenix Range Deluxe Kit Black 22 $197.99 Item #: 753733105336 Available online, ships in 5-7 business days. Call for in-store availability. [Add to Cart]	Phoenix Range Deluxe Kit Nickel 22 $197.99 Item #: 753733105237 Out of stock, accepting orders. [Add to Cart]
Phoenix Range Master Black 22 $175.99 Item #: 753733005339 Available online, ships in 5-7 business days. Call for in-store availability. [Add to Cart]	Phoenix Range Master Nickel 5" 22 $149.99 Item #: 753733104230 Available online, ships in 5-7 business days. Call for in-store availability. [Add to Cart]

The Hi Power and the Glock 17

It is no secret that my favorite 9mm pistol has been the Browning Hi Power and that either it or a 1911 pattern pistol is my most often used pistols at the range. Before retirement as a police officer my duty sidearm was either a Hi Power 9mm or a 1911 in .45 ACP. These guns are the ones I "teethed" on when I started shooting seriously circa 1969-1970. I've never been without at least one of each example since.

So the question is raised: If you have nirvana with the Hi Power, why look at anything else, especially a "plastic pistol?"

For me the Hi Power has been the 9mm for over 3 decades, but something gnawed at me to really try and give the Glock an honest try. The reason is simply that I enjoy shooting handguns. Though the bulk of my personal handguns are either DA/SA revolvers or single-action autos, I do have a few conventional DA/SA semiautomatics as well as some that offer cocked-and-locked capabilities if desired. It is also my observation that the Glock is as popular with many of this generation's 9mm shooters as the Hi Power was with mine.

With the immense popularity of this handgun, I thought it might be of interest to honestly compare these pistols straight up and down the line, being as objective as possible. Obviously there will be some subjective comments, but I will identify them as such.

Taking a look at the Glock 17 compared to the Hi Power hit me shortly after I completed A Critical Look at the Glock 17, which is located here for those who might be interested:

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Critical%20Look%20at%20the%20Glock%2017.htm

The simple fact of the matter was that I could not really do this until I practiced more with the Glock. Decades of using the Browning-inspired Hi Power (and 1911) had taught my hand and wired my brain to accept only those pistols' very similar grip angles as "correct." Invariably I would find my sights way high when trying to draw and shoot the Glock at speed. I was also not able to get quite as tight of groups at distances beyond about 25 yards and those shot at 25 yards and under required more "work" to achieve. Since I had purchased the Glock 17 primarily to be a "loaner gun" for concealed handgun students, I'd shot it a bit now and then, but never really got "serious" with it.

It hardly seemed "fair" to try and compare a seldom used "loaner pistol" to one I'd used extensively for decades. Conclusions might be drawn from faulty input. To try and correct this, I spent more than a few range sessions with the Glock 17 exclusively and some shooting it and either a 9mm Hi Power or a .45 1911. Checking back on my notes this involved roughly 1100 rounds through the G17, some handloaded "hotties" and some factory-loaded FMJ bought at good prices.

This was my "Duty Hi Power", a 9mm fitted with Novak sights along with Spegel checkered delrin stocks and the C&S abbreviated spur hammer. The gun has no magazine disconnect and had a matte blue finish. (It was reblued when I retired from police service.)

Whether it was because I shot them occasionally at the same sessions as the G17 or just from decades of previous use, I did not have any problem staying "on" with either the Hi Power or the 1911. For me, shooting the G17 heavily did not "ruin" me for the other two. I cannot say that this will hold true for others, but such was my experience. (I did find myself wiping off an imaginary thumb safety when drawing and shooting the Glock quickly now and then, but didn't find the reverse to be true; in no instance did I "forget" to disengage the thumb safety at speed with either the Hi Power or 1911. Will this hold true for everyone? I flat don't know. If you use the Glock predominantly and over a lengthy time-span but carry one of the more traditional single-action autos now and then, it might be a good thing to check just to be sure. If it happens to you, shoot the single-action until it doesn't or make a hard decision and go exclusively with one or the other.)

To me the Glock 17 and the Hi Power fill the same niche in service style sidearms and each has its strong and weak points. I believe that this is probably true with anything conceived and created by man. With the advent of the Mk II Hi Powers and the factory-throated barrels, the old saw that Hi Powers are picky about ammunition simply has not proven true for me over several years with more than a few Mk II and Mk III pistols. Glocks are renowned for their reliability in most cases. If we put one up against the other, I don't know which might require cleaning to continue flawless operation. For whatever reasons, I just almost always break down and clean my autos after 700 to 800 shots when trying to check this out. If the Glock will shoot more rounds than the Hi Power before crud induces malfunctions or vice-versa, I really couldn't care less for I always clean my pistols after any shooting sessions. Before I purchased the Glock, I frequently loaned a Mk III for concealed handgun students who needed an automatic to qualify with. Neither gun jammed or malfunctioned for any of the "loanees" despite my having seen some who could make an anvil malfunction!

Empty, the Glock weighs nearly half a pound less than the all-steel Hi Power. While this difference shrinks a tad if both guns are loaded to full capacity, it is only decreased by the additional weight of four 9mm cartridges if both guns are loaded with the same ammunition. This assumes that conventional magazines are used since the G17 will hold eighteen shots compared to the P35's fourteen. I definitely find the Glock magazines easier on the skin when carried in either an OWB or IWB magazine carrier. The Hi Power magazine floor plate is of steel and has pointed corners on the rear. The Glock magazine floor plate is plastic, thicker, and has rounded edges. The Hi Power magazine "problem" can be fixed by adding either a bumper pad or carefully rounding the sharp edges…or both. (If you opt to dress down the Hi Power magazine floor plate edges, go slow and when you knock off the sharp edges, quit. The stamped floor plate is thin and folded to go over a lip on the magazine body. Nothing is gained if we file or sand too much since we just expose the lip.)

With a loose-fitting shirt or jacket, I have not found the Glock to be difficult to conceal with even a Fobus paddle holster. That said, the Hi Power is not "heavy" but I do like the Glock's reduced weight and rounded edges when carried close to the body.

I absolutely detest the Glock factory sights…fixed or adjustable. For me, the front sight is just too wide and I've seen the front sights on a couple of Glocks worn down when carried in a holster that contacted them! For me they simply had to go and will on any future Glocks I might own. I replaced my Glock 17 sights with fixed ones from AeroTek and have been quite pleased. (I also have them on a G26.)

Most opine that the finish on the Glock is one of the most durable and corrosion-resistant in the firearms market. At the same time, it should be noted that the matte finish on the Mk III is rustproof, as it is a baked-on epoxy. It is not as durable as Glock's tennifer finish. With considerable holster use, the Hi Power's matte finish can wear. I do not consider this a major problem as I clean my handguns regardless of their finish. While the entire exterior of the Glock is protected against corrosion, only the slide and frame are on the Mk III Hi Power. The trigger, hammer, grip screws, thumb safety, slide release and magazine button are blued and the barrel is left in the white. In my case, this is of little importance, but the Glock does have superior protection against rust or corrosion.

I noticed no advantage one pistol to the other in speed of reloading. My Glock magazines are of the "drop free" variety and the Hi Power has had its magazine disconnect removed. Magazines fall freely from either pistol. I found neither to be quicker or easier to insert a fresh magazine in than the other. I do find the Hi Power easier to drop the slide on if using the slide release lever than the tiny one on the Glock. It is my understanding that Glock doesn't recommend routinely dropping the slide by depressing what they call the "hold open" lever and I've heard folks complain of them wearing pretty quickly if this is done over time due to wear. For that reason I "slingshot" the Glock and wound up doing it with the Hi Powers and 1911pistols when shooting them in the same sessions.

Felt recoil was equivalent for me with the 9mm Hi Power and the Glock 17. In other words, either pistol was quite easy to handle in accurate rapid-fire drills.

In slow deliberate bullseye shooting I still shoot tighter groups with the Hi Power and 1911 pistols. Whether this is due to greater mechanical accuracy or just my ability to shoot them I cannot say. (I was somewhat surprised at this because some of the tightest groups I've ever fired at 50 yards were done shooting a revolver double-action.) At distances of 50 yards and beyond either of these pistols outperform the Glock…in my hands. Glock devotees may find that just the opposite is true. I don't have a definitive answer, as I've never seen a Glock fired from a machine rest to determine its built-in accuracy potential. If this is an important aspect of handgun shooting and you really prefer the Glock, I believe that aftermarket fitted barrels can be had.

The lack of chamber support in the Glock pistol has been mentioned on several gun sites, but in 9mm I have not found this to be a real concern. All of the Glocks in 9mm that I've seen, handled or shot had plenty of case support. This has never been a concern for the 9mm Hi Power. The only instances of inadequate support that I have personally seen were from improper "throating" of the pistol. Too much steel was removed when trying to rework the ramp on Pre-Mk II pistols.

Mentioned earlier was reliability. Either the Mk III or the Glock 17 is capable of it in the extreme. I have noticed that with some foreign military surplus ammunition, the hammer-driven firing pin of the Hi Power would fire rounds that the striker-fired Glock simply would not. If memory serves, there was some Greek surplus ball imported a few years ago and almost immediately some Glock folks began experiencing failures to fire. Within a short time the importer of this ammunition advised that it was not recommended for Glock handguns. Having said that, I have never experienced a single failure to fire using any ammunition from Remington, Federal, Winchester, CCI/Speer, Fiocchi, Hirtenberger or Corbon. With ammo not having unusually hard primers I don't think there is an issue at all.

I do not routinely carry a cocked-and-locked Hi Power just stuck in my waistband sans holster, however I'd feel safer doing that with the Hi Power than the Glock. At least there is a manual safety other than on the trigger that would have to be disengaged before the trigger could move the sear from the hammer's full-cock notch, possibly firing it. It is my opinion that the "point and pull" operation of the

Glock offers more potential for disaster in this regard than the traditional single-action autopistol. The "safe action" safety tab on the trigger is certainly better than nothing for a short double-action pull but in my opinion is only adequate if: The pistol is carried in a holster that covers the trigger and is designed not to allow any safety strap or other part to get inside the trigger guard when the Glock is being reholstered, and the Glock carrier always practices safe gun handling, particularly not putting one's finger on the trigger until ready to shoot. (Without question this should be done when using any handgun, but like a cocked-and-unlocked single-action auto, the very short "DA" trigger pull of the Glock simply doesn't suffer foolish handling well.)

Subjectively, I find the Hi Power a more comfortable pistol and more pleasing to the eye. The latter attribute carries more weight with some folks than others to be sure and probably is of no real importance if interested only in form following function. At the same time, I see nothing wrong with using a gun that can not only perform but look good too. From a purely defensive standpoint, the latter point has little merit but for folks who simply "like" handguns, it is often more a factor in what they like than might be expected.

I have so many years using this pistol and find its design so pleasing that it will almost certainly remain more of a favorite with me than the Glock. That does not mean that anyone else has to share the same opinion or make the same choice.

Both pistols have few internal parts compared to several other popular semiautomatics, something I consider a plus simply because there is less to potential go wrong. Each is quite easy to either field or detail strip when necessary.

Though neither pistol seems to lend itself to as extensive customization as the 1911,either can be customized to meet the individual user's personal needs…be they real or imagined. In my observation, there are enough such options available for the Hi Power and Glock handguns, that 99.99% of real needs can be met.

Out of the box, I have to bob the Hi Power hammer spur or fit a C&S Type I ring hammer and sear to avoid hammer bite. The Glock is good to go in that regard as it comes from the factory. Neither usually has what I'd call a stellar trigger pull without work, but I admit that tuned 1911 triggers tend to spoil. Some Hi Power users like the magazine disconnect while others such as myself routinely remove them. The Glock comes with no such device. Mercifully, neither comes with forward slide serrations but either can have them via custom gunsmith work if desired.

Though the grip angle on the Glock is not to my liking compared to the Hi Power, it certainly offers good purchase with the front and rear grip strap checkering molded in as well as the finger grooves. The polymer frame's textured surface is also superior for use with wet or sweaty hands than the slick blue, hard chrome, or matte finish on the Hi Power. This is often remedied with stippling, (fine) checkering, or a simple piece of skateboard tape.

Some complain about the Glock being wider than the Hi Power. While true, I have not found it to constitute a real world problem in concealment. The main problem I've found is that if trying to tote a pistol in an IWB holster in pants that just are not big enough in the waist, the problem is amplified with the thicker Glock. Get pant sizes commensurate with a Glock and an IWB holster and there's no problem I can find.

The Hi Power has a conventionally rifled barrel. The Glock's is polygonal and said to boost bullet velocity and there may be some truth to this. The table below shows some common loads that were fired from both a Hi Power with its 4.66" barrel and the Glock 17, which has a 4.49" tube. The average velocity is based on 10 shots fired 10' from the chronograph screens.

9mm Average Velocities from Glock 17 & Mk III Hi Power
Load:
Hi Power Ave. Velocity (ft/sec):
Glock 17 Ave. Velocity (ft/sec):

Aguila 65-gr HP
1537
1668

Glaser Silver 80-gr. +P
1573
1605

Corbon 100-gr. Powerball +P
1473
1505

Hirtenberger 100-gr. JSP
1348
1353

Corbon 115-gr. DPX +P
1244
1228

Corbon 115-gr. JHP +P
1411
1413

Corbon 125-gr. JHP +P
1312
1320

Winchester 127-gr. +P+
1269
1288

Remington 147-gr. Golden Saber
1033
1016

Only twice did the Hi Power's longer conventionally rifled barrel outperform the shorter polygonal rifling of the Glock and then only by a very few feet per second. In no instance was there a significant difference in bullet speeds, most being well within the shot to shot variations of a given round. Still, the Glock is using a shorter barrel and running neck and neck with the Hi Power so I am pretty sure that at least with jacketed bullets, the polygonal rifling is playing a positive role.

When it comes to using lead bullets, the common wisdom is not to shoot them in Glock handguns. I have done so, but only in limited numbers (under 200 per session and only with hard cast bullets) and rigorously cleaning of the Glock barrel always followed. The idea is that the polygonal rifling "smears" the lead until it coats the interior of the barrel and kicks pressures dangerously high or prevents subsequent cartridges from fully seating due to the leading build-up near the chamber engaging the bullet too soon. (Aftermarket match barrels with conventional rifling are available for Glockers wishing to use cast bullets.) For most, it is a non-issue with jacketed 9mm ammunition being plentiful and relatively inexpensive.

It is true that the Glock can be fired with the slide not fully forward. I have not personally seen it happen when using any ammunition but IF you opt to do cast bullet shooting with the factory barrel, I'd keep an eye open for it just to be on the safe side. Likewise, if reloading, make sure that your homebrewed 9mm rounds are properly sized and seat easily in the Glock's chamber. (This is a good thing to do with any reloaded rounds to be used in any automatic.)

The Glock is touted as being super tough while some say never to use +P in the Hi Power. When asked if +P can be used in their pistol, Glock says, "Go right ahead." Browning does not recommend the use of +P in their pistols. I have given my observations on the use of hotter than standard ammo in the Hi Power and for those interested, they can be found here:

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/BHPandHighPressureAmmo.htm

It strikes me that proponents for either pistol tend to look only at their choice's strong points and compare those to the weaker ones of the other. I've tried specifically not to do that here. Both put their best foot forward in some areas but not in all. It falls to the individual user to decide which of these areas or concern are most important to them. I still find reliability to be the most essential element in a defense gun and either the current Hi Powers or Glocks will provide this. (There can certainly be lemons from any maker, but overall, either is usually noted for dependability.)

Neither gun is represented as a match grade target pistol and neither is…but both are capable of better accuracy than are most of their owners. That I find the Hi Power easier to shoot small groups with than the Glock does not mean that such is the case for others. I have never said that the Glock 17 (or any Glock) is not capable of more than sufficient accuracy for most terror-filled, high-adrenaline deadly force encounters that are usually measured in feet, often still in the single digits!

If being able to provide maintenance to your handgun is just not in the cards due to climate or battlefield conditions, the Glock might be the better choice. Having said that I would also ask the reader to recall that for much of the last century the Hi Power was present in military and covert actions all over the globe.

If weight is a major consideration, the Glock is lighter and for some that might be the deciding point while the difference is meaningless to folks not in the same situation(s).

Some shooters report not being able to remember to wipe off the safety when firing at speed or under even a small amount of stress. Assuming that they are not willing to practice enough for this to become second nature or it just really bothers them that they might fail to do so in a fight, go with the point-and-pull Glock.

The other side of that coin might be people who simply prefer a pistol not having the safety on the trigger. Jeff Cooper once likened it to having the combination to the safe written on the door. For those, the Hi Power might win out. Some prefer a weapon that requires deliberate safety disengagement should their handgun be wrested from their grip. The idea is that their opponent might not be able to fire the pistol long enough for them to escape. We each have to make our own decisions here.

I've worked pretty hard with the Glock 17 and while it certainly will not replace my Hi Powers, it has proven itself worthy of respect as a "serious gun" in my opinion. Compared to many Glockers my round count is not high and the things seem to just work and work and work without major parts failures. Now and again a trigger spring will break. While a police firearm instructor, I saw more than a few Glocks come through training sessions and qualifications. Most worked quite well. Now and again one would break a spring and I did see one defective slide break on a new Glock 19, but such were the exceptions rather than the rule. (I've also seen several other brand name pistols go down for various reasons.)

I don't see the question as "either-or" but as which best meets my needs. I have no major problems with either and intend to own both. Would this be the right decision for you? Only you can answer that.

It is my intention to keep shooting and learning the Glock. Will it ever find a warm spot in my traditionalist mind? It already has… but it won't replace my Hi Power or 1911.

The Purpose of the Handgun

What is the purpose of the handgun?

It depends on whom you ask. Those who would gut the Second Amendment reply that it is to kill and maim and that it serves no "sporting" use and should be banned from private ownership. Many handgun aficionados primarily into self-defense concerns reply,"To save one from unexpected attack". They usually go on to say that the handgun is there because a more potent long gun often cannot be.

I submit that the purpose of the handgun is whatever you want it to be.

Unlike the fools (meant in the truest form of the word) who support "gun control", those with at least a basic grip on reality can differentiate between the unlawful taking of life to the regrettable, but justified use of lethal force in dire circumstances. I have no real complaint with the shooters who say that the handgun's purpose is to save its user from harm, but do vehemently oppose the thought that this is the only purpose.

Here are some examples of what I'm saying. Most here understand that John M. Browning's 1911 was originally conceived as a sidearm for the US military, the mounted horse soldier in particular. Does that mean that the gun's been limited to such? I think not. This is evidenced by its having been produced in target versions such as the National Match or Gold Cup. Other companies have offered target grade 1911 pistols as well. What might well be called a "battle pistol" in its original inventor's intent still serves in the self-defense arena but has also earned favor as a target and recreational piece. Not all owners of the grand 1911-pattern pistol necessarily see its purpose as being but one-in-the-same with everyone else's view.

This S&W Model 41 in .22lr was designed primarily as a competition target arm. This one has never competed in a single match and probably never will. It definitely has served to reinforce basic shooting fundamentals and has also taken more than a few head of small game for the table.

Looking at it from the other direction, Smith and Wesson introduced the Model 29 .44 Magnum revolver primarily as a hunter's handgun, but to a limited degree some law enforcement officers embraced it as the ultimate combat sidearm. While most might not be able to handle it in defensive shooting scenarios, for those who could, the gun served that purpose.

Some prefer the challenge of bow hunting to using the traditional rifle. Others prefer the handgun for the same reason. I am one of the latter. I do agree that the large magnum revolvers are probably the best choices for these purposes, but here in Texas whitetail deer are not as large as in other states, particularly up north. Despite the protestations of some, I've found hot 9mm's, .38 Super, and .45 ACP to work fine so long as ranges are kept short (under about 40 yards for me) and only good shots are taken. This is not illegal in Texas and I will keep doing this so long as I can continue getting one-shot kills that are quick and humane. I doubt that John Browning envisioned the "purpose" of his battle pistols to be hunting deer and lessor four-legged critters.

S&W's line of Airweight snubs are called "Saturday Night Specials" by the gun-grabbers while many within the shooting community see them primarily as defensive arms or backup guns. That they can also serve to apply a coup de grace in the hunting field is frequently overlooked. They can also just be plain fun plinking guns. You decide. Any firearm's "purpose" can be change with the immediate needs or desires of the shooter. The vast majority of handguns can serve more than one purpose.

What I'm suggesting strongly is that you decide the purpose of your handguns. None of us can live the other's life. Perhaps we should not decree our purposes as the only valid ones? Perhaps we should let the individual shooter make his own decisions on this topic? Perhaps we should treat others as we would like to be treated in this regard?

A New Hi Power: Immediately Customize or Not?

" I am thinking of buying a Hi Power. What changes should I make?"

This is a question I receive frequently via email or see at the Internet gun forums.

My answer is "none"…immediately.

The reason is fairly simple: Until the new Hi Power is shot, we don't know what changes may be needed if any! In recent days a fellow reports buying a new Mk III only to find that the frame had not been properly heat-treated. This was a major problem and one that would lead to catastrophic failure, but it showed up because he had shot the pistol. It didn't show up immediately, but after a hundred factory rounds or so. Suppose he'd bought the pistol, sent it to his favorite gunsmith with a list of things to change, waited for its return after paying the 'smith's fees and then found that he had this BIG problem? This is a rare problem with FN products, but does re-enforce the view that a person should make sure their gun works and is up to snuff before having it customized.

Holding off on customizing also lets you reassess if you really need or want the changes that you thought you did.

Hammer bite is common to many when using the Hi Power. After shooting, it might not be for you. Why change hammers or modify the existing one if it's not needed? If after shooting several hundred rounds through your pistol and it's never missed a stutter with ball or JHP ammo, is the "reliability package" offered by many really necessary? Shooting the gun allows the owner to determine if the sights provide for a POA that matches POI. If they do, great but if not, it's good to be able to provide the gunsmith with the information on where the gun does hit. This makes it more likely that new sights are properly regulated for your individual Hi Power. A person might even decide that the fixed sights on the Hi Power suit him or her as they are. I've had a couple of Hi Powers fitted with Novak fixed sights. I like them and think that they look great. I like the sight picture as well but I don't get hits any quicker or shoot tighter groups than with the fixed sights that came from the factory.

More than a few Hi Powers will probably need trigger work done. The US commercial market is a small percentage of FN sales. This is usually still to the military and police market throughout the world. Many specify a heavier trigger pull than most American shooters prefer. This also requires less time and work for FN as a heavier trigger is less likely to suffer the hammer falling to half-cock during firing than a lighter one that's slightly out of spec. In any event, it's a good idea to shoot the new Hi Power, as the trigger will smooth up a bit during about the first 300 rounds. Should there be problems with the sear and hammer hooks not mating properly, it will show up and the gunsmith can take care of this while the gun is in the shop. I do think a trigger job from a competent Hi Power 'smith is usually in order. A Hi Power with a 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 pound trigger pull is much easier to achieve good hits with than one having a 9-lb. trigger pull.

Shooting will let you see if you actually want to pay for a fitted match barrel. In most cases the Hi Power is quite accurate with the factory barrel. Most shooters will not be able to see any differences between the two.

If the desire is for custom touches that really don't add functionality but just look good, I still recommend shooting the gun for a while before having the work done. Make sure that you have a properly working Hi Power before coughing up the dollars to personalize it.

.40 vs. 9mm Hi Power: Which is Best for Defense?

Is the forty-caliber Hi Power a better gun for protection than the 9mm Hi Power? Once again, much of that will depend upon the ability of the shooter to place the shots. The .40 S&W round is more potent than the 9mm on paper. How much this difference actually makes in real life is open to question, but I believe that it is more powerful. I do not believe that its power level will substitute for proper placement.

It seems than many users of the forty prefer the 180-gr JHP and these normally travel around 1000 ft/sec or so from a Hi Power. With the nine, the "heaviest" bullet is about 147-gr these days. With most loads, it averages about 950 to 1050 ft/sec. Velocities may be near equivalent, but the forty does have more weight and a bit larger diameter. It's almost certainly more "effective" in this weight than the 147-gr using the same or similar bullet design in 9mm.

Comparing the 9mm 147-gr to the approximately same weight Winchester 155-gr STHP, it appears that the forty "wins" again. Average chronographed velocity for this load from a Hi Power was 1164 ft/sec while Remington's 155-gr JHP averaged 1202 ft/sec. Corbon's now-discontinued 147-gr +P 9mm JHP was faster than the other 9mm rounds in this weight, but I've not tested it. The fastest I've personally seen has been the 147-gr Remington Golden Saber at 1033 ft/sec. Another company or two may be offering fast-for-9mm loads in this bullet weight but none seem to quite match velocities for slightly heavier bullets in 40-caliber.

With the 105-gr Glaser Safety Slug, the forty averages 1393 ft/sec while Corbon's 100-gr PowRball gets 1473 ft/sec in 9mm. In this instance, I believe that the 9mm is the more potent of these two specific loads.

The 9mm 80-gr Glaser Safety Slug averaged 1534 ft/sec or 141 ft/sec faster than the forty, but the bullet is also 25-gr lighter. I have not chronographed the forty-caliber PowRball.

I believe that the more defense-effective of the two Hi Powers will be the one that you shoot the most accurately at speed. If you can get accurate hits as quickly, or nearly so, with the larger caliber, that's the one to use. If not, I'd go with the 9mm.

A police officer I know was hit in the lower torso with a forty-caliber 180-gr JHP. The wound was very serious and he spent much time in the hospital. He was not immediately incapacitated. I saw the recovered bullet and it did expand.

Ballistics aside, I personally prefer the "feel" of the 9mm Hi Power. No doubt this is due to decades of using Hi Powers before the heavier 40-caliber version came along. Just because this is true for me does not mean that it must be so for everyone else. Other folks report perferring the handling qualities of the 40-Hi Power. You decide what is right for you.

Placement remains the key determinant in "stopping power." In other words, it is my opinion that the one you shoot best will be the more effective, be it 9mm or .40 S&W.

Why Use the 18.5-lb 9mm Hi Power Recoil Spring?

The 9mm Hi Power comes with a factory standard recoil spring of 17-lbs. I prefer to increase this weight to 18.5-lbs. Heavier springs are available, but this one works fine for me with both standard pressure loads as well as the hotter stuff. I do it for two reasons: One is two reduce battering between the slide and the frame while the other is to possibly reduce potential rounding of the barrel's locking lugs.

If you shoot primarily standard pressure ammunition, it's probably not an issue, particularly with the Mk III Hi Powers and the models based on them. If you shoot warmer loads frequently or if you use warmish handloaded ammunition, I think the slightly stronger recoil springs serve a purpose in the Hi Power's long-term useful life span. The heavier spring in combination with the 32-lb. mainspring (hammer spring) will slow down the unlocking process when the pistol is fired. In using these springs over several years in several Hi Powers, I have never seen a problem caused by their use. The only standard pressure load that I've had a solitary failure to eject with has been the 65-gr Aguila "IQ" round. Everything else has functioned fine. Should this be your load of choice, by all means go with the standard power recoil spring.


Some have opined that the heavier spring will wear the gun as much as hot ammo when the slide moves forward and that we can either have possible damage from hot loads with the standard spring or increased wear on the pistol from the slide slamming forward with more velocity from the slightly heavier spring. This seems reasonable, but I don't think so. Here's why. The forty-caliber Hi Power uses a 20-lb. recoil spring for the more powerful .40 round. While the forty Hi Power's slide is slightly heavier, this is twice the increase in recoil spring strength provided by the 18.5-lb spring I recommend with the Hi Power. The forty slide is not even close to being twice as heavy as the 9mm slide. The sear, sear springs, and hammers on both are identical. Evidently FN does not think that this extra forward momentum of the slide closing causes any problems. Remember that the slide's forward motion is slightly retarded as it strips a round from the spring-loaded magazine during this step in the feeding cycle. FN also included another locking lug on the forty barrel to increase the total surface area engagement between the locking lugs and the slide.

Another example would be the 1911 pistol. The 10mm Delta Elite has a considerably stronger recoil spring than does the .45 ACP, yet the internals are the same in both calibers. One can see the same thing in the CZ-75 pistols chambered in 9mm vs. .40 S&W.

Where I do think that the increased strength recoil spring might eventually cause problems is if the slide is allowed to repeatedly slam shut on an empty chamber.

The only other possible downside I can see to the slightly increased strength recoil spring in the 9mm Hi Power would be if the pistol were being shot with a significantly weaker grip or hold. Such is certainly possible in a defensive situation, as the shooter might have been shot in the gun arm or just not have a really firm hold on the gun. Semiautomatics must have a certain amount of resistance provided by the grip for them to function. The frame must be held strongly enough that slide's rearward momentum compresses the recoil spring and doesn't move the frame rearward instead. I have noted no incidents where this has occurred, but it seems possible. If this is a worry, just use the 18.5-lb spring for the range and practice and use the 17-lb. for carry or when the pistol's available for protective use. In my own defensive 9mm Hi Powers, I use the 18.5-lb. recoil spring exclusively.

The few Hi Powers I've seen with damaged locking lugs also had worn out and overly weak recoil springs. I suspect that despite the guns having been shot lots for years, their recoil springs had never been replaced! Some owners admitted that this was the case while others said that they "couldn't remember"...

Hi Power Two-Piece Barrels

Hello. A fairly frequent Hi Power question concerns FN's use of the two-piece barrel for the Hi Power pistol. I'm aware of no one-piece barrels for the Hi Power that came from FN after the early '60's. So far as I know, they've all been two-piece, at least since the time in which the locking lug dimensions were changed. I do have a couple of early Bar-Sto match barrels that are one-piece, but later ones are two-piece. I've noticed no increase in accuracy of the one-piece barrels over the conventional two-piece barrels, nor have I noticed them coming apart or being less durable than the one-piece barrels.

Shown above are two BarSto Hi Power barrels. The bottom is an early one-piece bbl while the top is the more conventional two-piece, similar to the ones made by FN. A fine seam can be seen on the two-piece bbl. (The picture can also illustrate the difference between the "humped" feed ramp (top) vs. the "straight" or "throated" one (bottom). Classic Hi Powers normally have the humped while Hi Powers from the Mk II through current Mk III's have the straight ramp, which is much more "friendly" with JHP's.)

Some years ago, a gun magazine did a test on various 1911 barrels that ranged from GI surplus to the match barrels from some really good makers. They fired the barrels via a device that locked the barrel firmly in place. To cut to the conclusion, there was very, very little difference between any of the barrels in terms of their purely inherent accuracy. I believe this included a two-piece Springfield Armory barrel as well as some other factory barrels.

There are reports of Browning Hi Power barrels failing after a great number of shots, but I don't recall any of them separating. There very well may be some such incidents, but I'm betting that they're statistically rare. With as many Hi Powers in use around the world, if it was a real problem, it would have been addressed by now.

AK47 Bulgarian SSR85C-2

Which Grip Safety for the 1911-Pattern Pistol?

"Which is the Best 1911 Grip Safety, GI or Beavertail?"

This is a question that is discussed repeatedly on various shooting forums and the answers usually fall into those listed below:

Answer 1: The standard GI grip safety is the best. If it weren't, John Browning wouldn't have put it on the gun in the first place.

Answer 2: The beavertail is best. It allows for a higher hold on the gun and more control in rapid fire.

Answer 3: The beavertail prevents hammer bite and I find it more comfortable.

Answer 4: People do it just for looks.

Usually these are the "standard" answers but are often followed with discussions concerning whether the beavertail grip safety is more appropriately called a duck tail safety due to the way that most turn up at the end.

The first answer is fairly common and one that turns a lot of people off, none more than myself.

The truth of the matter is that John Browning did change the grip safety from the near Commander-like design to what is now commonly called the "traditional" or "GI grip safety." With the greatest respect for John M. Browning, that does not necessarily have to mean that he had achieved perfection in this component of the 1911 pattern pistol. Answer 1's "pontification factor" not only doesn't help the person asking the question, but possibly keeps him from asking any others, and that's a pity in my view. I pretty much ignore folks giving this "high" caliber advice.

Answer 2 is true in that a slightly higher grip is allowed on the pistol. Others may very well be able to decrease split times and gain increased accurate rapid-fire ability with the gun, but I'm just not one of them. Sometimes I've been faster with the GI grip safety and other times, the wide grip safety. For me, the addition of a wide grip safety does not significantly or consistently allow me to accurately shoot any faster than the standard GI. Perhaps it would were I shooting extremely hot .45 ACP ammunition. On that possibility, I cannot say because I've not tried it, but with ball equivalent loads, no differences for me. I suspect that some people might think that it does; I did too until I saw the timer's results on more than one occasion. That there was no improvement in my particular case doesn't have to automatically translate into there being none for others. I do not have enough wisdom to speak for all people. I mention only what has been true in my case.

The third answer is true for me as well and is the reason that the bulk of my 1911 pattern pistols are fitted with wide grip safeties, usually from Ed Brown.

When a person answers similarly on the forums, he is usually told that he's "not holding the gun correctly". I guess that could be true enough in some instances, but after shooting for over thirty years and being a certified police firearm instructor, tactical team handgun trainer, CHL instructor, and taught in my earlier years by some champion shooters, I think I know pretty much how to grip a 1911 pistol. I strongly suspect that the majority of people holding the 1911 are probably doing so correctly…or very close.

I find the wide "duck tail" grip safety to be the most comfortable. That's why I spent the time to fit them to two Caspian 1911's "built" at home. For me, a gun that is comfortable to shoot in both long individual sessions as well as for the long term is highly desirable. The wide grip safety just "works" for me. Some are fortunate enough not to get bitten by the original GI hammer/grip safety combination. Good for them! That does not mean that the same is true for everyone else. It damned sure isn't for me!

Here is why I use the wide grip safety by choice: It keeps me from bleeding. It is that simple. I have fleshy hands and get nipped by the spur hammer that almost always accompanies the GI grip safety. Depending upon the specific grip safety's edges, it too can abrade the skin between my thumb and trigger finger. I have friends who do not suffer this problem and one who can shoot hundreds of rounds through his Commander with its original short GI grip safety with nary a problem. That's great for them, but to assume that since it works for some, it should work for all is simply incorrect. It definitely does not work for me.

For me, the wide grip safety is the best approach to a 1911-pattern pistol that I can shoot lots w/o my hand looking like it was gnawed on by a rabid pirahna.

I have found that by bobbing the hammer spur and rounding the bottom edges of the traditional grip safety, I can shoot roughly 200 to 250 full-power shots without problems, but not quite as comfortably as with the wide grip safety.

The spur hammer on this Springfield Armory Mil-Spec has been bobbed slightly and recontoured to help eliminate hammer bite. The grip safety's lower edges have been radiused to prevent hand abrasions as well. For me, this set up is good for 150 to about 200 full-power shots before my hand starts getting a hole chewed in it.

I do not know how true Answer 4 might or might not be. Some people very well could prefer the "look" of the wide grip safety. In this regard, I have no preference, but opine that if a person prefers the beavertail/duck tail "look" and has the money or talent to get one fitted to his gun, have at it. For me, that possible aspect is a non-issue with regard to functionality or "shootability" of the pistol.

Currently I have one 1911 set up with the GI grip safety and spur hammer and the pistol is shot frequently. It is a Springfield Mil-Spec. Trigger specialist, Teddy Jacobson, replaced and upgraded certain internals as well as the hammer for a better trigger pull and I changed the stocks, but otherwise, the gun is stock. I wanted one gun that was set up pretty much in the style of the "old timey" 1911 pistols. It is not as comfortable for me as one equipped with a wide grip safety, but it is comfortable enough that I can shoot it a couple of hundred rounds per session without problems. Were it my only 1911, it would have the wide grip safety.

It might be worth mentioning that some folks report success in eliminating abrasions from hammer bite and cutting from the grip safety by bobbing the hammer and then shortening the grip safety tang. In this configuration it is flush with the rear of the frame, sort of making the rear like that of the Browning Hi Power. I have not tried this approach and cannot speak to it from first-hand experience as I have only shot one such modified 1911. (It did work fine for me the one time I shot the gun, but I only fired a couple of magazines of ammunition so I do not know how it would be long term.)

If you are considering a 1911 or wondering if you "need" the wide grip safety, I submit that you already know the answer. If the gun's biting you each session and you're tired of it, then you do need the wide grip safety. You can try bobbing the hammer spur about 1/8" and reshaping the bottom of the spur as well as "melting" the edges of the safety itself and that might do the trick. If not, I think you'll enjoy your shooting more with a wide grip safety. I cannot speak for others but I bet most folks shoot better when their pistol doesn't mimic a piranha in a feeding frenzy on the web of the shooting hand.

Ask yourself this question when making a decision on grip safeties or other similar "basic" custom touches:

Who does this gun have to please?

If it is you, go with what works for you.

Personal .45 ACP Ammunition Choices

We have all heard comments like, "They all fall to hardball" or "Hit a man in the little finger with a 45 and he'll go down."

Most of us know that such claims are false but that emphatically does not mean that the .45 ACP is anything less than a very fine defense round…with the right loads. Despite tests showing equivalency of 9mm ball loads to 45, I do not believe it. The reason is simple. I have not observed it on either animals or people. I am personally aware of 45 and 9mm ball not doing the intended job and have seen both fail to stop even smallish critters like jackrabbits unless hit well, but the larger caliber did seem to have a bit "more" in this regard. Were I forced to use ball in an automatic, I would unhesitatingly choose .45 ACP if we envision face-to-face mortal combat using only handguns.

With expanding ammunition, it is my belief that .45 ACP is darned hard to beat assuming barrels of no less than 4" and preferably 5". The old saw that a hollow point will not expand at less than 1000 ft/sec is simply not true; at least not anymore. Some ammunition makers today do manufacture factory ammunition that does and within velocity ranges that are realistic and from actual handguns, not test barrels.

Over the last century, the .45 ACP has proven itself a versatile round capable of extreme accuracy with light target loads to a highly-rated man stopper, though I believe the latter is sometimes overstated. It remains a most popular handgun round today and whether its effectiveness is overrated or not, .45 ACP is usually the yardstick by which other calibers/loads are measured.

This article is not intended to cover each and every .45 ACP load available. It will simply provide my choices based on personal observations and experiences coupled with reliable reports from others.

Service-size Handguns: To me this means barrels of 4 to 5". These would include the Commander-size 1911 pattern pistols, SIG-Sauer P-220 and the 5" 1911's for example. In my experience, these work well with any quality ammunition weighing 185-grains up. I personally prefer standard pressure ammunition in the traditional 230-gr. weight in such pistols. With better loads, expansion is usually reliable, recoil remains manageable for accurate quick fire, and most have proven accurate from quality handguns. My picks have normally possessed that most important aspect of the "serious handgun" and ammo combination: reliability.

Winchester 230-gr. Ranger (RA45T): Loaded in nickel cases, this JHP is the original "Black Talon" without the dark colored bullet. The bullet has also been tweaked to expand a bit more than the original and its jacket contains about 5% more copper than usual gilding metal. Though blunt, the bullet ogive is rounded nicely at the edges and the cartridge usually feeds with boring regularity in 1911 pattern pistols. I've shot it in Commanders and the P-220 as well with no problems. Though sold only to law enforcement by Winchester, it can be had for private citizens willing to look and there is no federal law prohibiting its use by non-law enforcement folks. (State laws can vary and it is up to each individual to know the laws in his or her state.) It is a stellar load with regard to performance and meets or exceeds the FBI testing protocols. This load expands after passing through various intermediate gelatin testing, including the dreaded four layers of denim.

Winchester's 230-gr. Ranger JHP has proven to be a very reliable expander. These were fired into water from a 5" barrel.

I find it very consistent in velocity, regardless of lot number. Shot into both water and super-saturated newsprint, the bullet has never failed to open for me, when using barrels of no less than 4". Expansion characteristics have been remarkably similar and I have not found this load to be "inaccurate" in any quality handgun. I have not seen any of these bullets pulled out of people. I have seen a couple taken out of deer and they expanded about like the ones fired into various test media including 10% ballistic gelatin. (Now and again, an expanded bullet actually removed from a living creature will be chewed up a bit as bone is sometimes struck.)

Let's take a look at some actual velocities from different length barrels. The average velocities listed are based on 10 shots fired 10' from the chronograph screens.

Winchester 230-gr. Ranger Average Velocity Results

Handgun
Barrel Length (inches)
Average Velocity (ft/sec)

Kimber Custom
5
886

STI Trojan
5
880

Norinco
5
841

Springfield Armory LW Gov't
5
886

Colt Commander
4 1/4
838

SIG-Sauer P-220
4 1/4
857

Colt Defender
3
797

(I believe that the roughly 40-ft/sec deficit shown with the Norinco is due to mine having a "slow barrel" rather than anything with the ammunition. This gun typically shows average velocities that are slightly lower than when fired from other guns having the same length barrels.)

At a ballistics seminar, a law enforcement friend of mine advised that the Winchester representative suggested going to the +P version of the 230-gr. Ranger if using one of the short barrel .45 compacts. If memory serves, the standard pressure was still "OK" at 3 1/2", but that was the cutoff; barrels of less than that needed the +P to achieve the velocity necessary for reliable expansion. I included the data on the Defender only for comparison purposes. For those interested, here is a link to an article done on Corbon's "Compact Gun" load. That round is standard pressure and specifically designed for 45's having shorter barrels:

Remington 230-gr. Golden Saber: Much more readily available to the general public, this is a load that I've become especially fond of…although my first encounters with it were not all that positive. The first batches of Golden Saber that I fired just didn't group well for me, but that was right after it was introduced. Since then I believe that the ammunition's been altered because it now groups most satisfactorily from a number of pistols I've tried it in. It was also the ammunition used in conjunction with the FBI HRT team's 50-yard accuracy requirements for their Springfield 1911 pistols. (It is my understanding that HRT has since gone to Winchester's RA45T, but simply because Winchester sells this ammo at lower prices than Remington does with their Golden Sabers.)

The Golden Saber's jacket is a brass alloy and not the traditional gilding metal used in most jacketed hollow points. Where Winchester altered their bullet's jacket to make it "softer" and more malleable, Remington opted for another approach: Make the bullet jacket extremely stiff, but engineer the bullet to expand and let the jacket do most of the "wounding." The petals on an expanded Golden Saber are not particularly sharp compared to the talons on Winchester's, but they are stiff and contribute greatly to the bullet's final expanded diameter. With the Golden Saber, the lead bullet does not provide the bulk of the expanded diameter. For those concerned with possible bullet/jacket separation, the Golden Saber is now offered in a bonded version but I have not yet tested it.

Because the brass jacket on the Golden Saber is harder than traditional gilding metal, the bullet itself has slightly less diameter than conventional bullets. A "driving band" of normal diameter does contact the barrel and according to Remington, pressures generated as well as barrel wear are the same as for conventionally jacketed ammunition.

Remington 230-gr. Golden Saber Average Velocity Results

Handgun
Barrel Length (inches)
Average Velocity (ft/sec)


Kimber Custom
5
857

STI Trojan
5
853

Norinco
5
805

Springfield LW Gov't Model
5
858

Colt Commander
4 1/4
829

SIG-Sauer P-220
4 1/4
822

Some have expressed concerns about separation between the bullet and the jacket with the Golden Saber. I have seen this more in expansion testing when water is used than in other media, but it did occur on a deer I shot using a Golden Saber handload. The bullet and jacket separated to be sure but this occurred during the last couple of inches of penetration.

For those interested, here is a more detailed report:

At this point, someone will be wondering about Speer's 230-gr. Gold Dot. I like Gold Dots, particularly in 9mm and .38 Super, but have simply found them not to feed reliably in a fairly significant number of 1911 type handguns. In some they run as slick as butter but not so well in enough that I cannot list it as a favorite load. If your pistol reliably feeds it and you prefer this round, I think you have picked a good one. Like the Winchester Ranger, the Gold Dot uses a more malleable jacket than conventional jacketed hollow points. I have found it to be accurate and a reliable expander. It normally averages between about 830 and 850 ft/sec for me from a 5" barrel.

Speer's Gold Dot is a bonded bullet in that the jacket is chemically bonded with the lead core. It takes velocities way beyond those for which the bullet is designed to even see it begin to try and fragment. In .45 ACP, this bullet is almost guaranteed not to do so.

I am aware of one shooting with this load in my area. A law enforcement officer was required to shoot an armed felon with it at close range. The felon was struck in the head and was dead before he hit the ground. The Gold Dot did expand. I am not sure if it fully penetrated the head or not. The officer's pistol jammed after the first shot.

Federal 230-gr. "Classic" JHP: Having the same profile as the company's HydraShok, this conventional JHP can be had for less money per shot than the flagship ammunition previously mentioned. It also comes in 50-round boxes. It is an older technology bullet to be sure, but one that has performed nicely for me in years past. I prefer it to the HydraShok and the reason is simple: I see no difference in performance.

This Federal Classic 230-gr. JHP is certainly not "new technology" but the round has proven itself reliable in my own informal tests over the years and costs considerably less than many companies' "flagship" defense loads. I would not be afraid at all to rely on this load for self-protection. This bullet was fired into super-saturated (24 hours) news print and drained for 30 minutes before shooting.

Like the HydraShok, this load is usually more accurate than expected. Though it probably will not perform as well as some more modern loads after passing through intermediate targets, this does not automatically indicate that it is no longer effective as some folks seem to imply.

For folks preferring to buy their "serious" ammunition in bulk, this one would be a real contender in my opinion. This load averages about 860 ft/sec from the 5" guns I've fired it from.

I have not tried the Winchester USA 230-gr. JHP's so I cannot comment on them. I am guessing that they will probably perform about like the Federal 230-gr. Classic JHP, as both are "old technology" in design. These seem to be quite popular with many shooters but I think this is due to price more than possible performance.

Other loads that seem to work nicely despite some laboratory testing to the contrary come from Hornady. I have not shot their factory-loaded ammunition extensively, but have handloaded more than a few 200 and 230-gr. XTP bullets for my .45's. As with their 9mm bullets, the 45-caliber XTP is normally capable of extremely fine accuracy.

The bullet is not in favor with many people because it is not an aggressive expander. It is not designed to be. Usually the XTP will go to about one-and-a-half calibers in the test media I've tried and likewise in animals. This bullet will usually penetrate an inch or two deeper than its competitors' at similar velocities. (Since this was originally written, I'm told that the XTP bullet has been quietly "tweaked" for a bit more expansion but I have not personally tested them.)

Of the bullets I've shot into various media and those recovered from actual animals, the XTP has been the most consistent I've seen from any maker. (Corbon's DPX may very well give it a run for top place in this regard, but I've not yet seen any pulled out of critters.)

The XTP bullet has fed reliably over the long-term for me in all of my 1911 pattern pistols and never missed a stroke from the P-220.

Despite the 230-gr. weight, some folks remain concerned with insufficient penetration and still with FMJ. This is their decision, but I respectfully suggest trying the Hornady XTP whether loaded under the "Custom" or "TAP" moniker.

I have shot two 130-lb whitetail deer with the 200-gr. XTP loaded to about 970 ft/sec, which is in line with the factory's +P version in the same weight. The deer went down, but no bullets were recovered as they completely penetrated the animal on broadside shots. Ditto for the one I hit with the 230-gr. XTP loaded to 850 ft/sec.

Please do not think that I'm suggesting that these are the only "good" loads for the .45 ACP. They are my choices based on informal testing and field results on animals coupled with reports from some folks who have used them in mortal combat situations. Above all, don't use any load that is not reliable in your pistol.

Hi Power Accuracy

The term "accuracy" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to all of us. To a competition match bullseye shooter, it means having the most intrinsically accurate pistol he can have. Malfunctions are a secondary issue in most cases, but he must have a competition pistol capable of putting one bullet hole right on top of another. To the IDPA shooter, the gun must be reliable and capable of dropping hits within a more generous scoring area that the bullseye target. If both of these fellows have pistols capable of meeting their requirements, they have accurate pistols in their respective frames of reference.

So where does the Browning Hi Power fit in with regard to accuracy?

This later production Hi Power should group under 3" @ 25-yards with most loads and perhaps in the 2 1/2" range with loads that the gun "likes". In an old issue of "The Handloader" magazine, I recall a shooter getting 1" groups using handloads with an unaltered factory Browning Hi Power. Bullets used were 115-gr. Sierra JHP's but I do not recall the load other than that the bullet moved in the 1100 to 1150 ft/sec range.

First, we have to remember that the Hi Power was originally designed to be a military service pistol. Emphasis was strong on reliability and accuracy parameters would not be so strict as those for our bullseye shooter previously mentioned. The gun was intended to fire under adverse conditions more than to provide the tightest possible groups. The Hi Power generally will not match the tight groups of pistols designed for competition target shooting including accurized versions of other service pistols such as the Gold Cup or 1911 pistols custom built to provide extreme mechanical accuracy.

This group was fired at 25-yards using Federal 124-gr. FMJ ammunition from a Hi Power sporting its original barrel. While this would win no matches at Camp Perry, it probably is accurate enough to meet most handgunner's needs, be they real or imagined. I know that such is the case for me.

Does that mean that it is inaccurate? The answer depends upon your definition and requirements. It's been my experience with many Hi Powers that almost all of them will drop most brands of ammunition into groups under 3" at 25 yards. Some will do better and most will do surprisingly better with a specific load that the gun "likes." I'm happy with loads that do in the 2 to 2.5" range at that distance as I cannot achieve such groups except from a rest and I'm not involved in Camp Perry competition. If the pistol is capable of dropping its shots onto a tennis ball size target at twenty-five yards (assuming I'm doing my part), the Hi Power is accurate, as least to me.

One of the endearing traits of the Hi Power is that it is usually consistent in accuracy, one gun to another. I've rarely seen one that wouldn't group in the ranges mentioned and the best-grouping is usually not that much better than the worst-grouping Hi Powers I've owned and/or shot. This speaks highly to FN's manufacturing consistency. (I do wish they'd place such an emphasis on trigger pulls!)

Every now and again, I hear from a shooter having trouble with his Hi Power throwing a wild shot without warning that is not the shooter's fault. Assuming that the ammunition is not at fault, it seems that pistols afflicted with this malady are suffering from the barrel not locking up the same way each time a shot is fired. Finding the specific location of improper fitting, be it in the slide or the barrel can be a tedious problem. If you are suffering from such a problem and happen to have a spare barrel, you might try a switch and see if this does it. The problem here is that such swaps can result in a different POI for the same POA. If this works, great, but if not I'd buy an oversize Bar-Sto match Hi Power barrel and have it fitted to the pistol. On two occasions, this has been the cure and is generally not much more expensive than having a qualified gunsmith weld the original barrel and refit it to the pistol.

At this point, it might be appropriate to compare Hi Power accuracy with a fitted Bar-Sto vs. a stock barrel. It has been my experience that perhaps a 10 to 20% tightening of groups with jacketed bullets will be seen, although the favorite load for the factory barrel might very well be different than that preferred by the match barrel. You will see a significant increase in grouping ability with the Bar-Sto if using either cast or plated bullets. I believe that this is due to the difference in pitch between the two barrels. The factory FN barrel has a 1:10 twist while the Bar-Sto is 1:16. It appears that the cast and plated bullets "like" the slower twist. In general, I've noticed about a 40 to 60 ft/sec decrease in velocity from the 1:10 to the 1:16 with most loads. I assume this is due to more complete combustion of the powder in trying to drive the bullet out the faster twist barrel without reaching the point where too much is used and velocity suffers. This has proven true with many loads I've tested, but not all and it can be different from barrel to barrel. The main thing is that if you're shooting a maximum load that's fine in the slower twist Bar-Sto, it might be too hot in the faster twist factory barrel. This is only a potential problem with loads pushing the maximum ballistic envelope for the cartridge and I'm aware of no factory loads, standard, +P, or +P+ in which it can be risky or dangerous.

This Hi Power has a fitted BarSto barrel. It groups about the same with jacketed ammunition using it as it does with the factory barrel but shows significantly tighter groups with either cast or plated ammunition in my observation. With jacketed ammunition, the BarSto will usually show a decrease in group size to the tune of 15 or 20% in my experience.

For most of us, the Browning Hi Power is more accurate than we can actually make use of as it comes from the manufacturer, but it is still essentially a service pistol and should not be expected to group with a target gun. Contrary to some statements I've seen, I've observed no difference overall between Hi Powers having fixed sights vs. those with adjustables with regard to inherent mechanical accuracy. Do not buy an adjustable sighted Hi Power under the false assumption that the pistol is fitted better or held to higher standards in terms of grouping ability. The basic gun is the same with only different sights. (This emphatically does not apply to the FN Competition Model. No longer producted, this longer barreled Hi Power had adjustable sights and a muzzle weight. Additionally an internal leaf spring in the slide tensioned the barrel into a most consistent and repeatable position shot to shot. These guns were capable of better groups than the "normal" Hi Powers bearing either FN or Browning markings.)

The FN Competition Model is almost always capable of better mechanical accuracy than the standard Hi Power, regardless of whether or not the latter has fixed or adjustable sights.

Though I believe that the standard Hi Power is accurate enough to meet the vast majority of shooters' perceived needs, the trigger pull can often inhibit their ability to utilize the gun's accuracy. Unfortunately, poor trigger pulls are not uncommon on the Hi Power pistol. The statement that " a trigger pull need not necessarily be light, but should be crisp" is true, but they do need to be lighter than those common on many Hi Powers. Fortunately, this can be addressed with a number of cures from removing the magazine disconnect to having a gunsmith do a trigger job. The latter will mean more money spent, but for many of us, the result is worth it.

While the Browning Hi Power remains a service pistol with service accuracy, I believe that it falls in the better range of this rating and with but a little help can be a very accurate pistol for all but the very best shots or those in formal competition.