Defensive Carry banner

21 - 30 of 30 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,184 Posts
msgt, I believe something is amiss with your dating of your HP providing you have pictured your's.

IIRC HP s/n's aren't etched in stone and there are some discrepancies leading to confusion for most folks.

The HP pictured has an external extractor instead of a controlled feed internal extractor. These were transitioned to around 1962. Also it has a spur hammer. I believe that was only a later trait but don't have a time frame to reference. I know my MKIII has a spur hammer but earlier C and T series HP's have Rowel/Commander style hammers.

It's also entirely possible you have a '50's era frame with a newer hammer and slide assembly.

I wish I could tell you where to go to get a definitive date for your pistol.
I am not that familiar with Hi-Powers and just searched the number on line. That is only half of the number since it has two sets the first part is 245PP then a space followed by 76XXX. I have not been able to show what the 245PP stands for yet. There is a gun show in Raleigh this weekend and I may be able to find a book on the Hi-Power.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,276 Posts
I'd be keen on another surplus Hi-Power to take the shooting heat off of the early post-WWII commercial Hi-Power I have.

I'd like to be like Muzzleblast and have several. I'd enjoy having a tangent sight model, a good usin' grade 9mm shooter, and a .40.



I have a CZ 75 which is a worthy successor to the Hi-Power, but I think I'd rather shoot the Hi-Power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
The BHP is an awesome firearm. Now that they are no longer being made, they will only get harder to find and be more expensive when you do. I say go look over the ones he has, pick out the one in the best shape and take it home with you.
Agreed! Everyone should have at least one High Power. The BHP was my very first handgun and I still have one in my safe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
I am not that familiar with Hi-Powers and just searched the number on line. That is only half of the number since it has two sets the first part is 245PP then a space followed by 76XXX. I have not been able to show what the 245PP stands for yet. There is a gun show in Raleigh this weekend and I may be able to find a book on the Hi-Power.
As I read the info in the link below 245 = 9mm and PP = 1988 but I could always be wrong however it would better fit the extractor and hammer clues. Look in the "box" next to the bottom.

https://www.browning.com/support/date-your-firearm/hi-power-pistol.html
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,184 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
... I'd enjoy having a tangent sight model, a good usin' grade 9mm shooter, and a .40...

I have a CZ 75 which is a worthy successor to the Hi-Power, but I think I'd rather shoot the Hi-Power.
I too always wanted a tangent sight model, as well as an Inglis with detachable shoulder stock. Neither particularly practical, but, relatively unique.

Although it seems to be in vogue to revile the .40 S&W, I have been fascinated with the .40 since the concept was presented years ago in Guns & Ammo. Here is an interesting reading link:

https://revivaler.com/40-ga-pistol-cartridge/

I actually have an original copy of the magazine with the article about the development of the .40 G&A. But it is boxed up with my collection of vintage gun rags ATM. I labored over the decision between the BHP and a 1911 as my first handgun. The 9mm of the time (early 80s) wasn't particularly well regarded as a fight stopper. The BHP fit may hand and pointed naturally. And a bit more capacity was a consideration, then. Of course a 1911 was the second semi-auto I purchased.

I am personally very comfortable with the idea that a 180 grain .40 cal bullet at a MV of <1000 fps is about as good as it gets for defensive purposes. That said, I now have no reservations about toting my old single stack S&W model 39-2 with 8+1 of the old school Federal 115 gr. BPLEs.

I find the .40 cal BHP to be a very well mannered, controllable combination. Of course the BHP purists aren't fond of the .40 version. It is true that the recoil and main springs are strong, racking the slide requires more effort than with a 9, etc. But, as far as .40s go, I'd rate the BHP, S&W 4006, and SIG P226 as the top tier.

That said, if I were to have to choose only one .40 for TEOTWAWKI, it would likely be the S&W M&P-40 with 15+1 on tap. :frown:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
I've been a Hi Power fan since the '60s and still have a couple. The 245 prefix began about around 1977. The 245 indicated Hi Powers intended for regular commercial sale,i.e., "sport" models. I once had a polished blue example with a 215 prefix. I used to belong to the BCA and learned that Browning ran short of pistols one year for commercial sale, and some 215 prefix HPs, originally intended for military sales, were transferred over to the commercial side for sale in the US. And of course, back then the HP would have been 9MM, with a few chambered in 7.65MM along the way. The PP code is correct for 1988. I'm down to three HPs now, a GP Comp model, T-series, and MK III.

BTW, I can recommend R. Blake Steven's book, "The Browning High Power Automatic Pistol" as an excellent source of information on HPs from inception, up through the MK III models. I have the expended 1990 edition, but there may be even later editions with more on later guns.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
I've been a Hi Power fan since the '60s and still have a couple. The 245 prefix began about around 1977. The 245 indicated Hi Powers intended for regular commercial sale,i.e., "sport" models. I once had a polished blue example with a 215 prefix. I used to belong to the BCA and learned that Browning ran short of pistols one year for commercial sale, and some 215 prefix HPs, originally intended for military sales, were transferred over to the commercial side for sale in the US. And of course, back then the HP would have been 9MM, with a few chambered in 7.65MM along the way. The PP code is correct for 1988. I'm down to three HPs now, a GP Comp model, T-series, and MK III.

BTW, I can recommend R. Blake Steven's book, "The Browning High Power Automatic Pistol" as an excellent source of information on HPs from inception, up through the MK III models. I have the expended 1990 edition, but there may be even later editions with more on later guns.
I really didn't need to see a photo of a "GP". I coulda, shoulda, but didn't. Yours is a beauty. :hand56: Nice stocks. Who made them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rock185

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,990 Posts
I've been a Hi Power fan since the '60s and still have a couple. The 245 prefix began about around 1977. The 245 indicated Hi Powers intended for regular commercial sale,i.e., "sport" models. I once had a polished blue example with a 215 prefix. I used to belong to the BCA and learned that Browning ran short of pistols one year for commercial sale, and some 215 prefix HPs, originally intended for military sales, were transferred over to the commercial side for sale in the US. And of course, back then the HP would have been 9MM, with a few chambered in 7.65MM along the way. The PP code is correct for 1988. I'm down to three HPs now, a GP Comp model, T-series, and MK III.

BTW, I can recommend R. Blake Steven's book, "The Browning High Power Automatic Pistol" as an excellent source of information on HPs from inception, up through the MK III models. I have the expended 1990 edition, but there may be even later editions with more on later guns.
Thanks for the heads up on this, but I checked, and it's a little out of my price range for now. You know, I DO LOVE BOOKS, but when down sizing during a move, I decided to get rid of a few "really nice reference volumes", and I couldn't even "give them away". It's sad, as no one seems to care much about books any more. Wish it was like it used to be, back in the day. Local library wouldn't even think of having a book on "guns" now a days!
 
21 - 30 of 30 Posts
Top