Browing Hi Power CF Edition

as a outsider looking in and the track record of purchases in the past i just wanted to throw this out there.
wouldnt it be inline with our gov't to maybe buy all the Brit's old BHP and parts and hobble our BHP through for another 20 years?
 
Dsiwy said:
I dont see Browning doing a CF edition BHP as the sales would be very limited, But we can ask Inglis Canada to make us a special run of BHPs :p
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think a lot of manufacturers would entertain a 'special edition' of an otherwise off-the-shelf product, if a distributor placed a minimum order. Just like the Ruger #1 in 303 British... why wouldn't FN do the same? You'd just need to find a distributor such as Prophet River to organize it.

I'm not sure as to the legalities of CF "Edition" or "Commemorative" markings on a commercial pistol though?
 
sunray said:
Browning had nothing to do with the Inglis. Inglis hasn't made firearms of any kind since 1945 either. All the machinery is long gone. The pistol was made using drawings smuggled out of Nazi controlled Belgium by FN engineers and offered to the Brits. Who then got King to have them made. Personally, I'd like to get a hold of the twit who designed the sights for a few minutes.
Army.ca is kind of like listening to guys in a corporal's mess. Lots of chit-chat about things they know little about.
Click to expand...
Inglis completed their own drawings by reverse engineering a chinese generals pistol and one supplied by Val Browning.

There were NEVER any drawings supplied from Belgium.

The only Belgian input was changing the barrel cam slot from half round to angled. That is part of the difference between the Mk I and Mk I*, several thousand pistols into production.

I recommend reading "The Inglis Diamond" by Clive Law.

Oh yeah and if you compare the Inglis No2 pistols sights with any other pistol existing in 1943 the Inglis are head and shoulders better.
 
Inglis Diamond is probably the best book out there on the subject. My theory on the last attempt to replace the HP is that they wanted the project to fail to save money. That being said there is other more critical equipment that the Army needs desperately.
 
sunray said:
Browning had nothing to do with the Inglis. Inglis hasn't made firearms of any kind since 1945 either. All the machinery is long gone. The pistol was made using drawings smuggled out of Nazi controlled Belgium by FN engineers and offered to the Brits. Who then got King to have them made. Personally, I'd like to get a hold of the twit who designed the sights for a few minutes.Army.ca is kind of like listening to guys in a corporal's mess. Lots of chit-chat about things they know little about.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd like to have a short discussion with the guy who designed that stupid two handed safety. But I would be in for a commemorative BHP, with as issued sights and safety.
 
OK, I can understand the logic behind Double Action for first shot. But, why in the name of JMB do we have to have DAO? Yeah, I know the police forces mandate it because they are terrified of accidental shootings when pointing at a BG. It would seem to me in military service, it would desirable to have lighter/shorter trigger pull available for accuracy. Of course, if you go to striker fired and eliminate the hammer it becomes irrelevant. Police firearms typically have NO safety. How do military people feel about that? I guess with DAO it becomes less of an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom