Guff about the CF Hi-Power

Patrick J.D

Patrick J.D

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
North America
Hello Jacques, I've been reading about the Forces giving negative feedback about the old 9mm. I mean, shouldn't they have .357 sigs or .45acp. how much does it even cost to get a couple thousand good new pistols?

If Chavez can buy 100,000 AK-101's, why can't our rich arses buy pistols.


FCUK!!
 
1) I've used the hi-powers and they're fine
2) 9mm is the NATO standard round. We won't get anything that isn't 9mm.

Who told you different?
 
There's still 5000 brand new ones sitting in war stock last I heard.

Why invest money in something that's only last ditch use, when there's many things that have a much higher priority.

What we have is good enough to do the job. Switching to another caliber is a non-starter. What are we going to use our stockpiles of 9mm ammo for? Sell it as surplus? Nope, not going to happen.

We'll have Browning HP's for a while yet. Some of the guys on the sharp end have Sigs (Pilots, MP's, Boarding parties, Ski maskers, etc) so if we did change to a different pistol, it'd be a Sig.

NS
 
Support Our Troops!

The whole media release [we had an article in our local rag the Times-Communist on it last week] on the CF BHP pistols being "old & antiquated" etc seemed to me to be a structured media release by someone who is positioning for a new CF pistol...

And I think our boys [and girls] in uniform deserve the best. Hopefully, the new federal government will recognize this and outfit our troops with whole new kit, if required. If it's new pistols that are required for them to fullfil their duties then so be it.

If they decide to sell off the old BHP's I hope they will make their way to the Cdn civie market... ;)
 
Yeah, I've shot the P226 a couple times. It was good I guess. Although I believe that NATO should have opted for the .45 back when. I read in Guns and Ammo that troops in Iraq want .45's. Maybe that's why some Marines are getting them.

I've also heard that engagments are usually conducted at ranges of up to and exceeding 200 meters. So really, you'd rarely need a 9 anyhow.
 
They now have all stainless Sigs, so the worry about the cracking frame can be addressed. Plus how long would it take for a average military pistol to go through 10,000 rds. Going by the amount of training we got in the 80's, that would be a long time.

Just about every report I read on urban ops in Iraq called for the average soldier to be equipped with a pistol in addition to their main weapon. A different story for the light infantry that will be humping their gear over a moutain in Afghanistan.
 
I agree with NavyShooter, I do not place replacing the Hi-Power very high on my list of priorities as far as kit we need goes. My Pistol is only my back-up weapon and the Hi-Powers we're issued work fine. You do have to make sure you get issued reliable mags for them though.
 
Like NAA said: Sell the surplus HP's to the civvie market (and that MPP M. Bryant, the AG for Ontario) in Toronto .... LOL, LOL.

Oh yeah, offer Premier Dalton McSquinty first dibs too !!
 
Splatter said:
If we switch to SIGs we'll still have to dump all our 9 mm ball. The SIGs can't handle a steady diet of it.
Click to expand...


Don't know what you are talking about. A SIG will outlast a BHP any time with NATO ammo.

As for the problem with the CF, the guns in use are over 60 years old. Yes there are some unissued ones left in the system, but if they issue those out they will have about 5-10 years to decide on a replacement pistol. Most other countries using the BHP have changed fleets at least twice since WWII, we could have and should have done the same. There is no use keeping old worn out pistols around just because they worked when they were new.
 
I have no problems using my issue browning, the only reason I would want a change would be if I knew that the brownings in stock would be sold off and I would be able to buy a few. Under the liebrals they would all go to the smelters like the SMG's and FN's.

No save the money for something we need like up-armored convoy escort vehicles, or armored transports.
 
I had lunch with a Canadian Force's Warrant Officer on Friday and asked him what he thought about the BHP's that they have had for so many years expecting a negative response from him.

He actually surprised me by stating that they where awesome handguns for the roll that he has used them in. He was issued a Sig 226 but traded it back in at a later date for a BHP again.

He made a comment on how he prefered the single action of the BHP due to having to #### the firearm as he was drawing it into action rather than having a double action trigger system.

He stated that the extra action of having to #### the gun before being able to fire saved a couple of friendly's lives that had snuck up behind them.

Supposedly having to #### the gun gave them the time to recognize who was there in time to prevent a shooting.
 
This has been discussed here before in great detail. High Powers are fine for what they were intended to do. Back up to your rifle for personal protection. Those of us who are issued them will not be transitioning to pistols when clearing rooms or when we get a stoppage with our long guns. The guys who do, live on a hill in Ontario.
As for the ammo issue. The 9mm ball we have in stock was made to be fired from the old SMG. Very hot loads in order to properly cycle the gun. It is ####e in a pistol and causes stoppages. To a High Power this is a problem. To a Sig it can and will cause premature wear on the gun. Talk to Bartok5 on this.
Those guns in war stocks are new or re-conditioned, they are not old beat up guns that have been shot to pieces.
I would rather see the money spent on new kit instead of new pistols. Eotechs, railed forearms, body armour and modular vests.
Just my $0.02 as person who would benefit from such stuff.
Hoddie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom