Hi-Power .40 S&W: disappointing first day

[Rick]

You can see a target at 50 yards!

Just barely - I think bifocals are imminent. Most guys neck-hold in PPC at 50 yards; no idea what current bullseye practice is. That said, the human eye does the same marvelous job shooting center of mass on a distant target as it does with aperture sights shooting at a thousand yards with a rifle. The eye just wants to find the center.

I agree. Handguns for the most part are not weapons designed to shoot beyond 25 yards by the average shooter.

I don't really agree with that; I'm not convinced there's an average handgun shooter anymore - if there ever was to begin with.

There's the bullseye/Olympic guys, the PPC guys, the IHMSA guys, the IPSC/IDPA sorts, Cowboy Action stuff, self defense folks, handgun hunting, etc, etc. All very different types of handgun use. Not to mention the recreational guy who just likes to go to the range and shoot handguns.

for me and from what you say, you, COM at 25 yards is probably all we need or can handle. Two handed the best I can do at 25 yards is about 3" on a good day.

No, actually I could need and could handle better accuracy. It would be fun to shoot in PPC, even though I recognize that shooting in that class with a Browning handgun would be a huge handicap. I enjoy shooting PPC and other target sports, so more accuracy would be nice.

But I don't actually NEED better than factory accuracy for the primary purpose this firearm was purchased for, and if I actually did have to use it under those conditions, I certainly wouldn't be anywhere close to that level of accuracy.

ps FN or Browning can guarantee what they want I couldn't consistently shoot 4" at 50 yards two handed on a bet. Not even sure I could do it from a rest!

Like everything else, practice is what it's about. I also have no idea whether Browning checks that quality standard when a firearm is returned by use of something like a Ransom Rest, or whether an employee shoots for grouping off a rest. I suspect there are very few handgun shooters in any sport that can exploit the mechanical accuracy of their firearms to full advantage. I know all the revolvers I have used for PPC group more tightly out of a Ransom Rest than I can shoot them from any position. Ditto for my Hi Standard target pistol.

 

[Canuck44]

Rick I doubt there are many handgunners who can shoot 4" groups at 50 yards unsupported period. I have met a few but in contrast to the numbers that cannot they are the few.

Aside from target guns and those designed for specific games PPC comes to mind, most handguns are/were designed for defensive purposes or for use at short ranges by either the military or the police. Need to shoot at longer ranges get a rifle.

The Hi-Power is an excellent design around a very good cartridge and is capable of reasonably good accuracy. Accuracy that would be enhanced with a 1:16 twist barrel as opposed to the 1:10 twist the guns are issued with but this is a common compaint with the 9MM shooting lead bullets.

Take Care

Bob

 

[Six Star]

I have an entry in my Range Load Book dated Oct 12/00 where I chrono'd 3 different loads for my Belgian-made early '70s BHP 9mmP.
I recall being somewhat disappointed with the accuracy of this pistol with factory ammunition, so attempted to improve it with a handload.
I tried 10 rounds each of:
-115gr MG FMJ over 4.5gr WW231 (average MV 1049fps)
-125gr Lasercast LRN over 4.0gr WW231 (av. MV 1014fps)
-147gr MG FMJTC over 4.1gr WW231 (av. MV 938fps)
While not ideal for 9mmP, I used W231 powder because it was the only pistol powder I possessed at the time, where most of my reloading was for .45ACP.
Underneath all three loads I had written "Very disappointing". Now...I was comparing my BHP's accuracy at 25 yards directly to the accuracy of my Much Modified Norinco 1911, which was (and still is) capable of very good accuracy (by me and my 'standards' ) out to 25 yards. (No..I cannot achieve the same accuracy from any of my guns 6 years later with my 6 decade old eyes).
Anyway...to sum up, I sold the BHP. A beautiful pistol, but at the time (and in my opinion) I decided it was never going to achieve anything better than what I hear referred to as "combat accuracy". I do recall seeing a shooter at PoCo range with a much-modified BHP set up for PPC which was capable of some pretty impressive grouping at 25 yards; I'm sure somebody on this board may either be that person or know of him?
While

 

[Rick]

Rick I doubt there are many handgunners who can shoot 4" groups at 50 yards unsupported period. I have met a few but in contrast to the numbers that cannot they are the few.

At the risk of getting sidetracked into a game of semantics, I think any junket into the "numbers who can" game is badly skewed. God knows how many handguns are owned as novelties by people who occasionally haul them out of the closet and go to the range to shoot a box of ammunition once in a while. That kind of ownership and use - which is perfectly legitimate - is hardly going to make even a mediocre shot out of anyone. And that's just one example of a use that would skew the numbers.

Serious shooters? Probably more than a lot would think. Considering the number of PPC shooters in the higher levels who can easily clean the 25 yard unsupported stage, some could do it. And ditto for some bullseye shooters, those who like the Olympic courses of fire, etc. I would suspect more than a few of the better IPSC shooters and their high end, optically sighted pistols could also do it with a little bit of practice.

More importantly, most serious handgunners in the accuracy games can't group that offhand simply because nothing they do requires any NEED to do that well offhand. A PPC competitor isn't going to shoot offhand at 50 yards - but they are going to need that level of accuracy from prone, kneeling, right and left hand barricade. A handgun metallic silhouette shooter is going to need that level of accuracy, even if his use does not mandate standing unsupported.

The bottom line would be that a lot of serious handgunners would say that 4"@ 50 yards is both desireable and useable in their handgun sports/activities. No different than the fact that 1 MOA or better hunting rifles are pretty desireable and useful to some hunters, even if few if any of them could shoot that well shooting the same rifle unsupported.

Aside from target guns and those designed for specific games PPC comes to mind, most handguns are/were designed for defensive purposes or for use at short ranges by either the military or the police. Need to shoot at longer ranges get a rifle.

The designs we use today may well have been originally designed for the purposes you mention. Suffice it to say, both their manufacture and the use they are put to these days has moved well beyond that. I don't believe there is some unstated obligation for firearms to remain what they were originally conceived of in the first place - if that were so, crude fixed sights and unshakeable reliability would be the only criteria for handguns. This is more than enough to satisfy the requirements of a handgun at common engagement distances in their police/military role. Who cares if the group center prints two or three inches one way or another - good enough for minute of bad guy.

Firearms have evolved. And like so many other things, "need" and expectation of providing justification of some need has absolutely nothing to do with it. If people are having fun doing what they're doing and hurting nobody else while doing so, then fly at 'er.

 

[Canuck44]

Rick

The difference between men and boys is the cost of their toys.

Take Care

bob

 

[TheCanuck]

So, whats happening with your BHP? Are you sending it to Browning? Have they checked it?Whats the word?

 

[Rick]

So, whats happening with your BHP? Are you sending it to Browning? Have they checked it?Whats the word?

I have a job to do from next week to end of the month. It is not always the safest of places, so the BHP stays with me as insurance (legal carry, for our eagle eyed federal monitors lurking on the threads) until that's finished. Nothing else appropriate in the gun safe.

After that, back to the folks at Browning it goes...

 

[TheCanuck]

Considering it's accuracy shortcomings, you must really be out of options!

 

[Rick]

Considering it's accuracy shortcomings, you must really be out of options!

If I need it, it will be down to kissing distance in this situation. It is a poor choice for the situation, and not just because of the accuracy issues, but better than nothing at all.

I expect that, like the other 99,999 times out of 100,000, it will just be an annoying weight to deal with for the two weeks of the contract. But if the other 1 time comes up... I want something besides bare hands and a prayer.

 

[cybershooters]

First of all, I'd like to know where I can read a little more about this.

Have a read of American Handgunner, the May/June issue, p. 46. The specific case is New Jersey v. Daniel Bias.

The case I was involved in was R. v. Davies, it was in Liverpool several years ago, I was asked to comment on the forensic report produced by the FSS by the guy's solicitor. The case involved a kid who owned two deactivated firearms, and he'd gotten into an argument with his girlfriend and she'd reported him to the police and told them he had guns. Basically she did it out of spite as there was no indication he had threatened her (bear this in mind folks, I've lost count of the cases where people have had their licenses pulled because of grumpy ex's putting the knife in).

Anyway, this kid had removed a couple of welds from the deacs so he could disassemble them, but there was no firm indication he had attempted to restore them to working order. One of the guns was a Bren gun. The FSS found that if they completely removed the remains of the weld from the receiver, they could attach a replacement barrel and bolt to the receiver and make a working MG, so in essence he was in possession of a prohibited component of a firearm, according to the FSS.

This struck me as a bizarre argument - it was in fact a component of a deactivated firearm, he didn't have replacement components and had made no attempt to acquire or make any. Mangling an already deactivated firearm does not constitute manufacturing a firearm. Not only that but the FSS were forced to concede with the other firearm that even with the weld removed they couldn't get the thing to work without significant effort (i.e. they tried for ages but couldn't get it to work).

If you read the forensic report you would know why I was so unhappy about it, it was really strongly biased in favour of the prosecution, there was no attempt at all to be objective, it goes on about how various burrs had to be removed from components to get them to work, things had to be altered, changed around, etc., but after all that it was in the opinion of the FSS an illegally possessed prohibited firearm, which I thought was laughable.

Unfortunately by the time it got to me he had run out of money and had to plead guilty even though I personally doubt with an expert witness there two of the three charges would have held up, the only one that had any weight to it was illegal possession of a single round of 7.62mm rifle ammunition.

However I did at least get a complaint against the judge upheld by the Attorney General, because the judge quoted a lot of the rubbish in the forensic report in his sentencing, going on about the dangers of guns in the community (even though the guns were completely inert), how nasty the idea of anyone have a deactivated firearm was, blah, blah, even though it is entirely legal to possess a deactivated firearm - even convicted criminals can legally possess them. (Unfortunately because the kid plead guilty, an appeal is next to impossible without lots of money he didn't have.)

If you get charged, be under no illusions that they want to convict you - forget all this trite romantic claptrap about how objective and fair-handed courts are. It's a contest between the prosecution and your defence, and anything that introduces uncertainty into the circumstances of the case can be exploited by the prosecution, who have infinite resources to prosecute you. If you want to make things more difficult for yourself, go right ahead, but expert witnesses cost a lot of money.

 

[Canuck44]

Rick

"Being as Browning DOES warranty a base level of accuracy in their high powers, and as the aformentioned kid didn't own a Browning, I simply asked what level of accuracy FEG and FN guaranteed when he chose the two specimens that lead him to declare BHP's mediocre."

You keep referring to FN as a separate company. FN owns the Browning Co. who act as the US distributer for FN. If the "Browning" marked Hi-Power comes with an accuracy guarantee so to the "FN" marked Hi-Powers. They are made and marketed by the same company,....Browning. Browning Hi-Powers are made by FN on the same factory floor, same assembly line by the same people. The slides are just roll marked differently.

4" groups with a Hi-Power at 50 yards is in my opinion well beyond the ability of most, but not all shooters I have met. For avid and skilled PPC shooters perhaps but for the rest....

Take Care

Bob

 

[Rick]

Have a read of American Handgunner, the May/June issue, p. 46. The specific case is New Jersey v. Daniel Bias.

Yes. It's noteworthy that there are exactly TWO instances of handloads being an issue in a trial involving a shooting in self defense. In the first incident, the person was acquitted; in the second - Bias - he was ultimately convicted of a charge other than those that depended on the issues regarding forensic evidence related to ammunition. Let me also say that, without knowing the specifics, Bias is certainly entitled to a reasonable doubt but the whole thing looks pretty fishy. Bias also took place in New Jersey - a state well known for being pretty anti-handgun. New Jersey is not Montana...

Now let's do some math. Those who believe in CCW or follow the subject are generally aware that there are a little less than 3,000,000 defensive uses of firearms each year in the US. We know that less than 1% of these incidents end in shots fired. So let's say we're down to 300,000 defensive uses. To compensate for less than a full three million uses and a "full" 1% involving shots, let's say only 25% of those shots fired at assailants actually hit the criminal. Now we're down to 75,000 instances where somebody actually was hit. I have no idea what percentage of those would involve handloads, but I think suggesting a mere 5% involved handloads would be more than generously restrictive.

So now we're down to... 3,750 instances each year with handloads. A little over a million defensive uses where handloads were used to shoot an assailant in the last 30 years. Out of that, there are exactly TWO instances where handloads were an issue in whether somebody was charged - and one was outright acquitted and the other was convicted of a lesser charge that did not have anything to do with the ammunition.

It isn't hard to see that the chances of being involved in a defensive situation AND that situation leading to the assailant actually being shot AND the use of handloads being an issue of whether you're charged or not are so small as to not even approach statistical significance. Not even remotely close. My chances of winning the Powerball lottery are better.

I relegate this to the category of "but what if...". And if I was going to cover that "what if", then I'd ALSO feel obligated to cover the "but what if..." of a factory round without the primer hole drilled through. I've seen that - so I guess that means I'd also have to carry a concealed BUG in case those one of those factory loads whose flashhole I hadn't checked was defective. Hopefully, I wouldn't have to carry a BUG for the BUG...

CCW for me is about reasonable risk management - not covering every potential eventuality. I have no quarrel with those who do worry about every eventuality (or make their living writing magazine articles about every conceivable eventuality), but that just isn't me.

If you want to make things more difficult for yourself, go right ahead, but expert witnesses cost a lot of money.

I think I'll worry about that about as much as I'll plan my future on the possibility I might win Powerball...

 

[Rick]

"Being as Browning DOES warranty a base level of accuracy in their high powers, and as the aformentioned kid didn't own a Browning, I simply asked what level of accuracy FEG and FN guaranteed when he chose the two specimens that lead him to declare BHP's mediocre."

You keep referring to FN as a separate company. FN owns the Browning Co. who act as the US distributer for FN. If the "Browning" marked Hi-Power comes with an accuracy guarantee so to the "FN" marked Hi-Powers.

Do you know that for a fact or are you just saying that? I took the time to contact Browning in Utah; did you do the same with FN?

Regardless of that, the issue is pretty simple. On the basis of an FN (which we later find was thirty years old, with unknown number of owners and unknown treatment) and a clone purchased despite the fact it is described as being pretty substandard, our young fellow who "knows his guns" tells us he's never seen or heard of an accurate HP. Ignoring the previous three I've owned that have been more than accurate, the fact of the matter is Browning DOES guarantee 4" grouping at 50 yards with that pistol.

If FN does guarantee the same accuracy with the handguns with their rollstamp on it, then you have to conclude that BHP's which will group 4" at 50 yards are pretty accurate pistols. If they don't, then the Browning pistols are still pretty accurate, and perhaps the FN's are less expensive because they won't back up the FN name and assembly with a warranty.

Either way, saying BHP's are inaccurate is pretty goofy - not unlike claiming that Weatherby Vanguards are also inaccurate despite their accuracy guarantee. Or perhaps... buying a firearm with an accuracy guarantee and then #####ing about its' inaccuracy instead of simply arranging with the manufacturer to fix it so it does meet the intended standard.

4" groups with a Hi-Power at 50 yards is in my opinion well beyond the ability of most, but not all shooters I have met. For avid and skilled PPC shooters perhaps but for the rest....

From which I suppose that one could presume that, since few rifle shooters can group better than 3" offhand, there is equally little point or relevance to purchasing or finding a rifle capable of shooting one minute of angle.

If one's interest in handguns is limited to being able to hit center of mass with a handgun or rifle at no further than 15 yards, then there is little reason to have any interest in handgun accuracy. In fact, you might well be better off taking the sights right off the firearm and learning how to shoot a la' Lucky McDaniel or Bob Munden (who, incidentally, I watched shooting last Saturday and Sunday). But defensive shooting at 15 yards or less is not something all or most handgun shooters limit themselves to.

If you want to improve your marksmenship, you don't do it with an inaccurate piece of crap from which you can't tell whether the point of impact is a result of your shooting or whether the firearm just threw them over there of its' own accord. That applies whether it's a .22 rimfire rifle for a new shooter or a handgun.

Different people have different needs and values. Has the issue of how inaccurate BHP's are been sufficiently put to rest yet?