Thoughts on the Mk III BHP
- Thread starter Riflechair
- Start date
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
Here's your range review. Boringly reliable, soft recoil. Decent trigger. Accuracy was quite good. I could shoot it better than my G19 and 226. Sights are big and easy to see though I didn't care for the white lines, I would have preferred dots, but they were easy to acquire and gave a good sight picture. If you are going to use it for competition you could probably do with an extended safety, but it's not bad as it is. It's easy to disassemble and to put back together.
Mine had a set of hogue rubber grips which I really liked and looked better than the stock plastic grips. Finding a holster was a bit of a chore but you can find them.
My Uncle had a HP - not a MKIII -that he put 30,000 rounds through (without any problems that weren't ammo related) before he cracked the slide. He used it hard for IPSC competition. I read somewhere that the newer BHP's have different metallurgy than the older ones that make them more robust....I could be mistaken though...it may have been the FNHP's...can't quite remember...
Last edited:
I've got a MKIII and love it... sold it once and ended up buying it back because selling it was a misstake. The sights on the MKIII are very nice and the reliablity is very high, limp wristing seems to be the only thing that stops it. Accuracy with the right ammo is also very good, I placed third in service pistol at the nationals last year with it and second at the BC service championships last weekend with it. I might do better with a newer pistol but it just wouldn't be the same 
I can't have an FAL but at least I can have the pistol that I learned on.
I can't have an FAL but at least I can have the pistol that I learned on.
A BHP is no less accurate than a CZ out of the box. It fits small hands just as well, if not better, and has MUCH better fit and finish. I'm not sure where you got the idea that BHPs are not accurate - perhaps it's a myth perpetuated by those who encounter them while serving in the CF (in which case, the lack of accuracy is to be expected, as CF pistol are old as #### and in many cases seriously worn out).
Reminds me of a comment of a friend that's retired from the RCAF. He used to say you wer as well off throwing the thing at an enemy as shooting it.
Having had the opportunity to try one I think he must have had a dud How much difference is there between a MkIII and the Standard?
Have you checked out Steven Camp's website:
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/
Everything you ever wanted to know about HP's, many range reports by Steven.
You're quite right, of course (assembled) - but the guys who knock them seem to all say that they're "Made in Portugal"
Thanks Capp
Exactly what I needed.
All good things although I understand the frames are cast not forged.
This makes them stronger?
Max Owner
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I have a MKIII in 40.
Super strong recoil spring. Makes for nice double taps if that is part of your shooting style.
In my case the grip on the thumb side causes me some grief. I am right handed and the design for the thumb doesn't quite work for me. Causes a little discomfort because my thumb doesn't fit in the grove quite right.
I have no regrets buying it. Friend who tried it aswell really liked it. And he's not a real handgun guy.
FWIW.
Super strong recoil spring. Makes for nice double taps if that is part of your shooting style.
In my case the grip on the thumb side causes me some grief. I am right handed and the design for the thumb doesn't quite work for me. Causes a little discomfort because my thumb doesn't fit in the grove quite right.
I have no regrets buying it. Friend who tried it aswell really liked it. And he's not a real handgun guy.
FWIW.
I know it's counter-intuitive, but yes, in this case, the cast frames are stronger. Normally, a forged frame would be stronger that a case one, all else being equal. However, MKIII frames are heat-treated better than the old forged frames, which is what makes them stronger.
Richard as you know I had the Mke 1 and Mke 111. From a practical point of view the pistols are exactly the same. Better sights, yes but same trigger. As some have mentioned, it is a classic design but shows it's age when compared with the new blasters available in 9MM. The gun still does what it was designed to do, well. I am not sure though there is significant difference in how it does it between the Mke 1 and Mke111.
Take Care
Bob
Take Care
Bob
- Location
- SW Ontario
I had used the HP many years ago in the army but a couple or so years ago I had bought a Mk111. Mine is made in Belgium and assembled in Portugal. I shoot it quite a bit and I like it a lot. The finish is very good and the mechanism never suffered from malfunctions. I hate the magazine safety but one day I'll get around taking that out.
I like the weight and the ergonomics of the Mk111 especially the fact that it is very slim. It fits my hand very well and shoots accurately. Over all it is a great gun.
I like the weight and the ergonomics of the Mk111 especially the fact that it is very slim. It fits my hand very well and shoots accurately. Over all it is a great gun.
The mark iii's can be very accurate even with stock barrel. I used to have a Mark III customized by Cylinder and Slide and a fellow who now works at P&D and a much better shot than me put 5 rounds into a small clover leaf at 15 yards with it.
I ended up selling that gun because despite the comfortable grip, it tended to torque in my hand. I was actually more accurate with a walther P99 due to the way that gun fit my hand better.
I ended up selling that gun because despite the comfortable grip, it tended to torque in my hand. I was actually more accurate with a walther P99 due to the way that gun fit my hand better.
