Why didn't modernized Hi Powers ever catch on?

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by Tipoc

NATO adopted the BHP as a standard sidearm. It was in a certain configuration. It was popular.

Maybe you've stumbled across some technical or other details I've missed -- entirely possible -- but, I don't think NATO has adopted ANY handgun as a standard firearm. That said, it has set a standard for handgun and long-gun ammo. As best I can tell, NATO nations use whatever they want as a service pistol, as long as they fire NATO-standard ammo.

I know that the UK used BHPs for years (with the British Army only recently moving to Glock 17s); Belgium (which adopted the BHP design in 1935) may still be using the Hi-Power. NATO members Canada and Greece originally used the Inglis version of the design, and may have transitioned to FN-made guns later. All four of these countries, all of which have relatively small militaries, are NATO members. I can't find any reference to other NATO nations using the FN or BHP Hi-Powers...

The U.S. alone probably has more semi-autos than all the rest of NATO combined, and that inventory is mostly Berettas, a bunch of SIGs, and a growing number of Glocks.

[DMK]

The last decade with 9mm being plentiful and still relatively cheap the demand for 1911s in 9mm has grown. For decades not many wanted a 1911 in 9mm. Now everybody is building them. Maybe there will be an uptick in interest in the BHP. Who knows? It would be nice to see.

That would be nice. Though could the BHP really compete with the modern "customized production" 9mm 1911s on a feature by feature basis?

[tipoc]

Maybe you've stumbled across some technical or other details I've missed -- entirely possible -- but, I don't think NATO has adopted ANY handgun as a standard firearm.

In Anthony Vanderlinden's book "FN Browning PIstols" he notes;

When NATO adopted the High Power as a standard sidearm, it became the most prolific handgun in the world...There are more than 250 postwar High Power markings...

He goes on to talk about the various rifles and guns FN supplied to NATO countries and else where and the changes the post war BHP went through to diminish the costs and streamline production. See page 317 of that book.

NATO has had a good many standard sidearms of which the BHP is probably still one. It means that the gun gets a NATO stock number and the gun, and parts for those guns, are available to NATO member nations. Those parts have the same NATO parts numbers on them. Those numbers are separate from the manufacturers serial numbers for the guns.

I'm not certain of the technicalities of this. I do know that NATO has pistols that it identifies as being used and approved by NATO member nations and has stock numbers for the guns and parts for those guns. This allows for the use of common numbers for parts when working together on some project, etc.

My Isreali surplus gun has a NATO parts number marked barrel in it. Isreal is not a NATO member nation but they did get some parts marked with NATO parts numbers.




tipoc

[WVsig]

Originally Posted by tipoc

In Anthony Vanderlinden's book "FN Browning PIstols" he notes;

That would be one of the many errors in Vanderlinden's book IMHO. There are many others but that is for another discussion. There is no NATO standard handgun. There is a NATO standard handgun round which is 124gr 9mm FMJ. I think you might be misinterpreting what Vanderlinden stated. The FN BHP was approved as a NATO pistol and was signed a NATO cage code but it was not the "standard issue pistol" designated by NATO. Yes many NATO countries adopted it but it is not like the Beretta 92FS which was designated the M9 and adopted by the US Army.

Originally Posted by tipoc

He goes on to talk about the various rifles and guns FN supplied to NATO countries and else where and the changes the post war BHP went through to diminish the costs and streamline production. See page 317 of that book.

NATO has had a good many standard sidearms of which the BHP is probably still one. It means that the gun gets a NATO stock number and the gun, and parts for those guns, are available to NATO member nations. Those parts have the same NATO parts numbers on them. Those numbers are separate from the manufacturers serial numbers for the guns.

I'm not certain of the technicalities of this. I do know that NATO has pistols that it identifies as being used and approved by NATO member nations and has stock numbers for the guns and parts for those guns. This allows for the use of common numbers for parts when working together on some project, etc.

My Isreali surplus gun has a NATO parts number marked barrel in it. Isreal is not a NATO member nation but they did get some parts marked with NATO parts numbers.

NSN certification numbers or inventory number like those on your FN or those found on A CZ P01 do not make them a standard side arm. They do not mean that they have been adopted by NATO or any of its NATO members. It only meas they passed the NATO D14 certification IIRC. Honestly I don't pay much attention to it.

I love your enthusiasm about the BHP Tipoc but you seem to be a bit fuzzy on some of the facts you are sighting. BHP history is a muddy mess so I do not fault you for it. The most commonly sighted sources R Blake Stevens', FN itself, Vanderlinden's and the Stephen Camp's materials are all riddled with errors and misstatements. It is hard to nail down accurate history and facts on the development of the gun. There are a few people over on the 1911forum.com that are extremely knowledge. I believe you post over there as well. I find SubMoa and Burgs to be two of the more knowledgeable.

[WVsig]

Well, let me clarify then by saying the MkII was designed to have an ambi safety to meet the requirements for the Army's pistol selection. FN leveraged their knowledge from the British L9 program to make a number of other updates to the Hi-Power as well. My point being the production ambi safety predates the MkIII considerably and MkIIs lacking an ambi safety are uncommon in the U.S. (Or were until the flood of reworked Israeli guns).

The MkIII is basically the "lessons learned during U.S. pistol trials" update that occurred after FN lost out to Beretta. FN is generally pretty good about sliding new upgrades quietly into the mix. For example, post-2000 MkIIIs have a different slide stop than previous Hi-Powers; but the change is so subtle you have to compare them side by side to notice it.

When FN came out with the MKIII they dropped the rib on the slide. The drain hole in the front of the slide also disappeared and the sights got dovetails. The hog nose style bushing was reduced to an almost flush bushing. The guns also received a firing pin safety. I have never heard that these were done in response to lessons learned from the US pistol trials but maybe its true. It has always been my understanding that the MKIII was developed to once again cut costs and to incorporate the 40 S&W caliber into the BHP offerings.

The MKIII originally came with the traditional forged frames. Early in their production they changed to a cast frame. The rails of the forged frames warped under the extra pressure of the 40 S&W caliber. They could have made the a forged frame which was stronger but a stronger cast frame was cheaper so FN choose it. IIRC. Most of the cast frames that have left FN have ridges or ripples on the bottom of the magwell. There are many MKIIIs without them because they shipped with forged frames but I have also heard of cast frames with no ridges but for the most part ridges means cast smooth means forged.

This is why most people say that the MKIII is a better long term high round count shooter and that it will withstand more +P ammo than the older forged frames. I personally have shot +P out of BHPs of almost every vintage with no issues but I don't shoot tons of it. These days there are plenty of standard pressure 9mm JHP which get the job done so my personal use of +P has gone down significantly in the last 5 years as bullet tech had gotten better.

I would be interested to know the source of your statements above. Always looking to learn more about the BHP.

[tipoc]

It's clear that there is no NATO standard sidearm. Maybe I could have been clearer. What there is, is a good many things in the inventory of NATO members and other nations, that use the same NSN (NATO stock number).

I made it clear that there is no standard NATO pistol outside of the weapons that the member nations use. In the same sense there are standard NATO boots, clothes, motors, etc. Virtually everything used by NATO member countries militarizes is itemized and has parts.

The NSN began in the U.S. as the National Stock Number. When NATO was established the U.S. had them adopt the NSN system as NATOs. This is how my Hi-Power has an NSN on it when the original barrel was replaced.

Here...

As the coding system has been adopted by the member nations of NATO, and other non-member nations as well, the system has come to be known as the NATO Stock Number, although the term National Stock Number has stuck in the USA. Now, both National Stock Number and NATO Stock Number are interchangeable terms for the same Codification System.

How Is It Used?
A NATO Stock Number is simply the official label applied to an item of supply that is repeatedly procured, stocked, stored, issued, and used throughout the NATO supply system. It is a unique, item identifying, series of numbers. When a NSN is assigned to an item of supply, data is assembled to describe the item. some data elements include information such as an item name, manufacturer's reference number, unit price, and physical and performance characteristics. Many data elements are stored in multiple languages and measurement systems. NSNs are an essential part of the military logistics supply chain used in managing, moving, storing, and disposing of material.

NSNs are used to identify and manage almost every imaginable item from aircraft parts to toilet paper, from space vehicles to nuts and bolts. The use of NSNs facilitates the standardization of item names, supply language, characteristics and management data and aids in reducing duplicate items in Government inventories. It also helps to standardize the military requirements for testing and evaluation of potential items of supply, as well as identifying potential duplicate items. The online USA NSN Search system is called WebFLIS.

https://www.nsncenter.com/Tutorials/NSNDefinition

And FN products on the list...

https://www.nsncenter.com/CAGE/B0897?pagenumber=18

So as there is NATO approved toilet paper so is there NATO approved sidearms and rifles. The Beretta 92 is also a standard NATO sidearm by this criteria as it's parts are in the system as is the Glock 17 and likely many others. I don't know, as I said before, what rigorous testing that NATO approved dish soap must go through, if any. It looks to be only this. If a NATO members military adopts a certain gun it can be placed on the NSN.

CZ's post on the P01 is quite misleading in this regard. While the CZ P01 certainly passed those tests I don't know that NATO requires them. I don't think NATO requires tests for motor oil. NATO has little power beyond what the members and the U.S. agree to jointly.

http://cz-usa.com/press-release/cz-p...rfect-pistols/

From WV:

I love your enthusiasm about the BHP Tipoc but you seem to be a bit fuzzy on some of the facts you are sighting.

Thanks for noticing me. I seem to be not the only one who is occasionally fuzzy. But I of course appreciate being chided by you as it gives me something to aspire to.

I don't pretend to know much beyond my direct experience and what I read. I do not know more than Steven's, Vanderlinden, or my old friend Stephen Camp. I look forward to your book when you publish it till then I must squeeze by.

I do notice that you do tend to agree with most of my general points about 2-3 posts after I make them. I also actually appreciate anyone who corrects a detail I get wrong. I ain't writing a book here it's a post on a thread in a gun forum.

tipoc

[WVsig]

I am not chiding you there is no need to be so thin skinned. You are presenting some not so clear and not so valid information which I am questioning and or correcting. I have not personally attacked you in anyway. Please calm down.

[tipoc]

I'm not upset. You actually got me laughing.

tipoc

[WVsig]

It's clear that there is no NATO standard sidearm. Maybe I could have been clearer. What there is, is a good many things in the inventory of NATO members and other nations, that use the same NSN (NATO stock number).

I made it clear that there is no standard NATO pistol outside of the weapons that the member nations use. In the same sense there are standard NATO boots, clothes, motors, etc. Virtually everything used by NATO member countries militarizes is itemized and has parts.

That designation does not translate into sales or deployment of gear or pistols. It seemed to be that was what you were trying to imply. The bulk of the FN BHPs sold to NATO countries went to Belgium, Canada and the UK. This is not a small number of pistols but not the bulk of FNs sold all over the world.

[tipoc]

That designation does not translate into sales or deployment of gear or pistols. It seemed to be that was what you were trying to imply. The bulk of the FN BHPs sold to NATO countries went to Belgium, Canada and the UK. This is not a small number of pistols but not the bulk of FNs sold all over the world.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

OK I read it again and again and came back to edit this.

No you are mis-understanding. The Beretta 92 is a NATO accepted gun. That does not mean that all in NATO must use it or even that all use it. Anymore than all in NATO must use a particular toothpaste, or,as I said, motor oil or Glocks. What guns any country uses is decided by them.

It just means what the definition that I posted above means. That it is in inventory or that a part can be procured through NATO. Beyond that I don't know.

That's why I have not said, nor implied, that all of NATO uses the Hi-Power. It never has.

tipoc

[ttarp]

Ah I get it now, the real reason the BHP never took off in the US was because folks could never agree on who had more influence on the design, or its service history.

[tipoc]

I just gotta say something in defense of Anthony Vanderlinden, the author I quoted from above and who was criticized. I can't leave him holding the bag for anything I may have been unclear on.

Vanderlinden has written 6 books on firearms that I'm aware of. His book on FN pistols was published in 2009 with a second edition out in 2013. The man is every bit aware, as I am, that there are many handguns used by NATO member states. He is also aware that NATO has no standard service sidearm in the sense that teh 1911 and teh M9 were standard service sidearms in the U.S. or all member countries must use it or that only certain elite guns are chosen by NATO. NATO is not a nation state. But it recognizes and logs them as a standard firearm for and of member states.

It's not the same thing as England, the Netherlands or Spain having a standard service sidearm. Vanderlinden knows this. He, nor me for that matter, made this rookie mistake. But I was less precise than I could have been, but that's not on Vanderlinden. It's useful to read what Vanderlinden wrote in it's context and not picked from it.

tipoc

[DMK]

Ah I get it now, the real reason the BHP never took off in the US was because folks could never agree on who had more influence on the design, or its service history.

It's a gun forum.

With a question about a distinguished and historical firearm, I should have expected multiple pages arguing over history, technicalities and semantics.

I jest of course. I appreciate all the good and interesting info from those who posted.

[Fine Figure of a Man]

The price of a new HP is its limits its popularity more than anything else.
On the other hand it is among the finest handguns ever designed, it has and will continue to outlive many new handguns.

[WVsig]

I just gotta say something in defense of Anthony Vanderlinden, the author I quoted from above and who was criticized. I can't leave him holding the bag for anything I may have been unclear on.

Vanderlinden has written 6 books on firearms that I'm aware of. His book on FN pistols was published in 2009 with a second edition out in 2013. The man is every bit aware, as I am, that there are many handguns used by NATO member states. He is also aware that NATO has no standard service sidearm in the sense that teh 1911 and teh M9 were standard service sidearms in the U.S. or all member countries must use it or that only certain elite guns are chosen by NATO. NATO is not a nation state. But it recognizes and logs them as a standard firearm for and of member states.

It's not the same thing as England, the Netherlands or Spain having a standard service sidearm. Vanderlinden knows this. He, nor me for that matter, made this rookie mistake. But I was less precise than I could have been, but that's not on Vanderlinden. It's useful to read what Vanderlinden wrote in it's context and not picked from it.

tipoc

Vanderlinden's FN Browning Pistols is a very good book and definitely essential reading for BHP fans. It is one of the books I personally consider foundational reading. The biggest failing of the book IMHO is that it focuses mainly gun up WWII. There is very little information about post WWII BHPs even in the the updated version. It is geared towards military collectors and collectors of earlier Hi Powers.

He did have access to a lot of inside FN Herstal info and docs and the book is a great read. I am not trying to imply that it is not but there are many known error in the book that have been refuted by collectors and owners of actual FN guns. At other times in the book it feels like he is waxing a bit poetic and adding personal subjective emphasis which is then too often picked up by readers as fact. He clearly has great appreciation for JMB and FN and it comes through in the book.

For example I sort of covered on earlier in the thread. The start of production of FN and Browning Hi Power pistols in Portugal is often incorrectly stated as starting in 1980. The 1980 date comes from Vanderlinden's book, which has many contradictions in it. FN opened the plant in Viana Portugal in 1973 and people have real world working examples of BHP made there as early as 1973 in that factory. Vanderlinden's error is often perpetuated all over the Internet and gun boards. gun magazines and reviews.

The Stevens book which is another foundational read is also rife with date errors as well. Again its focus is on military collectors and collectors of earlier Hi Powers. It also originally focused on early up to WWII BHPs but the newer revised versions have at least expanded the "modern sporting" sections of the book.

I always recommend reading the Vanderlinden FN Browning Pistols:

https://www.amazon.com/Browning-Pist...7773655&sr=1-3

The R Blake Stevens: The Browning High Power Automatic Pistol

https://www.amazon.com/Browning-High...+blake+stevens

Steven Camps:The Shooter's Guide to the Browning Hi Power - REVISED EDITION

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Products5.html

I personally consider the Camp book to be the best guide for shooters of "modern" BHPs. It is less collectors book and more a shooters book. He has passed but his wife still runs and benefits from his work and site. Unfortunately some of his "dates" are carried over errors found in Stevens and Vanderlinden's work.

Some of the date issues are not necessarily the fault of these authors. Many of them are because FN was horrible at keeping exact records. They treat dates, documentation and cataloging changes as more art than science. They have very little or very vague informational records. They even publish incorrect info. For example the date your firearms page on Browning's Website for the BHP contains errors which they have never fixed.

FN always used older parts and sold off the catalog versions of BHPs both commercially and as contract guns. This just muddies the waters.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

When FN came out with the MKIII they dropped the rib on the slide. The drain hole in the front of the slide also disappeared and the sights got dovetails.

As you noted, there isn't always a real clear cut transition. For example, I've seen Hi-Powers with a ribbed slide and pinned sights; but no drain hole. Or no rib and no drain hole but the prominent bushing and pinned sights. I'd guess a lot of the features we think of as "MkIII" were just production changes made to address production costs or other issues revealed by trials. For example, if you look at a 1983 Hi-Power and a 1990 Hi-Power, you'll notice the ejection port has grown a bit larger.

As for my source, I'm just speculating (except on things like parts changing over the years which is something I've noticed firsthand and can be independently verified by comparing new parts to old). I bought my first BHP in 1989, so I remember a lot of the transitional stuff first hand (albeit a bit clouded by time now). IIRC, the .40 was introduced shortly after the MkIII became a catalog item, not concurrent with it.

[falnovice]

I would like to see a MarkIV BHP but I seriously doubt that will ever happen. I had a discussion with an FN Rep back around 2011 and he was pretty clear that the only reason FN even still manufactured the BHP was because of their contact commitments for parts and replacements. Otherwise they would likely have canned it already in favor of their polymer pistol line that cost less to manufacture yet are more profitable despite the much lower MSRP.

To some degree I think the success of the BHP also hampered it in terms of future innovations. As long as there were significant contracts for the gun and/or support there was little motivation to modify it, and certainly no desire to modify it any significant amount that would make it not reverse compatible to the MkII and MkIII designs.

The BHP is the most common 9mm pistol in the world. I believe Glock finally surpassed it in total production numbers a year or so ago, but the overwhelming majority of the Glocks ever manufactured are here in the USA in civilian hands, whereas the majority of BHPs are outside the USA.

All of these factors contribute, in my opinion, to FN not promoting any serious modifications to the design after the MkIII. They have no interest in upgrading the design for their market that is largely LEO/military outside the USA......they would much rather sell them the FNP, FNX, FNS or what have you.

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by falnovice

The BHP is the most common 9mm pistol in the world. I believe Glock finally surpassed it in total production numbers a year or so ago, but the overwhelming majority of the Glocks ever manufactured are here in the USA in civilian hands, whereas the majority of BHPs are outside the USA.

Most common 9mm in the world? Got any data to back that claim? I've had a hard time finding hard data for any gun maker, but do roughly know what the U.S. alone has bought over the years since WWII.

"Most common 9mm in the world" may have been true immediately following WWII, if you ignored the Luger and P-38 -- but probably hasn't been true since the 1970s. (The Soviets didn't use 9x19, nor did the U.S....)

India still uses HP pistols, built in India, and based on (according to Wikipedia) the Inglis stamping dies from Canada. These appear to be made under license, but I can't find out if FN is the firm issuing the license. India's use could account for a LOT of guns. India also issues Glock 17s to its special operations troops.

Even then, however, there may still be more Berettas in service than Glocks...The U.S. military alone accounted for maybe a half million M9s, since the 1980, and Berettas have been widely used in other militaries as well. (Brazil bought a factory and the right to build Berettas 92s, and later converted the factory to build Taurus pistols.)

There still may be more Glocks in use than BHPs, especially if you count police agencies in the U.S. (even if you ignore civilian ownership!). S&W also built a lot of 2nd and 3rd Generation semi-auto starting during that same 70'-80's period; they became the go-to firearm for U.S. LEO agencies once LEOs got over their romance with revolvers. Glock, of course, changed that...

Except for India, can you name another LARGE national military that has used the Hi-Power since WWII? Great Britain was one of the largest NATO forces, but it's standing military is relatively small. Britain replaced its Army BHPs with 25,000 new Glock 17s. (A lot of countries are listed in the Wikipedia article as BHP users, but nearly all of them are very small countries with relatively small militaries.)

The Israelis bought BHPs on the open market during the wars in the Middle East, but later used two types of Kareens -- the first based on FEG parts and assembled in Israel, and the later versions built in Israel. But the Glock 17, 19, and Jericho 941 are the handguns now used by the Israeli military.

There were also FN-lincensed and FM-made clones produced in Argentina after the war, and the Argentine military still uses BHPs (or FM-made versions) and Glocks. It's military is even smaller than Great Britain's military.

If you've found better sources for production data, please share it with us.

Originally Posted by falnovice

All of these factors contribute, in my opinion, to FN not promoting any serious modifications to the design after the MkIII. They have no interest in upgrading the design for their market that is largely LEO/military outside the USA......they would much rather sell them the FNP, FNX, FNS or what have you.

I own samples of both the BHP and the newer FNS lines. My FNS-40s are two very accurate and surprisingly soft-shooting 40 semi-autos. I think they are fine weapons, arguably much easier to maintain, much less expensive to build, and very like much, much more profitable to build and sell than the BHP.

I suspect the only reason FHY hasen't really PUSHED the FN-polymer guns is that their attention is focused on the longer-barreled military weapons that seem to be widely used around the world. That, I think, is their bread and butter.

[falnovice]

Walt,

I think I confused my points a bit. That's what I get for trying to bang out a post while on lunch.

Sadly my response is going to be while on lunch, so I will try to keep myself from butchering it too badly.

To clarify a couple points:
When I say the world I am referring to the world outside the USA. I should have been more specific in the original post.
When I say common I am referring to the amount of them in the world not just the amount of them currently in military use.
The American LEO market is very large but only a fraction compared to the non-LEO civilian market. I also suspect there is some overlap between issued pistols and LEO private purchase pistols.
I believe the success and commonality of the BHP at its heyday, and beyond, stifled innovation and evolution of the design.

I would have to dig through my history to find hard data but my recollection is, per a bit of research and conversations with a FN Rep and Stephen Camp, that the total production of P-35/HP/BHP including all licensed models was approximately 11.5 million with the overwhelming majority of those pistols being outside the USA. I don't believe this number covered unlicensed clones. This was a number of years back but I doubt the numbers have changed significantly since. If we assume Glock and BHP have similar production numbers of approximately 12 million, and also assume that the majority of Glocks ever produced are in the USA whereas the majority of BHPs ever produced are outside the USA then my comment makes more sense.


For 30+ years of the Cold War, a time when nearly everyone was modernizing their military and police forces from one degree or another and we (the USA) were willing to help with funding for anyone on our side, the BHP was the only serious game in town for "modern" double stack nines. The S&W 59 didn't come about until the 70's, and to the best of my knowledge they really didn't try to go after the military markets until the "wonder nine" explosion of the 80's when they came out with the 2nd gen. I am recalling all of this from memory, so I am perfectly prepared to be shown I'm wrong, but I am struggling to think of any military that adopted the Model 59. I suspect they had more luck in the LEO markets, which is generally more significant regarding pistol sales.
Police forces outside the USA did not appear to uniformly share our resistance to the transition to auto pistol for LEO work either, though it is worth noting that S&W sold a lot of Model 10s in the post war era.



In short, the majority of the wonder nines we known and love today came about in the 80's and beyond. This gave the BHP on hell of a head start, not unlike the 30+ year advantage Glock has enjoyed in the polymer market.

An observation: It is my opinion that around the world in many if not most countries that the LEO pistol contracts for any given nation are much larger than the military pistol contracts of the same nation. Most militaries are not nearly as enamored with the handgun as we are and issue them less frequently versus LEO where the handgun is the primary weapon. As a very coarse example we could take Canada: Roughly 100,000 active military. They issues something to the extend of 15,000 pistols. Compared to their total LEO numbers of approximately 70,000. I have no idea what percentage of the LEO are armed, but I am willing to bet it is at least 75%. In this admittedly simply example we have a military contract of 15,000 pistols or LEO contracts of 52,000.

In terms of military contracts, I believe Beretta and SIG have more weapons in Military Service around the world than Glock does, but I have never heavily researched it. I suspect that either may surpass the BHP in terms of sheer number of units in current military use as opposed to number of "user" countries. If I recall correctly the CZ75 and variants has pretty good market penetration also.

Now whether there more Glocks in current use than BHPs if you include USA LEOs.....that would require some research. Someone else may know better but I believe the total number of sworn officers in the US hovers around a million, including all local, state, and federal LEOs. While Glock dominates the markets (and the BHP never did) they still aren't 100%. I believe Glock has 65% of the LEO market in the USA.

I wonder if Glock would tell us how many pistols they imported for the American non-LEO market? I suspect 75% of their total production is in the USA in civilian hands. Glock makes a good gun backed up by masterful marketing and aggressive sales practices.

Regarding LARGE militaries, you'd have to define what constitutes a large military. I believe only a quarter of the countries in the world have a standing military in excess of 100,000 people and as I eluded to above I believe people often misunderstand how many pistols militaries use versus LEOs.

Quantifying "users" is always a problem when we get into these types of discussions. Listing a particular police department as a "User" doesn't usually tell us how many they are using. The tactical team of a given department using HK USPs might only mean a sale of 20 pistols, while the bulk of the armed officers are still using issued Beretta 92s. This also applies to militaries, as Glock noting that a SpecOps unit in a small military has adopted the Glock 19 makes for good marketing but it ignores the fact that this is only 200 glocks versus the 5,000 Type 54s in general use.

I own samples of both the BHP and the newer FNS lines. My FNS-40s are two very accurate and surprisingly soft-shooting 40 semi-autos. I think they are fine weapons, arguably much easier to maintain, much less expensive to build, and very like much, much more profitable to build and sell than the BHP.

I agree. I even stated it as follows:

I had a discussion with an FN Rep back around 2011 and he was pretty clear that the only reason FN even still manufactured the BHP was because of their contact commitments for parts and replacements. Otherwise they would likely have canned it already in favor of their polymer pistol line that cost less to manufacture yet are more profitable despite the much lower MSRP.

I completely agree that FN in more interested in rifles and machine guns than pistols at this point. I have little doubt that it makes more sense to go after the contract for 30,000 rifles a small military wants to replace than the 2,000 pistols. LEO contracts are the opposite of that but it doesn't appear, to me at least, that FN heavily goes after LEO pistol contracts like Glock, H&K and S&W.


In closing, the BHP is my all time favorite pistol, followed very closely by the 1911. I have quite a lot of rounds through various BHPs I have owned and I think they are no only wonderful but also a lot more durable, at least in the MkIII variation, than a lot of people give them credit for. Having said that I generally carry a M&P9 for all sorts of practical reasons, not the least of which is cost. A BHP set up the way I like, which means a trip to a good smith, will likely cost me over $1,500 by the time it is done. I can modify a Glock or M&P to my tastes, at home, for half that. If I could buy a Mark IV with a few much needed updates, like no bite hammer, no mag disconnect, better trigger, positive safety, better or easily changed sights, and texturing for around grand I might feel differently. Springfield is capable of doing it with 1911s, and while none of them are Wilson Combats they are still tremendously imporved over the GI 45.

[tipoc]

According to Stevens (pg. 259) only 4 countries were directly licensed by FN to produce the BHP. These were Canada, Argentina, Venezuela and Nigeria.

Canada's production of the BHP by the John Inglis Co. is unique because of the war.

FNs way of doing this was similar to Colt's (or at least it used to be). For a number of years the country pays stiffly for the machinery, tooling, prints, technical supervision and advice for the set up of production. That production is done under the hand of FN. This is expensive for the country but the payoff is that eventually the country owns everything and is on their own. Which often means they go into competition with FN. Argentina did this with the FM. (S&W did this in Brazil and Taurus is an indirect result, Colt also ran into this.)

But variations and unauthorized clones popped up regularly beginning in the 1960s or so. So many that FN made some design changes to the BHP so that some parts in newer guns (for that time) were not interchangeable with the old pre war guns.

Some of the clones took FN completely by surprise. The Indonesian Pindad was an illegal clone. Over 30,000 copies of the Pindad were made as it became the standard service sidearm of the Indonesian Army (so Steven's says) and remained that through 1974. FN discovered this when Indonesia approached them to buy spare parts.

FEG in Hungary has been mentioned. That also took FN by surprise.

The Isreali Kareen was an unauthorized unlicensed copy. FN knew about it in advance though.

The Bulgarian Arcus is a clone.

The Indian MkIA is a copy of the Canadian Inglis HP.

Point here is that we don't know how many BHP's and clones got around in the immediate post war decades. FN obscured it as did the Canadians. To who (or is it whom?) and how many guns did the Nigerians sell to? We don't know.

By the 1980s the sale of BHPs as a military sidearm began to slow. This was due to both changes in military doctrine that moved away from single action handguns and to competition from Beretta, Sig and later Glock. By this time it's time as a front rank service sidearm was waning. Not gone by any means but waning.

tipoc

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by falnovice

If I recall correctly the CZ75 and variants has pretty good market penetration also.

CZ makes the same sort of claims as FN (if that's the firm making the claim) about their weapon being the most widely used... and they may be correct. But MOST WIDELY-USED SEMI-AUTO is different than he MOST USED SEMI-AUTO. The second part of that statement -- MOST USED -- is how most CZ enthusiasts interpret the CZ claim.

CZs are now in use in a lot of places, but still not in great numbers. It's only been in the past 8-9 years that any militaries have begun purchasing more than trivial quantities of CZs, and most of this seems to be in the Asian market.

Once Tanfoglio got into the "CZ-pattern gun" business with, by making, in effect, unlicensed copies, and later sold their own licenses to companies in Turkey and Israel, the number produced picked up. But only a fraction of the guns produced -- the earliest ones -- were true copies.

If there were as many as 11 million BHP/Hi-Powers in use by militaries or a large number of them in civilian hands around the world, I think we would have seen many more of them in the surplus (or used gun) markets than we've seen.

I'll remain skeptical about the total numbr of BHPs in use, especially in civilian hands, around the world. The 11 million figure cited seems outrageously high -- being almost 5-times the number of 1911A1s the U.S. produced during WWII, needed for a very large standing army and allies! Where did all these BHPs go?

You must also appreciate that in parts of the world 9mm was (and in some cases, remains) a hard-to-get, tightly-controlled round that is military-use only, and not available to civilians.

That said, you (or the FN rep) may be right I'll try to be a bit more open-minded about how many were actually produced; while I'll remain skeptical, I will try to see if I can find better data, too.

[tipoc]

It's worth looking at, total figures I mean.

I was just looking at the book, "ARS Mechinica-The ultimate FN Book" for some figures. They do provide some for certain time periods. As FN says in the book...

Without violating the rule of discretion, which this type of business imposes, we list below the nations...

to which they provided a large quantity of arms and ammunition.

They do say that from 1950-1964 about 250,000 HP pistols were produced at the FN plant in Belguim (pg. 253). This does not count the licensed producers outside Belgium. Those producers must be counted if we look at how widespread the HP was as a military sidearm. This was a small number compared to the flood of machine guns, rifles, artillery, ammunition of all types that roared out of FN during that same period.

We can't guess how many handguns sold on the new and used commercial market. One example is that supposedly after the Falklands war, where both sides used the BHP, thousands of HPs were confiscated by the British from the Argentines and many made there way to the commercial market. A long standing rumor but possibly true where "the rule of discretion" is common in this industry.

CZ's claims were always questionable. So are Glock's.

I've heard and read that Glock produced over 10 million guns by 2015. But I found no claim for that number at Glock's website when I went looking for it a couple of years ago. I did see on their time line a claim for 7 million at a certain point and they were proud of that, but no claim for 10 million. If true I assume they would trumpet it all over.

I just looked at the Glock Magazine for 2017 "One World-One Pistol" (is that a promise or a threat?) and they say in roughly translated English...

"For the first 10 years (meaning '92-'82) it was produced and sold in 45 states (countries) around 350,000 units, of which 250,000 in the U.S. Then the real boom happened and at present it is more than 7,000,000 pieces and for example in the U.S.A. Glock has a 65% market share of the armed forces."

By "the armed forces" they mean the leo market and some military. The 65% likely means that 65% of law enforcement has some Glocks and is not that 65% of all leos or enlisted men and National Guard are armed with Glocks. Two different things.

If anyone has a solid figure on what they have produced, a statement or press release from Glock for example, I'd like to see it.

FN is a giant conglomerate. A dominant figure in the production of war material. They have been that for a long time and are still. They are less likely to be nimble in the handgun market place and they have not been.

By comparison CZ is small and nimble in the production of commercial pistols and rifles. So is Kimber...tiny. Ruger? small.

tipoc

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by tipoc

They do say that from 1950-1964 about 250,000 HP pistols were produced at the FN plant in Belguim (pg. 253). This does not count the licensed producers outside Belgium. Those producers must be counted if we look at how widespread the HP was as a military sidearm. This was a small number compared to the flood of machine guns, rifles, artillery, ammunition of all types that roared out of FN during that same period.

FM-built BHPs under license, for the Argentine military. Argentina didn't then and still doesn't have a gigantic military. the UK, Canada and Belgium used BHPs (including some Inglis-made versions) for their militaries. Again, none of those countries had large militaries. Were there some other licensed producers? (India might be one, and they would have used a lot of BHPs., but they haven't been mentioned by anyone but me in this discussion.)

If the totals cited above are correct and FNH made 250,000 BHPs from 1950 thru 1964, that could mean they were making as few as 15,000 BHPs a year; but maybe they started slow and ramped it up?

Let us also generously assume that various producers MIGHT have made up to a million BHPs through WWII (i.e., before 1950)! That may be stretching it.

If so, FNH would still have had to produce produce almost 200,000 BHPs a year for the next 50+ years (from '64 - '17) to come close to the 11 million gun production totals. (The figures cited seemed to imply a much earlier date for that 11M figure.)

That seems like an almost-impossible jump in production capabilities and sales. I'm trying to be open-minded, but I remain skeptical.

None of this is meant to suggest that the BHP isn't a fine weapon, especially if the trigger and action have been tuned. My BHP (a T-series 9mm) has been.

[falnovice]

I tend to agree regarding total production, though without knowing the amount manufactured during wartime and the amount made under license throughout its history it becomes a very difficult number to nail down. I seem to recall that FN made something over 300,000 during the Nazi Occupation, but I have no idea how many were made by Inglis.

Regarding the surplus market, I really don't have an answer for that. I seem to recall that the BHP was officially adopted by something like 93 militaries at it's height. I understand most of these purchases are tiny compared to our military, but still I haven't seen them on the surplus market. To some degree one would expect to. Of course there is the possibility that a large number of them are still in use in these countries and haven't yet been cashed out.

I believe, as I stated before, that the largest share was the LEO market outside the US.....but I have no idea how to quantify that with anything resembling accuracy.

In terms of manufacturing capability I have no doubt that FN could do that if they wanted to and had the demand. FN isn't like GLOCK; there are a huge manufacturer.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember reading that besides millions of FALs, FNCs and M16s FN also manufactured the majority of the UZIs in existence under license from IMI. Something to the tune of 6-7 Million? Then there is the MAG which has been going since the 50s and the M2, though I have no idea what the production numbers are.

FN could definitely crank out enough BHPs if the demand was there, I have no doubt of that. Whether there was demand and where it came from, that I cannot confidently answer.

Great discussion guys.

[tipoc]

I agree with you Walt. I think that 11 million BHPs is too high a figure for production of Hi-powers and their clones.

The source I cited previously, Stevens, says there were only 4 countries that produced the BHP under license from FN. Canada, Argentina, Venezuela and Nigeria. All the others I mentioned produced unauthorized clones, that includes India (though they may have had an unofficial assist from the Canadians and British).

I think falnovice makes an error in his estimates of how many BHPs were produced and how many are or were on the commercial market. 11 million is too high.

We don't know how many were produced. More research will tell some. But a good deal of that information, particularly regarding some military contracts, is, or was secret.

I think for this discussion they are also kinda irrelevant.

The BHP developed a reputation during WWII but I think it's biggest role was after the war, from the 1950s till the early 80s. It wasn't the numbers that were important but who had them and what they did with them.

tipoc