# How good is the side arm?



## Expat (16 Aug 2005)

I am a civilian but I am interested in joing CF once I come back to Canada. 

Any who I was curious about the standard issue CF side arm. How good is it? (Wouldn't mind geting some info from people that actually used it)


I have shooting expierence and I am ok with a hand gun. (IPSC) I currently own a Para Ord 2003 model of 16.40 ltd, ( I love it). I personaly don't want to throw it into sand or any thing like that but I have fired probably 6000 rounds with it and no major problems. The gun is slightly modified, lighter triger pull, mag release spring, bushings and fiber sights.


----------



## DG-41 (16 Aug 2005)

It files pretty straight, and it really smarts when you get hit with it. 

In all seriousness, I was on the Area pistol team a few years back, and so shot the Browning Hi-Power in competition quite a bit. It's a tough, reliable, reasonably accurate weapon that put rounds pretty much where I wanted them to go.

It's no Olympic match pistol, but it does the job.

Keep in mind that if you are falling back to your sidearm, things have pretty much gone to hell. It's the weapon of last resort.

DG


----------



## Expat (16 Aug 2005)

Is the Browning 9mm different from the High power?

When I shot a 9mm loaner I had a hard time trigering 40 pound flipers from falling over. How is the stoping power ?


----------



## DG-41 (16 Aug 2005)

The Browning 9mm is the Hi-Power. Same weapon.

Something to keep in mind: the Browning is a robust weapon able to deal with a faily "hot" load. Military 9mm is specced out to cycle the blowback action on the old Sten, which takes more powder than is typical in a civillian 9mm. I have heard of barrel failures on lightweight 9mms trying to fire military loads.

As far as stopping power goes, no Fig 11 or 12 I ever shot survived. 

DG


----------



## paracowboy (16 Aug 2005)

the side arm is pretty much irrelevent. If you intend to be carrying one as a primary weapon, you'd best focus on becoming an MP.


----------



## Kal (16 Aug 2005)

Expat said:
			
		

> When I shot a 9mm loaner I had a hard time trigering 40 pound flipers from falling over. How is the stoping power ?



               I used to be more concerned with the caliber I was firing, than shot placement.   I am now a shot placement guy.   This is much more important with pistol rounds because they suck terminally compared to rifle rounds.   A well placed .38 special is better than a poorly placed .45 ACP, IMHO.   When training now, I'll shoot for 'instant stops'.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (16 Aug 2005)

I don't think the side arm is useless. It's applicable to certain types of soldiers and units. Look at the troops fighting in Falluja, close quarters, your primary fails what are you going to do? C-6 gunners still need em, even though they have a # 2 with them. And of course, you know it, SOA's on the Hill, it's very practical for them. And one final thing the browning sucks ass!  ​


----------



## Strike (16 Aug 2005)

We carry the 9mm on deployments.  We are also issued a C7 though.

Generally, aircrew in the tac hel world will carry both, as well as officers and some NCOs.

I agree with the last post though -- the Browning sucks.  I could throw it with better accuracy.

I know that Sea King crews have carried Sig Sauers in the past.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Aug 2005)

BITTER PPCLI CPL said:
			
		

> I And one final thing the browning sucks ass!  ​





			
				Strike said:
			
		

> I agree with the last post though -- the Browning sucks.   I could throw it with better accuracy.



You guys should rephrase to say "the vast majority of the Brownings in the CF suck". Other than that, the Hi-Power is a very tried and true, accurate weapon. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a tight, accurized Hi-Power. Not the first choice of some of course, but still effective.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Aug 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> the side arm is pretty much irrelevent. If you intend to be carrying one as a primary weapon, you'd best focus on becoming an MP.



Or join the Navy, volunteer to become part of the Naval Landing and Boarding Party where the Sig Sauer P225 is the standard issue sidearm for all members of the team.


----------



## Acorn (17 Aug 2005)

The problem with the Brownings is that they're tired. Those on pistol teams get tuned weapons, the rest of us have to pick one out of the box-o-Brownings, resulting in pretty iffy scores for basic range practice. I'm long out of practice, but the one time I shot Browning for score I shot near-perfect (62 of a max of 64, IIRC). I was the lucky one that got the good pistol from the box.

Overall the Browning is a very good weapon, but it is dated (the first ones used by CF were in WWII, and current inventory most date from the 1960s). Various Sig Sauer models are in use with some service members, but the "regular" army uses the Browning still. 

I also agree with B PPCLI C that a sidearm is a good idea in many (most) cases. I can't say from personal experience, so I'm sure the real soldiers will whack me back in my lane, but those real soldiers I know have a different IA than what I was taught - no more "cock-cant-look" (sorry, dating myself with SMG  drills), now it's draw the sidearm and continue putting rounds in the direction of the enemy. Makes sense to me. 'Course I'm more likely to be in the way when the real shooting starts.

Acorn


----------



## Fdtrucker (17 Aug 2005)

Shooting the Browning  Hi-Power for accuracy is still the person who is squeeze the trigger. Alot of this is Principles of Markmanship and not the handgun being used. I have have being firing the Browning for at least 16 years and still qual PWT1-3 with a 2 inch group from the 25 m mark. There are alot of pers who are firing pistol for the first time or after many years and complaining about the Browning. I have gone up against personnel firing the Sig and beat their score with the Browning. The weapon is robust and can handle alot of crap. Some pers only touch this pistol in a blue moon, while i constantly shoot my CZ75 9mm at the range. Last year I qual with Browning that came from War Storage because they had WW2 (Chinese, Russian and English lettering) marking on them


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Aug 2005)

Personally, I like the HP...especially the "new" ones just recentyly pulled out of war stock...I shot one a few weeks ago prepping to got to Kabul and I was very happy with it.  The 'newer' ones are nice and tight, full bluing with barely any visible wear on the slide or the receiver....also no clinking and rattling when the action was forward.  I was pulling 130-140mm groupings at 25m...she's a pretty hard weapon to muck up...I'd take it over a 226 any day...personal preference I suppose.  Although many lads use 226 the HP Mk1 still is used by some "double-tapper" units...there must be a reason for it.  I'd like to try the Browning DA, see how a double-action version of the HP shoots.

Of course a C8 or M4A1 would be like more usefull with rounds inbound, but I wouldn't mind having the HP as my sidearm.

Duey


----------



## Strike (17 Aug 2005)

> I shot one a few weeks ago prepping to got to Kabul



Oh Duey...does that mean that you are only pretending to fly?  Playing with those little toys?

Personally, I am more comfortable shooting a rifle.  Maybe because I had some Boatswain teaching me how to aim when I went for my first pistol shoot.  I had scored 100% the day before with a rifle and this guy was there.  I don't think it's the aiming that I'm having problems with.  Turned me off the damn things.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Aug 2005)

Strike said:
			
		

> Oh Duey...does that mean that you are only pretending to fly?   Playing with those little toys?
> 
> Personally, I am more comfortable shooting a rifle.   Maybe because I had some Boatswain teaching me how to aim when I went for my first pistol shoot.   I had scored 100% the day before with a rifle and this guy was there.   I don't think it's the aiming that I'm having problems with.   Turned me off the darn things.



 ;D

Strike, I'm just making myself happy with the little things in life until someone gets me that big honk-arse helo that the CDS keeps referring to.  I was attempting a "lateral arabesque" to pass neatly over the Griffon and land in the cockpit of "whatever large, very large helo can have M134 7.62mm mini-guns bristling from it, yet still be able to put at least 20,000 lbs on the (3?) hooks".  Problem is, it's taken a bit longer for whatever beast we're getting to show up...so my lateral arabesque is now looking like an ugainly swan dive...oh well, so long as they hurry up and get that Chinook err...helicopter that fully meets the operational requirement.   8)

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2005)

The CF PWT system for pistol a joke.  A blind man with his dead dog shooting for him could pass.

 Biggest problem with the issue BHP is the mag safety - this thing is a hazard to navigation -- best bet is to pull them out (they dont do jack or shit other than make you put a LOADED mag back intoa  clear gun to fire it anyway) - then the gun is back to a simple signel action system just like the C7/C8.  Decent sights and you've got a good combat gun into the next millenuim.  I consistantly FAIL to understand why the CF has not made it FACT to pull them out -- come on the RCMP ERT guys pull their out of the 5946's - and the BHP works much better (mags fall out when ejected) with it gone.


*Did I mention I shoot a Sig  ;D

Either or - both are solid systems.


----------



## COBRA-6 (20 Aug 2005)

But without the browning what willl the other nations have to make fun of us over?? "That is your pistol?? Do you throw it at the enemy?? Seriously that is not something you issue to a first world army..."


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Aug 2005)

SAS still uses both the BHP and 226...not sure that 22nd Reqt is "third world"....


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2005)

Every Single Belgian Para had a BHP.  I dont see them as third world... (albiet their Night figthing capability makes then look as such...)
 Problem is many of the IN SERVICE guns are worn out / have bad mags etc.

No one is documenting these issues higher - heck the LCMM asked for UCR's or other issues on them two years ago.

 One of the 1VP WO's submitted a UCR after Kosovo about the pistol - however no one seem to action complaints...


----------



## Gunnerlove (20 Aug 2005)

Nothing lasts forever. 

Now while I prefer polymer framed auto pistols the BHP is and will remain an effective pistol for years to come. The fact that they are still being made and sold to consumers despite all of the other options on the market shows their continued relevance today.

The problem with our pistols is the same problem we have with everything else in the forces. We totally use up what we have in circulation while brand new items sit in warehouses as "war stock". Then when the highpower is retired due to "reliability issues" we will be destroying used pistols along with brand new ones.

We are spending dollars to save dimes. Always have and always will.


----------



## ArmyAviator (23 Aug 2005)

The Hi power was a great weapon but it has been overrun by technology.  The old single action, single sided safety catch, requires more trg than most units give/get to carry it safely in a cocked and locked state (and for a lefty it would be unsafe).  Yes a tuned up Hi-power is a good weapon.  Agreed shot placement is more important than anything else when it comes to pistols: they are all under powered when compared to an assault rifle.  However, technology is out there that make modern pistols easier to shoot adequately for the average user and reduce some of the training time required to safely carry a weapon with "one up the spout". 

If they want to keep the browning the CF should modify them with the light double action hammer and trigger group (A la the Para-Ordnance LDA) and an ambidextrous safety (important even for right handed shooters).  If not, sell them off and issue out the Sigs.


----------



## KevinB (24 Aug 2005)

AA - I will dispute you comments a bit.

 Ambi Safeties are available - as are Night Sights - these could easily bring the BHP back into the modern way.

Secondly while I dont like Glocks as much as Sig's, the G17 is a much better pistol for the CF (its cheap too)
 It is the "perfect stupid persons gun"
 Drawn gun - pull trigger - go bang - repeat as necessary - reload and reholster.

The Decocker on the Sig and the DA/SA trigger chnage from first to second shot does not make it a great gun to train people on a limited trg budget/timeframe.  I've seen a number of Sig users attemtp to reholster a gun still cocked -as they where not familiar enough with the system to use it safely.

IMHO while it may be cheaper to fix the BHP's (mag safety removed, ambi safety, night sights) the problem with the mags in the system,the lack of a real holster for them - and general poor knowledge in the CF about the use of them - We'd be better suited by getting the G17.


I dont want to go down the Para Ord road - they have poor QC and the LDA systems have not held up well -- Browning now makes a DA version of the BHP but why try to reibuild them


----------



## paracowboy (24 Aug 2005)

gotta agree with Kev. I prefer the Sig (he says, like he's some sort of expert), but the Glock is the better choice for a military like ours, that refuses to admit that soldiers require time with a weapon to learn how to use it. Fewer buttons and levers. Draw gun, point gun, pull trigger, throw gun, die in place because you didn't learn how to aim gun.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (24 Aug 2005)

KB. is your 226 a 9mm or .40 S&W. I'm going to purchase a 226, right now I'm just getting people's own opinion and experiance first!


----------



## KevinB (24 Aug 2005)

You can find 9mm at any wide spot in the road, anywhere...  

 I have no use for .40 - its expensive to train with and in the event the world comes to an end, hard to find...


----------



## ArmyAviator (24 Aug 2005)

> AA - I will dispute you comments a bit.
> 
> Ambi Safeties are available - as are Night Sights - these could easily bring the BHP back into the modern way.



No dispute here.   I know they have them available commercially.   Can I get it in the CF?   (Not a comment; a true question.   Can the armourers do this mod?)

Glocks:   100% agreement.   They are the closest things to "Pilot Proof".   (Yes I know I'm slamming my own MOC ;D but we get very little trg time and not any real instruction on shooting techniques other than how to put rounds into a figure 11 and not put one in your foot.   Even then I don't trust some of my compatriots not to put a round in my foot .   This is one of the reasons I took up IPSC and IDPA shooting, plus I just enjoy shooting.)



> Draw gun, point gun, pull trigger, throw gun, die in place because you didn't learn how to aim gun.


 ROLFLMAO :blotto:


----------



## KevinB (24 Aug 2005)

Weapons Techs - could do the mod (it would be in theory illegal) I tried to get a tech to drift out the front sight and replace it with a Novak Trijicon front - but no dice.

 We deactivated a few mag safeties when the original Dart ('96) stood up - but they went back to issue state pretty quick when someone found out.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Aug 2005)

AA, KevinB, re: decocking and mags to do so (unless you have a ridiculously long scrawny finger than can find its way up the BHP's ubt and decock without the risk of an ND from inserting a still loaded mag, etc...  

I suppose I'm old school, but I'd go BDA9 (to have the BHP with the newer DA and decocking function), and to be honest, my jury is still out on what I'd take next...17, 226 or 92F...all nice pistols.  Probably lean towards a 226 for commonality but haveing shot all three I like the Glock 17 for sheer idiot-proofness (as AA alluded to), the 92F shoots AND looks nice...the 226 shoots decently but it looks butt ugly...although there a lot of other users out there and armr support is probably pretty decent.


p.s.  anybody running a hip or thigh holster for the BHP in theatre...I'm thinking that the bra aircrew holster they gave me, which I've never liked anyway, is more of a hinderence than anything...I was thinking of a nice, discrete pancake hip holster that isn't overtly obvious under a slightly looser cbt shirt...?  Bueller? Bueller?  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## KevinB (25 Aug 2005)

As far as holster go - I've gone Kydex and wont go back (unless somethign extremely revolutionary comes out)  They hold the gun so much more securely.  For belt (semi concealed or concealed usage) I would go with Blade-Tech as they make an excellent rig 

 I dont like 92-F's I sold my first years ago to an Ottawa Cop (who is still abuddy so he obviously likes it) They are good for suppressing and in that use it can find a role (albiet in Secret Squirrle Camp).  None of the new Browning desings have done well, so thats why I am for adopting a proven system (Glock or Sig.)


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Aug 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> As far as holster go - I've gone Kydex and wont go back (unless somethign extremely revolutionary comes out)   They hold the gun so much more securely.   For belt (semi concealed or concealed usage) I would go with Blade-Tech as they make an excellent rig
> 
> I dont like 92-F's I sold my first years ago to an Ottawa Cop (who is still abuddy so he obviously likes it) They are good for suppressing and in that use it can find a role (albiet in Secret Squirrle Camp).   None of the new Browning desings have done well, so thats why I am for adopting a proven system (Glock or Sig.)



Kevin, which model of Kydex did you get?  Was it for the BHP...their stuff seems only to list for Berretta, Glock and SIG...?  ???

Thanks,
Duey


----------



## KevinB (25 Aug 2005)

Blade Tech Inside the Waist Band Holster

 They make them for many models...  
They have them for BHP's - I got an OD version - it is not ideal under a combat shirt unless you leave two buttons undone.  I got it for a course that I had to carry concelead on - I've used it at work but w/o a cbt shirt on. 

 I think for the sort of role I envision pilot (stepping out of lane) a belt mounted 6280 (the belt version of the 6004) would work.  I despise shoulder holsters - as they pretty much require breaking the laser rule suring the draw.  But I can see why some (crewmen etc.) may like them.

 In armour you will need some drop so a high riding 6004 will work well (cinch it up and only use the bottom leg strap - the top would be too high)  Consensus over at Lightfighter driven by real shooters was this was the way to go -- I tried it and it does much better than the lower leg mounted way (at least for me).


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Aug 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Blade Tech Inside the Waist Band Holster
> 
> They make them for many models...
> They have them for BHP's - I got an OD version - it is not ideal under a combat shirt unless you leave two buttons undone.   I got it for a course that I had to carry concelead on - I've used it at work but w/o a cbt shirt on.
> ...



Thanks Kevin, that looks about right.   I'll be mingling with others, not legging it on partol , so it's more to make sure I have something on me but not look like Dirty Harry packing an arsenal...cheers!  p.s. I also may look at the outside-belt version.

Duey


----------



## paracowboy (25 Aug 2005)

gentlemen, you do realize that you may be setting yourselves up for some serious legal issues by concealing your sidearms while in uniform?  
I can't say yea/nay definitely, but I do recall a huge stink a few years ago, with soldiers 'concealing' sidearms. Something about *Soldiers in Uniform * (dah dah daaah!) having to carry arms openly, or else be liable to charges of espionage or some such. 

If anybody does check, wouldja mind letting me know how it turns out?


----------



## KevinB (25 Aug 2005)

AFAIK there is nothing prohibiting soldier from carrying (issue) pistols while in Uniform - some hubbub I knwo of was when a 2VP (Roto 7)attached Artillery Reserve Officer was carrying it concealed while out of uniform and attempting to do operations with other forces etc.

 If you are not in uniform and carrying arms concelead you no longer have Geneva and Hague convention protection (big fat hairy deal in the theatre of operations) the authority for those sort of ops comes from higher.


----------



## paracowboy (25 Aug 2005)

I remember now, someone decided that it violates the Hague Convention. La!


> Laws of War :
> Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899
> The Convention
> 
> ...


 Thus, any soldier caught with a 'concealed' sidearm is not legally required to receive proper treatment under the Geneva Conventions. Considering that none of our enemies since WW II have ever been signatories...
I don't know if that has been declared official policy.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Aug 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> gentlemen, you do realize that you may be setting yourselves up for some serious legal issues by concealing your sidearms while in uniform?
> I can't say yea/nay definitely, but I do recall a huge stink a few years ago, with soldiers 'concealing' sidearms. Something about *Soldiers in Uniform * (dah dah daaah!) having to carry arms openly, or else be liable to charges of espionage or some such.
> 
> If anybody does check, wouldja mind letting me know how it turns out?



PC, not to go into too much but subdued (not concealed) carry is part of my skit...JAG already made sure I and others are suited up doing what we'll be doing to ensure compliance with G.C. and other LOAC policies.   I would be considered an identifiable combatant according to Ch 1 of the G.C.(note Art.13, Para. 1 says nothing about having to openly carry weapons...you are identified through uniform and insignia)   Article 13 provides greater detail of individuals not belonging to the armed forces of one of the combatant forces (including inhabitants taking up arms in the conflict) and provides details as follows:   

Chapter 1 of the Geneva Convention (c. 1949)


> Article 13 (to Chapter 1)
> 
> The present Convention shall apply to the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea belonging to the following categories:
> 
> ...



2 more  ¢

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## TCBF (25 Aug 2005)

It doesn't mean you have to carry ALL arms openly.  You can still have stuff in your pouches and ruck, covered by other gear, etc.  Spirit of the law, and all that. 

Tom


----------



## garb811 (25 Aug 2005)

> Laws of War :
> Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899
> The Convention
> 
> ...


In other words, provided a militia or volunteer corps meets those four conditions, they are to be treated as if they were a regular army.  So, if they are captured, they are to be considered prisoners of war, If they fail to meet any of these conditions, then the laws, rights and duties of war do not apply.  As Duey pointed out, you're already clearly identified as a member of an Army provided you are in uniform.


----------



## paracowboy (25 Aug 2005)

I'm not worried about them being captured, or any other enemy action. It's our side, that I'm concerned with. I'm worried about some crusty ol' Sar'nt-Major comin' down on 'em like a...well, like a crusty ol' Sarn't-Major.

Personally, as far as the Conventions and Protocols go, I see no reason why we can't carry concealed, since they (the Conventions and Protocols) clearly state that weapons MAY be carried so, until such time as you commence hostile actions. In other words, you can legally carry subguns stuffed in your pants ("Why yes, ma'am, that is all me. Yup, my package. Signed for it an' everything.") and as long as you carry them openly *before you open fire*, you're good. I learned that and a lot of sneaky stuff from a couple of very devious JAG-types (or is that a redundancy?) on the Law of Armed Conflict course. 

But, it was dinosaurs with just enough knowledge to be dangerous that caused the kerfuffle I'm thinknig about.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Aug 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I'm not worried about them being captured, or any other enemy action. It's our side, that I'm concerned with. I'm worried about some crusty ol' Sar'nt-Major comin' down on 'em like a...well, like a crusty ol' Sarn't-Major.
> 
> Personally, as far as the Conventions and Protocols go, I see no reason why we can't carry concealed, since they (the Conventions and Protocols) clearly state that weapons MAY be carried so, until such time as you commence hostile actions. In other words, you can legally carry subguns stuffed in your pants ("Why yes, ma'am, that is all me. Yup, my package. Signed for it an' everything.") and as long as you carry them openly *before you open fire*, you're good. I learned that and a lot of sneaky stuff from a couple of very devious JAG-types (or is that a redundancy?) on the Law of Armed Conflict course.
> 
> But, it was dinosaurs with just enough knowledge to be dangerous that caused the kerfuffle I'm thinknig about.



PC, quite true..."we have seen the enemy, and it is us."  ;D  Always lots of little things that baby-JAGgers will tell you on the sly while [_toungue in cheek, totally unfair stereotyping_] the bigger folks sit back and have a $20 stogey and think about ways to spend their $145K+/yr all from the comfort of their office on the muddy Rideau.[/_toungue in cheek unfair stereotyping_]  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Aug 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Overall the Browning is a very good weapon, but it is dated (the first ones used by CF were in WWII, and current inventory most date from the Acorn



All John Inglis Browning 9mm High Powers were made in Ontario during the Second World War (along with Cdn made BREN LMGs - not bad for a washing machine company, eh), first being produced in Jan 1944. Production on the Inglis T series pistol ceased after the war. Serial numbers range from 0T followed by 3 to 4 didgets, to 10T with four didgets. In the early 1980's FN herstal '2 piece' barrels began to appear after older Inglis ones had been cracking from the hot Cdn IVI loads.

As for the 9mm ctg, after the cracking of bbls in the early 1908s, the CF had decided to have a cartridge specific for the pistol, as yes the SMG 9mm rd used was one of the hottest loads ever made, and had even earned the reputation of mangling German P-08 'Luger' pistols the Lads had souvenired and were 'using' duing the last war.

A different ctg ID number (cartridges for weapons UN.....), you know that UN number on the ammo tins, which are NATO std, was used for the two different types of IVI 9mm ammo for the pistol and the C1 SMG. They even use these codes here. After I left the CF in Jan of 1995, I have no idea about ammo in the CF system now, and I don't even know if IVI is even making 9 x19mm anymore.


----------



## KevinB (25 Aug 2005)

IVI still makes 9mm    at least we have not fully pissed away our arms and ammo industry.


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Aug 2005)

;D


----------



## Acorn (26 Aug 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> As for the 9mm ctg, after the cracking of bbls in the early 1908s, the CF had decided to have a cartridge specific for the pistol, as yes the SMG 9mm rd used was one of the hottest loads ever made, and had even earned the reputation of mangling German P-08 'Luger' pistols the Lads had souvenired and were 'using' duing the last war.



I last fired 9mm in the 80s (OK, I last "officially" did) and don't remember different pistol/SMG rounds. I do remember some problems with the IVI 9mm sometimes being too powerful for the pistol (personally never experienced any bbl cracking though) and sometimes being too weak for the SMG. I was warned about the problem with using MilSpec IVI ball with the Luger (the aramture cocking mech was pretty delicate) and I even had a "reputable" gun dealer warn me that my 1944 P-38 was suceptable to the same problem - yeah, right. The P-38 I had was one of the best pistols I ever fired, and certainly the best I ever owned. It's only flaw was, IMO, the 8 rd mag. Otherwise it was ahead of its time - de-cocking mech, double action, safety locked firing pin and even a little tit that stuck out in the vic of the hammer to indicate if a round was in the chamber.

If I have one regret about divesting myself of my various firearms, it is losing that one - matching serial nos, "AC" (Karl Walther Waffenfabrik) mfg code, almost mint condition (original bluing with slight holster wear).

Acorn

P.S. You guys are scaring my bride. I'm starting to get enthused about firearms again (after about a 10 year hiatus) and am starting to try to convince her that they aren't the tool of the devil, and we wouldn't be harmed by having a couple around the house - strategically placed, of course.


----------



## KevinB (26 Aug 2005)

Bring her to the Range - we are shooting at the club Sat 0900-1500 at the ATS.  I'm sure one of us will have a plethora of "loaners" you and she could shoot.  Maybe not this w/e IIRC your domestic 'schedule' - but sometime that works...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Aug 2005)

Let's keep the thread on track gents


----------



## Popurhedoff (21 Nov 2006)

How good is this sidearm?

Attributes:

Trigger - Single action, heavy, narrow trigger design.  When a heavy trigger pull is accompanied with a narrow trigger it is very easy for a novice shooter to pull his/hers shot low and to the strong side.  

Sights - fixed rear, narrow front blade- non field adjustable.  Front blade is "peened" into place, narrow blade requires extra concentration to properly align sights - hard to do under pressure for novice shooter.  Front sight is susceptible to being knocked out of position and/or lost.

Magazine Disconnector - does not allow user to operate pistol during any magazine change but especically during an emergency magazine change with a round in the chamber - it renders the pistol useless for this period of time.  Most personnel are not trained in performing emergency magazine changes... if at all.

Safety- non ambidextrous - as with any mechanical device, they can fail, more frequently the safeties will fail in the on position, they tend to stick on and/or are hard to manipulate into the fire mode... time is life, if it fails at the wrong time...

Magazines - feed lips bent out of tolerances, no magazine feed lip mandrels available - magazines out of tolerance induce the majority of the "Failure to Fire" due to double feeds and stovepiping.

Training 

Most personnel get 32 rounds per year to qualify.  As Infidel 6 has mentioned the PWT is not a realistic test for the users... the enemy will not stand completely still while you are complete exposed and be allowed to take your time.   The BHP requires a lot of rounds for the user to become proficient. Also personnel are not trained in the following:

Shooting at multiple threats
Shooting with strong or weak hands
Shooting on the move
Shooting from cover (barricades, doors and windows)
Shooting on the move (forward, rearward and lateral movement while shooting)
Drawing the weapon from a holster into immediate action, or proper use of the holster
Drawing from a holster while seated in an aircraft, vehicle, or room.
The different carry states, and how it ratchet from each state into action (chambered, cocked and safetied, unchambered, magazine inserted,  chambered and safety off (Hot))


Ancillary Equipment - Holsters

I have been issued a variety of holster over the years.  The underarm shoulder holster - unless it is worn over and is completely exposed, the user will not have quick access to it,  Hip holster with drop leg extension, flag cover and/or thumb break.  These all have their purposes but must be understood properly...

example... underarm shoulder holster - good for most aircrew, less physical restrictions making for easier flying. Now lets load that pistol... how do you carry it?  are you chambered? cocked and locked?  where is it pointed?  to the crew and passengers in the rear...  Logic says do not chamber a round...

I like the BHP and have owned one myself, but it is not a pistol that the novice shooter should have to rely on in an emergency.  Some say that if you have to use your pistol then you are already in a world of hurt... I believe that if you have to use your pistol, one should know how to use it effectively and efficiently.

With the above pistol attributes, the Browning High Power requires more training that the newer pistols, so the pistol, the holsters, and the training or lack thereof  combined make for a very poor self defense weapons system.  All of shortcoming can be overcome with the proper training.

Is is a good sidearm?  Yes... for us.. NO!

I have owned/own the Sig Sauer P226, BHP, CZ75B. Glock 17, Glock 17C, SA XD40 Tactical, Norinco NP30 Double stack .45 ACP with a couple more pistols currently on order.  I shoot approx 20-30000 rounds a year for training and competition.


----------

