9mm 1911. What do you all say?

[jetinteriorguy]

Thanks for the info, interesting to know. I don’t shoot it much but do like the pistol. Most of my 9mm shooting is handled by my CZ75B-SA and my SA Hellcat since it’s my CC. I do also like my RIA 1911 in 9mm but don’t shoot it a lot either, I really need to rectify that situation since it’s a great little shooter.

 

[Jim Watson]

You said it yourself. They have thin frames, they shoot loose fairly easily, they can’t really be checkered due to how thin the frame is.

They weren’t even rated for +P ammo. Durable and robust aren’t words I’d use to describe the Hi Power

Anecdote Alert

I recall a couple of comments by users to that effect.
A Canadian said that the military match there required the standard pistol, no improvements allowed, "you may not even whip the grip with cord." It was not allowed to tighten the fit and it wouldn't do any good anyhow, it would soon shoot loose.

Jan Stevenson or one of his contributors referred to "the infamous Two Zed ammunition that eats Brownings."
But his coauthor used a tuned Browning for all purposes, competition, carry, and training. It did require maintenance and repair, he did have to replace his refined sear.

 

[rock185]

An interesting and wide ranging discussion, so I'll share my 2¢ worth. I've been a fan of the Hi Power since the '60s, and have owned I don't know how many. They are a great pistol IMHO, but I would not describe them as particularly "heavy duty". In Olden Days, I shot all manner of ammo in some of mine, including hand loads that would probably be considered +P or +P+ now. I suffered no catastrophic failures, but admit I'm more circumspect now days about what ammo I use in Hi Powers. The slides and frames are a bit on the thin side, but the potential Achilles Heal I think about most is the barrel cam in the frame. I've seen the ugly photos of broken cams, and reports of the difficulty and expense of replacing them.

I have a 9mm 1911 or two. I'm not at all offended by the extra steel in these as compared to many other 9mm pistols. Kinda like all that extra steel in N-Frame S&Ws chambered in .38 Spcl. or .357. All that extra steel in the 1911 equates to soft recoil, even with the most energetic 9mm ammunition, and no concerns at all about durability. I've found the modern 9mm 1911s with the integrally ramped barrels, and using the excellent 9mm magazines available now days, has resulted in my 9mm 1911s being as reliable as 1911s chambered in the "proper" .45 ACP or 38 Super cartridges. Life is good..

 

[rc]

Hi Powers and 1911s, two great guns designed primarily by 1 great genius. I agree with many of the sentiments of other posters and have some observations to share.

1. Agreed, the 9mm hi power is in general more reliable than a 9mm 1911.
2. Ramped 1911s have helped increase reliability of 1911s with 9mm but the extra space in the magazine is an issue.
3. The 1911 trigger is better and more robust with the Sturrup around the magazine contributing to a smooth straight pull to the sear rather than the funny link in the slide required for the hi power.
4. Hi power magazine disconnects crap up the Hi Power trigger and the guns work better without them.
5. Slide mass is a factor in 1911 reliability. Shorter barrel 1911s with less slide mass run better in 9mm than full sized guns.

 

[44 AMP]

Hi Powers and 1911s, two great guns designed primarily by 1 great genius.

The 1911 is entirely Browning's work.

Browning designed the prototype P.35, then passed away. The design was finished by FN engineers, and made to include features demanded by the French, who, after the gun was made the way they wanted, declined to purchase any.

FN named the pistol the Browning Hi Power "out of respect for Mr Browning" and no doubt to help with its market appeal.

Other than the initial prototype pistol (and perhaps a tool room gun or two) Browning had nothing to do with the finished gun, and if you look at pictures of the prototype, compared to the production Hi Power, that is obvious.

 

[wild cat mccane]

I saw the Power cloner right now just released a "lite" version the other day...if anyone is interested

 

[MarkCO]

Browning vs. 1911 debate, while interesting...

Still happy with my 9mm Bul 1911. It has about 5K through it, and accounts for about 60% of my shooting during recovery/rehab from the neck surgery over the last 8 months or so. It's soft, accurate and reliable.

I'd like to get one in 7.92x24.

I'm also still waiting for the 1.5 stack large frame 9mms to come out. Bueller? But Sig suing Springfield probably makes that a no-go for a while.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Isn't the Hi-Power basically a 1.5 stack?

 

[44 AMP]

Isn't the Hi-Power basically a 1.5 stack?

Double stack. 7 & 6 (13) and 7 & 8 (15). Definitely double stacked and since it is an odd number one stack is always going to be longer than the other.

 

[bac1023]

Isn't the Hi-Power basically a 1.5 stack?

No

 

[Aguila Blanca]

So then what's a "1.5 stack"? IIRC, the Hi-Power magazine doesn't double up as steeply as Glocks and double-stack 1911s I've seen.

 

[44 AMP]

So then what's a "1.5 stack"?

Who says there is such a thing?? 1 and a half stack sounds like something off an IHOP menu, not a magazine.

Any way you stack ammo, in a magazine, its either single stack or double stack, the only system I know of that might be argued to be more than that is the Calico magazine. Those are basically a series of rotary spool mags rows feeding through each other, quite different from conventional box magazines.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

So then what's a "1.5 stack"?

Who says there is such a thing?? 1 and a half stack sounds like something off an IHOP menu, not a magazine.

MarkCO, in post #147

I'm also still waiting for the 1.5 stack large frame 9mms to come out.

 

[MarkCO]

Who says there is such a thing?? 1 and a half stack sounds like something off an IHOP menu, not a magazine.

Any way you stack ammo, in a magazine, its either single stack or double stack,

Nope, but ignorance is bliss.

The SIG 365 Magazine has a portion that is single stack (top) and a portion that is double stack (bottom). It is a term that firearms design engineers have been using for quite some time.

There are a few magazine designs that are neither single stack, nor double stack, nor 1.5 stacks. Each cartridge only touches the one above it, but in a staggered manner allowing a thinner column and added capacity over a single stack.

 

[ballardw]

Any way you stack ammo, in a magazine, its either single stack or double stack, the only system I know of that might be argued to be more than that is the Calico magazine.

Kel-tec CP33 is very clearly a "quadruple stack". There is a divider post in the middle of the magazine that creates a left/right area that "double-stacks" on each side.

My thought, just being warped, is any magazine that does not feed from both sides of a "double-stack" such as most pistol mags is not a "true" double because of the funnel that reduces to a single feed position.

 

[Jim Watson]

Each cartridge only touches the one above it, but in a staggered manner allowing a thinner column and added capacity over a single stack.

I think that came in with the Savage pistols of 1907-1915; as best I can tell from pictures.

My thought, just being warped, is any magazine that does not feed from both sides of a "double-stack" such as most pistol mags is not a "true" double because of the funnel that reduces to a single feed position.

Not many pistols have double feed. The Mauser "Broomhandle" series and the Steyr P18 come to mind. Most pistols these days are offshoots of the BHP with center feed.
What possessed the Germans and British to use center feed submachine gun magazines escapes me; it was the weak point of MP40 and Sten.

 

[MarkCO]

Kel-tec CP33 is very clearly a "quadruple stack".

Yep. And the Surefire 60 and 100 rounds column magazines from around 2008 (or so).

I think that came in with the Savage pistols of 1907-1915; as best I can tell from pictures.

That is the first I am aware of. There are other staggered stacks around. Center-feed, double stack is what the vast majority of pistols that don't use single stacks, use. Two stacks, alternating their turn to the feed-lips, one almost always has one more round, as fully loaded, than the other.

 

[ballardw]

Not many pistols have double feed. The Mauser "Broomhandle" series and the Steyr P18 come to mind. Most pistols these days are offshoots of the BHP with center feed.

Grendel P30 / Kel-tec PMR30 only one comes to mind other than the modified rifle based pistol designs like AR and M1 carbine.

 

[Jim Watson]

I was playing with a magazine tube to see if 9mm would "semi-stagger" in a .45 body and gain a round of capacity. Probably not. It might work with cylindrical .38 Super Comp.

 

[Dashunde]

So what did the OP buy? Anything yet?
I have a few Dan Wessons in 45 and 10mm, I dont have a single 9mm at the moment but if I were to buy one it'd either be a DW with target sights or one of the high end CZ options as they're designed around the 9mm.