BHP vs. 1911 Popularity

[IanS]

Okay, we all know how popular 1911's are among the American shooting public. Whether you're a fan of the 1911 or not there's no denying 1911's make up for a huge chunk of the handgun market. But why don't BHP's seem to be nowhere near as popular as the 1911?

There aren't that many cocked and locked pistols out there and its essentially designed by JMB. The BHP isn't going to go away any time soon but its popularity or unpopularity seems disproportianate to the popularity of the 1911. It almost seems as if people who prefer a cocked and locked pistol mainly gravitate towards the 1911 in .45 while people who prefer DA/SA or Glock/XD pistols seem to be a bit more open to different calibers and brands.


Do you think it has to do more with the design or the fact they're only available in 9mm and .40 or both?

 

[Handy]

I don't think anyone really cares if JMB designed it or not.

There are plenty of 9mm platforms that offer cocked and locked carry. The BHP is a nice gun, but doesn't really stand out.

I think if the 1911 had more competition (single stack big bore with a light trigger), it would also be "just another .45".

 

[IanS]

I don't think anyone really cares if JMB designed it or not.

That's probably true. Its not like there's a strong contingent of JMB groupies out there. More like 1911 groupies and Colt groupies.

There are plenty of 9mm platforms that offer cocked and locked carry. The BHP is a nice gun, but doesn't really stand out.

Of the notable ones that would be CZ75B and H&K USP. But what else is out there that is a real competition to the BHP? And doesn't the USP especially appeal to a slightly different market? The CZ may be arguably "better or equal" to the BHP but it suffers from a public image problem of being obscure or not as high quality as the BHP.

I don't know how other people think but if I was in the market for a cocked and locked 9mm pistol the BHP is pretty much the first and only pistol I think of.

 

[Handy]

Star B, Sig 210, Astra, Taurus and older Berettas, Witness, etc.

But I don't think that "cocked and locked" is really that popular on its own as a feature. It is more part of the cult of the 1911, along with .45 hardball, grip safeties, sling shot slide releases and sliding triggers. Those who adore the 1911 also love its picadillos - citing them as desirable. But almost none of those features engender much following in other platforms.

In other words, if the 1911 was intrinsically perfect, a gun like the Beretta 92, which is almost completely un-1911 like, would be hated. But it isn't.

For those who desire a cocked and locked 9mm, plenty exist. But I think most people desiring that carry mode also desire a number of other things that usually equal a 1911.

 

[auto45]

Poor trigger compared to a 1911 IMO.

If it were better, you would see a lot more BHP's in the gun games with a 9 or 40.

Nice guns though!!

 

[CastleBravo]

I think I have a partial answer.

A *BIG* reason the 1911 is popular is the trigger system. Even factory 1911s generally have a nicer trigger pull than most other designs. And even if you are very picky, there are lots of gunsmiths who can give your 1911 a superlative trigger. Heck, you can usually just send it to the manufacturer's custom shop to do that for you.

On the other hand, the stock BHP trigger pull generally stinks. It is in no way comparable to even an average factory 1911 trigger pull. And if you want to improve it, there are nowhere near as many gunsmiths who are truly good at working on BHP triggers.

The BHP has alot of excellent qualities. But the factory trigger stinks, and I suspect a big reason people gravitate to the 1911 is for the nice trigger system.

 

[IanS]

Star B, Sig 210, Astra, Taurus and older Berettas, Witness, etc.

Again, those are fairly obscure or too expensive for most people. Not the typical guns you would find new or used on the shelves of your local gunstore. Someone has to really seek them out; either special order them or search for them on internet gun auctions.


I'm not saying that BHP's should be as popular as the 1911 just a lot more popular than they are now.

True, the BHP doesn't have a great stock trigger and its more difficult to improve. But is the trigger that much worse than a CZ, USP, or other 9mm/.40 guns that are potential alternatives to the BHP?

Of all the guns out there isn't the BHP closest in sharing the things that makes the 1911 so appealing to people?

 

[Handy]

Taurus, Witness and CZ are "expensive and obscure"?


I think CBs point is well made. BHP triggers can be cleaned up pretty well, but out of the box are rather horrible. Couple that with price, the obscurities above and "the real deal" (1911) and there ends up being little STRONG reason to go with the BHP in an overwhelming way.

They still have their proponents, but they fail to strongly distinguish themselves in the market.

 

[IanS]

Taurus, Witness and CZ are "expensive and obscure"?

I was mainly talking about the Astras, P210, and older Berettas you mentioned. The Taurus, Witness, and CZ (which I mentioned) justifiably or not seem to be perceived as "budget" guns by the general shooting public. How often does a person who can afford a new BHP ponder getting a Taurus as an alternative? Wouldn't they more likely look towards something like the USP/USPc or a 1911 in 9mm?

 

[Handy]

Currently, I'd say the CZ product is considered to be a dark horse 1st tier gun. I don't know if I agree with that, but as the public allows CZ prices to creep into the $400 range, it becomes a direct competitor. Especially the more premium models offered. Then the price difference is no longer considered indicative of quality, but of value - which further hurts BHP sales.


What do you like about the gun some much that would make it an obviously better choice than a CZ-75 with the SA trigger? Are any of those things obvious to the average guy looking through the display case glass?

 

[mtnbkr]

Triggers

I've only shot a few 1911s and none had tuned triggers, so I'm probably working from a bad sample. That said, the Star BM and imported Beretta 92F I used to own had better SA triggers than any 1911 I've shot. Both were light and crisp. Heck, they had better SA trigger pulls than many revolvers I've shot. Both were amazing, but neither fit my needs.

Chris

 

[OBIWAN]

The BHP is simply not trendy

Almost perfect otherwise IMHO

 

[gak]

Handy, both the BHP and 1911 are excellent, but if anything--and this is highly subjective to each person--the ergonomics, grip, etc., on the BHP are superlative...and this is where most BHP fans lie...stellar grip that fits "just so" for a lot of people--right out of the box. Feels right at home the moment you first touch it. Some have even said, trigger aside, the BHP was Browning doing the 1911 one better in overall design/operation. CZ is close but a little chunkier in the grip dept (still very nice/better than 95% out there and fitting all but the smallest of hands) and it's DA reach is a little long (on the standard/old style CZs to date) for those of modest hand size. Admittedly, the BHP doesn't have a DA pull!

The BHP magically proved once and for all (and continues) how to make a nice slim, ergonomic grip that fits a variety of hands with a double-stack mag. No it is not super high capacity like newer designs out there...but nonethless, 13 of 9mm or 10 of .40 isn't bad with so slim a grip. (Their short-lived BDM DA 9mm was even better with a full 15! Still just about the best IMO and proving it wasn't just because of the BHP1935's lower (13) capacity that it had such a nice grip). Browning "somehow" pulled this grip(s) off while Beretta 92, Taurus, Ruger, etc., kept coming up with super chunky grips (by comparison) with their double stacks. No one else seemed to be able to crack the code! Thus--the ergonomics--one reason the love affair some (actually many, just not as many as the 1911) have with the BHP.

 

[natedog]

What do you like about the gun some much that would make it an obviously better choice than a CZ-75 with the SA trigger?

The BHP is lighter, thinner, and overall slightly more compact. It fits my hands better.

In addition, it isn't painful to look at like the CZs.

 

[crysour]

Another reason for the 1911's popularity may lie in the fact that it has a large amount of aftermarket options available for it. At least in my case, fiddling around with my 1911, tweaking it both mechanically and aesthetically is one of the principal pleasures associated with the gun. I love my hi-power but it does not offer the same options.

 

[Dave Sample]

My pal Don Williams of the Action Works, does Hi-Powers right. I love the feel of his well tuned triggers and I really like the grip on these little guns. I have never been a .380 Magnum fan and that is the reason I do not have one. Also, there are so many crap copies of them it is hard to know what you are getting. They have moved the caliber up to .40 Short and Weak, which I am underwhelmed by. The trigger /sear engagement and the way the parts fit are a total nightmare to me and I never had the time to waste on getting to know them when I can have the same load in a Star BM or BKM. I can tweak those!

 

[DAVID NANCARROW]

I believe four things worked against the Hi Power vs the 1911A1 popularity.

1. The caliber. Say what you want about how effective the 9MM is/was, but
I believe there was a prejudice against the 9 for decades.

2. Foreign manufacture, not to mention the Hi Power was introduced during
the depression.

3. The trigger action.

4. The 1911 had nearly a quarter century head start, the HP was not that
big of an improvement, and the 1911 was common-between the civilian
manufacture and "liberated" military issue, it was THE big bore
autoloader.

 

[Wildalaska]

Ah yes the BHP:

On my hip right now

WildmyfavAlaska

 

[HSMITH]

I just don't like the BHP style guns. They don't fit my hand, are big and heavy for a 9mm, and I don't like the appearance. It is all about personal opinion, not right and wrong.

 

[IanS]

I understand many of the arguments so far. But this was never meant to be a strict 1911 vs. BHP thread to determine which one is "better". My question was why cocked and locked fans seem to not be able to appreciate other designs that seem compatible witht the 1911. They seem to have "no use" for the 9mm or .40 cartridge (defense, plinking, or otherwise). No use for double stack capacity. And no use for a slightly more compact pistol. The BHP may have an inferior trigger out of the box but it also offers things that the 1911 doesn't. Its true the 1911 is also available in Commander, Officer length, aluminum framed, double stack polymer, 9mm, .40, 10mm, 9X23 models. But they also have inherent disadvantages like more recoil and reliability issues because they're modification to the original design. The BHP seems like a good "addition" or "option" for 1911 fans but what I can't understand is why many seem to simply shun them.

On the other hand, with Glock or SIG fans (for example) they seem to be more open to getting full size, compact, subcompact, single stack, double stack, polymer, all steel, aluminum, 9mm, .40, .357, 10mm, and .45 calibers. For them the options are more easily available but my impression is that they seem to be less dogmatic and realize that there is no ideal pistol for every situation and find space for different guns in their collection. Even 1911's and BHP's. I have my favorite too but that doesn't mean I just have multiple copies of the "same" gun. Other guns might not be as "perfect" but I need and appreciate the different strengths of other designs and calibers. I'm wondering why there isn't more support for the BHP (a classic in its own right) from the strong contingent of 1911 fans out there.

My hypothesis is that the lack of popularity of the BHP is evidence that 1911 fans tend not to be as open to the many options out there. Its not necessarily a bad thing ("Beware the man with one gun" theory) however its also limiting at the same time. A 39 oz. 7+1 pistol.