Posted: 3/20/2015 10:59:49 PM EDT
| I just acquired an Izzy P35 from CDI and despite my research, I'm befuddled by it. The serial on the frame is NZ which indicates a 1991 date of manufacture, yet it has the mark I small safety and old school ring hammer. The barrel SN matches the frame. The slide SN doesn't match and seems to indicate an 88 year manufacture. I know these weapons are rebuilds, but don't know if "they" would rebuild a mark III frame with a mark I safety and hammer. Anyone have input as to if this is possible and why they would do this? |
|
Short answer:
You have a parts gun...perhaps an Israeli armorer modified parts gun, but a parts gun none the less. There is no such thing as an FN MkI BTW, FN started their use of the "Mk" designation with the MkII in '81...perhaps in deference to the MkI designation used by Inglis in WWII. The "original"/"Classic" nubbin' thumb safety was actually supplied by FN on some MkIIs and later MkIIIs...or replaced by the Israelis upon acceptance, because the standard manual of arms used by the Israelis at the time...Condition 3 carry, made the thumb safety superfluous. The "original"/"Classic" rowel/ring hammer was not supplied by FN after the "T" series, hence it is a replacement when found on a MkII/MkIII. Incidentally, many Israeli MkII/MkIII BHPs that would normally have been supplied with the standard for the time Firing Pin Safety were supplied by FN without it. Does the '88 slide have a thin ridge ending in an integral front sight by any chance? If so it'll be a MkII slide on a MkIII frame. |
|
Quoted:
Short answer: You have a parts gun...perhaps an Israeli armorer modified parts gun, but a parts gun none the less. There is no such thing as an FN MkI BTW, FN started their use of the "Mk" designation with the MkII in '81...perhaps in deference to the MkI designation used by Inglis in WWII. The "original"/"Classic" nubbin' thumb safety was actually supplied by FN on some MkIIs and later MkIIIs...or replaced by the Israelis upon acceptance, because the standard manual of arms used by the Israelis at the time...Condition 3 carry, made the thumb safety superfluous. The "original"/"Classic" rowel/ring hammer was not supplied by FN after the "T" series, hence it is a replacement when found on a MkII/MkIII. Incidentally, many Israeli MkII/MkIII BHPs that would normally have been supplied with the standard for the time Firing Pin Safety were supplied by FN without it. Does the '88 slide have a thin ridge ending in an integral front sight by any chance? If so it'll be a MkII slide on a MkIII frame. Thanks for the info - very informative - and you are spot on about the slide having a (tiny) integral front sight on it. The pistol is refinished and looks awesome . I'm going to remove the mag safety , Re grip it and then start shooting it. Is there any issues with me shooting some +p ammo through it? |
You are most welcome  . Let me make sure we're speaking of the same slide though. An "original"/"Classic" slide produced in '88 would employ a small half moon shaped front sight...that might appear integral, but is actually attached via a soldered tenon/mortise. An '88 MkII slide would have a quite obvious narrow integral rib on the top of the slide extending from the rear sight and ending in an integral front sight that is somewhat wider than the half moon front sight found on the "original"/"Classic" BHP. There would also be a small drain hole in the front of the recoil spring tunnel...below the muzzle.
Re: Magazine Disconnect/Safety removal: A word of caution; such surgery MAY result in unintended consequences to include mushy/slack trigger reset...among other trigger linkage issues, as well as potential frame/part damage in removing the Trigger Axis Pin...which is most frequently required with MkIII frames. Other times, trigger weight of pull is slightly reduced and grittiness relieved...pay your money, take your chances  .
'91 frames...and slides, were forged. The later...believe it or not "tougher", cast frames weren't introduced until '93. Limited use of +P 9mmP is generally considered ok with post mid'70s (32# Main/Hammer Spring)forged frame BHPs, especially when the 17# factory Recoil Spring is replaced by an 18.5# Recoil Spring. BUT keep in mind, increased pressure results in increased wear and tear..... |
|
Quoted:
You are most welcome . Let me make sure we're speaking of the same slide though. An "original"/"Classic" slide produced in '88 would employ a small half moon shaped front sight...that might appear integral, but is actually attached via a soldered tenon/mortise. An '88 MkII slide would have a quite obvious narrow integral rib on the top of the slide extending from the rear sight and ending in an integral front sight that is somewhat wider than the half moon front sight found on the "original"/"Classic" BHP. There would also be a small drain hole in the front of the recoil spring tunnel...below the muzzle.
Re: Magazine Disconnect/Safety removal: A word of caution; such surgery MAY result in unintended consequences to include mushy/slack trigger reset...among other trigger linkage issues, as well as potential frame/part damage in removing the Trigger Axis Pin...which is most frequently required with MkIII frames. Other times, trigger weight of pull is slightly reduced and grittiness relieved...pay your money, take your chances .
'91 frames...and slides, were forged. The later...believe it or not "tougher", cast frames weren't introduced until '93. Limited use of +P 9mmP is generally considered ok with post mid'70s (32# Main/Hammer Spring)forged frame BHPs, especially when the 17# factory Recoil Spring is replaced by an 18.5# Recoil Spring. BUT keep in mind, increased pressure results in increased wear and tear..... More great info! Thanks! the slide does have a small drain hole in the front and I'll take a more thorough examination in the morning reference the front site. I have a few thousand rounds of NATO SMG style ammo that I was going to shoot in this pistol and I wanted to make sure it was ok to do so. I bought the pistol primarily to enhance my collection as I consider the P35 to be a major milestone in the development of the 'combat' pistol. my eventual goal is to buy a WWII leather holster or canvas holster for it. its going to be an occasional shooter and full time historical teaching tool for me. |
|
Quoted:
Not true. Early "C" series, many of the "Practical" models, and others have had round hammers......all long after the end of the "T" series. Quoted:
Quoted:
The "original"/"Classic" rowel/ring hammer was not supplied by FN after the "T" series..... Not true. Early "C" series, many of the "Practical" models, and others have had round hammers......all long after the end of the "T" series. Really Tom? I’m surprised...and actually disappointed  , at the unnecessarily confrontational tone of "Not true"  .
Allow me to suggest you re-read the entire post, instead of using only part of a sentence…out of context. You’ll note then that when taken in context, it certainly is true. The post spoke of Israeli surplus BHPs in direct response to OPs Israeli surplus BHP. I specifically used "Israeli" 3 times within that very brief post. I used “supplied” 4 times in speaking specifically of features FN supplied…or deleted, on Israeli BHPs, within that very brief post. The previous sentence spoke specifically of MkII/MkIII BHPs supplied by FN to the Israelis with the "original" thumb safety. The subsequent sentence spoke specifically of the fact that FN deleted the FPS from many Israeli BHPs. The ring hammer…as described by the OP, is installed in his '91 MkIII Israeli frame…not an early “C” or a Practical. Again, only the first half of the sentence is quoted. Should I have included “Israeli” a couple more times? “The "original"/"Classic" rowel/ring hammer was not supplied by FN after the Israeli "T" series, hence it is a replacement when found on an Israeli MkII/MkIII.” Come on .....
|
|
Quoted:
Really Tom? I’m surprised...and actually disappointed , at the unnecessarily confrontational tone of "Not true" .
Allow me to suggest you re-read the entire post, instead of using only part of a sentence…out of context. You’ll note then that when taken in context, it certainly is true. The post spoke of Israeli surplus BHPs in direct response to OPs Israeli surplus BHP. I specifically used "Israeli" 3 times within that very brief post. I used “supplied” 4 times in speaking specifically of features FN supplied…or deleted, on Israeli BHPs, within that very brief post. The previous sentence spoke specifically of MkII/MkIII BHPs supplied by FN to the Israelis with the "original" thumb safety. The subsequent sentence spoke specifically of the fact that FN deleted the FPS from many Israeli BHPs. The ring hammer…as described by the OP, is installed in his '91 MkIII Israeli frame…not an early “C” or a Practical. Again, only the first half of the sentence is quoted. Should I have included “Israeli” a couple more times? “The "original"/"Classic" rowel/ring hammer was not supplied by FN after the Israeli "T" series, hence it is a replacement when found on an Israeli MkII/MkIII.” Come on .....Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "original"/"Classic" rowel/ring hammer was not supplied by FN after the "T" series..... Not true. Early "C" series, many of the "Practical" models, and others have had round hammers......all long after the end of the "T" series. Really Tom? I’m surprised...and actually disappointed , at the unnecessarily confrontational tone of "Not true" .
Allow me to suggest you re-read the entire post, instead of using only part of a sentence…out of context. You’ll note then that when taken in context, it certainly is true. The post spoke of Israeli surplus BHPs in direct response to OPs Israeli surplus BHP. I specifically used "Israeli" 3 times within that very brief post. I used “supplied” 4 times in speaking specifically of features FN supplied…or deleted, on Israeli BHPs, within that very brief post. The previous sentence spoke specifically of MkII/MkIII BHPs supplied by FN to the Israelis with the "original" thumb safety. The subsequent sentence spoke specifically of the fact that FN deleted the FPS from many Israeli BHPs. The ring hammer…as described by the OP, is installed in his '91 MkIII Israeli frame…not an early “C” or a Practical. Again, only the first half of the sentence is quoted. Should I have included “Israeli” a couple more times? “The "original"/"Classic" rowel/ring hammer was not supplied by FN after the Israeli "T" series, hence it is a replacement when found on an Israeli MkII/MkIII.” Come on .....Which would make sense if the Israeli Hi Powers were a single contract direct with FN.............but they weren't. These Israeli HP's are not only IDF guns, but surplus guns used by local PD. The Israeli Hi Powers that have been imported over the last several years have been a hodgepodge of every HP version FN has ever built. Most carry commercial serial numbers and not serials specific to typical military contracts. Further, the HP's were often obtained indirectly.....ie a middleman/arms dealer/foreign country and not directly from Fabrique Nationale. |
|
Quoted:
Which would make sense if the Israeli Hi Powers were a single contract direct with FN.............but they weren't. These Israeli HP's are not only IDF guns, but surplus guns used by local PD. The Israeli Hi Powers that have been imported over the last several years have been a hodgepodge of every HP version FN has ever built. Most carry commercial serial numbers and not serials specific to typical military contracts. Further, the HP's were often obtained indirectly.....ie a middleman/arms dealer/foreign country and not directly from Fabrique Nationale. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "original"/"Classic" rowel/ring hammer was not supplied by FN after the "T" series..... Not true. Early "C" series, many of the "Practical" models, and others have had round hammers......all long after the end of the "T" series. Really Tom? I’m surprised...and actually disappointed , at the unnecessarily confrontational tone of "Not true" .
Allow me to suggest you re-read the entire post, instead of using only part of a sentence…out of context. You’ll note then that when taken in context, it certainly is true. The post spoke of Israeli surplus BHPs in direct response to OPs Israeli surplus BHP. I specifically used "Israeli" 3 times within that very brief post. I used “supplied” 4 times in speaking specifically of features FN supplied…or deleted, on Israeli BHPs, within that very brief post. The previous sentence spoke specifically of MkII/MkIII BHPs supplied by FN to the Israelis with the "original" thumb safety. The subsequent sentence spoke specifically of the fact that FN deleted the FPS from many Israeli BHPs. The ring hammer…as described by the OP, is installed in his '91 MkIII Israeli frame…not an early “C” or a Practical. Again, only the first half of the sentence is quoted. Should I have included “Israeli” a couple more times? “The "original"/"Classic" rowel/ring hammer was not supplied by FN after the Israeli "T" series, hence it is a replacement when found on an Israeli MkII/MkIII.” Come on .....Which would make sense if the Israeli Hi Powers were a single contract direct with FN.............but they weren't. These Israeli HP's are not only IDF guns, but surplus guns used by local PD. The Israeli Hi Powers that have been imported over the last several years have been a hodgepodge of every HP version FN has ever built. Most carry commercial serial numbers and not serials specific to typical military contracts. Further, the HP's were often obtained indirectly.....ie a middleman/arms dealer/foreign country and not directly from Fabrique Nationale. Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand Tom, and you should know better. From the very beginning we've been specifically discussing identification of OPs Israeli surplus '91 MkIII Frame with an '88...apparently MkII slide...and NOT every BHP the Israelis have ever used. Deflecting the discussion through straw man arguments does not do you credit Tom. Here's my first post to this thread...in its entirety...with emphasis added in order to highlight the obvious. Once more, we were discussing OPs Israeli surplus BHP...the information supplied dealt with OPs Israeli surplus BHP: "Quoted: Short answer: You have a parts gun...perhaps an Israeli armorer modified parts gun, but a parts gun none the less. There is no such thing as an FN MkI BTW, FN started their use of the "Mk" designation with the MkII in '81...perhaps in deference to the MkI designation used by Inglis in WWII. The "original"/"Classic" nubbin' thumb safety was actually supplied by FN on some MkIIs and later MkIIIs...or replaced by the Israelis upon acceptance, because the standard manual of arms used by the Israelis at the time...Condition 3 carry, made the thumb safety superfluous. The "original"/"Classic" rowel/ring hammer was not supplied by FN after the "T" series, hence it is a replacement when found on a MkII/MkIII. Incidentally, many Israeli MkII/MkIII BHPs that would normally have been supplied with the standard for the time Firing Pin Safety were supplied by FN without it. Does the '88 slide have a thin ridge ending in an integral front sight by any chance? If so it'll be a MkII slide on a MkIII frame." |
|
Quoted:
Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand Tom, and you should know better. From the very beginning we've been specifically discussing identification of OPs Israeli surplus '91 MkIII Frame with an '88...apparently MkII slide...and NOT every BHP the Israelis have ever used. Deflecting the discussion through straw man arguments does not do you credit Tom....... Well, yes it does......and you should know better. There is nothing about any of these surplus Israeli Hi Powers that is anything close to unique....save the occasional Star of David marking. Your comments regarding the round hammer are simply wrong. Period. Doesn't matter if its an Israeli surplus HP or one imported into the US by Browning Arms. I have transferred more than two dozen of these Israeli surplus Hi Powers and that included early "C" series with round hammers........and they weren't parts guns.
|
|
Quoted:
Well, yes it does......and you should know better. There is nothing about any of these surplus Israeli Hi Powers that is anything close to unique....save the occasional Star of David marking. Your comments regarding the round hammer are simply wrong. Period. Doesn't matter if its an Israeli surplus HP or one imported into the US by Browning Arms. I have transferred more than two dozen of these Israeli surplus Hi Powers and that included early "C" series with round hammers........and they weren't parts guns.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand Tom, and you should know better. From the very beginning we've been specifically discussing identification of OPs Israeli surplus '91 MkIII Frame with an '88...apparently MkII slide...and NOT every BHP the Israelis have ever used. Deflecting the discussion through straw man arguments does not do you credit Tom....... Well, yes it does......and you should know better. There is nothing about any of these surplus Israeli Hi Powers that is anything close to unique....save the occasional Star of David marking. Your comments regarding the round hammer are simply wrong. Period. Doesn't matter if its an Israeli surplus HP or one imported into the US by Browning Arms. I have transferred more than two dozen of these Israeli surplus Hi Powers and that included early "C" series with round hammers........and they weren't parts guns.
First, apologies to the OP, hope you got what you needed. Then to those foolish enough to follow this "discussion"; permit a recap. Please note I quote the specific statements in order to keep on track and avoid attempts to divert the discussion. Diverting the discussion…is after all, how straw man arguments work. Such arguments can only be blunted by keeping focused on what the original discussion was all about. I encourage everyone…especially Tom, to go back and read all the previous posts. You’ll also note that…as long winded as it makes the discussion, I do not edit these statements to my benefit.
Recap: In very specifically discussing OP's Israeli surplus '91 MkIII frame/'88 MkII Slide pistol, I pointed out…among other features, "The "original"/"Classic" rowel/ring hammer was not supplied by FN after the "T" series, hence it is a replacement when found on a MkII/MkIII.” Finding replacement parts from production periods other than from the pistol itself, is a common occurrence with Israeli surplus pistols…particularly parts guns such as OPs. It would seem a simple assessment, apparently not. Ignoring the context of the discussion; “Op’s Israeli surplus '91 MkIII frame/'88 MkII Slide pistol”, Tom uses the specific example of the “early "C" series with round hammers” to challenge my statement: “The "original"/"Classic" rowel/ring hammer was not supplied by FN after the "T" series, hence it is a replacement when found on a MkII/MkIII.”. Even forgetting for a moment the specific nature of the ‘91/’88 pistol discussion, let’s examine the “early "C" series with round hammers” example he hangs his hat on: Keep in mind; FN SN schemes were/are production/inventory tools and do not necessarily correspond directly to feature/model changes. With that said, the “early "C" series with round hammers” were produced for a couple years beginning in ’69…these “early "C" series with round hammers” were nothing more than the existing “T” production with FN’s new SN scheme. The “C” series went on to receive the spur hammer in ’71. AND…important to our discussion, the “early "C" series with round hammers”…followed by the spur hammer “C”s, were BOTH produced concurrently with the last few years of the “T” series pistols. In point of fact, the “T” series…with the “T” SNs, did not conclude production until ’72. That’s AFTER “early "C" series with round hammers” production ENDED. Sooo, on its face, Tom’s “early "C" series with round hammers” contention is just plain wrong. I come here…and elsewhere more BHP centric, to learn and…where I can, help. Chasing straw man arguments is not learning or helping…it is certainly NOT pleasant, so I’ll just leave it at that..... |
| Please, no need to apologize . I've learned a great deal about hi powers in general my hi power in particular. I've also bought the collectors grade book on the hi power to do more research, but I have also learned a great deal from this thread and I'm not confused like I was. |
|
Quoted:
..........self serving butthurt removed........... Even forgetting for a moment the specific nature of the ‘91/’88 pistol discussion, let’s examine the “early "C" series with round hammers” example he hangs his hat on: Keep in mind; FN SN schemes were/are production/inventory tools and do not necessarily correspond directly to feature/model changes. With that said, the “early "C" series with round hammers” were produced for a couple years beginning in ’69…these “early "C" series with round hammers” were nothing more than the existing “T” production with FN’s new SN scheme. Quoted:
..........self serving butthurt removed........... Even forgetting for a moment the specific nature of the ‘91/’88 pistol discussion, let’s examine the “early "C" series with round hammers” example he hangs his hat on: Keep in mind; FN SN schemes were/are production/inventory tools and do not necessarily correspond directly to feature/model changes. With that said, the “early "C" series with round hammers” were produced for a couple years beginning in ’69…these “early "C" series with round hammers” were nothing more than the existing “T” production with FN’s new SN scheme. So............you now agree with me? What the fuck is your problem? The “C” series went on to receive the spur hammer in ’71. AND…important to our discussion, the “early "C" series with round hammers”…followed by the spur hammer “C”s, were BOTH produced concurrently with the last few years of the “T” series pistols. So...........there WERE "C" series made with round hammers? Simply amazing. 
In point of fact, the “T” series…with the “T” SNs, did not conclude production until ’72. That’s AFTER “early "C" series with round hammers” production ENDED. Sooo, on its face, Tom’s “early "C" series with round hammers” contention is just plain wrong. Yet you ignore the thousands of Practical models that are MkIII's (and the first MkIII wasn't made until 1988) http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail-historic.asp?fid=007B&cid=051&tid=005 
You sir, are full of shit. |
|
Quoted:
Please, no need to apologize . I've learned a great deal about hi powers in general my hi power in particular. I've also bought the collectors grade book on the hi power to do more research, but I have also learned a great deal from this thread and I'm not confused like I was. Thanks very much for that burkeva , much appreciated...glad to have helped  .
Rest assured I've posted only correct information regarding your pistol. I don't wing it, guess or make things up as I go. If I don't know I don't post...that simple .
Glad to hear you've become interested such that you've bought the Collector Grade Book as well...I'm assuming you're speaking of Blake Stevens book.FWIW, while there are some issues with newer BHP identification/dating, his original book was "the" reference book of the mid '80s...it's a good start, a must have we owe Stevens a debt of gratitude for his BHP work. Stevens book(s) have actually been eclipsed though by Anthony Vanderlinden's FN Pistols book...so much so that Stevens quotes Vanderlinden in HIS latest edition  . Vanderlinden is better with most dates, though he has occasionally conflicting dates. He's a personable guy and participates...though rarely because it's hard to answer questions without referencing his book and the mods try to separate commercial from forum on another forum.
Did you get Stevens latest 2014 Edition? If so, have a look at the pics of the MkIII on pages 273-275 and pay particular attention to the pic at the lower left of 274...for a laugh .
|
|
Quoted:
So............you now agree with me? What the fuck is your problem? So...........there WERE "C" series made with round hammers? Simply amazing.
Yet you ignore the thousands of Practical models that are MkIII's (and the first MkIII wasn't made until 1988) http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail-historic.asp?fid=007B&cid=051&tid=005 http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/images/images-by-title-name/Browning-Hi-Power-Practical-MID-051005-m.jpg You sir, are full of shit. Quoted:
Quoted:
..........self serving butthurt removed........... Even forgetting for a moment the specific nature of the ‘91/’88 pistol discussion, let’s examine the “early "C" series with round hammers” example he hangs his hat on: Keep in mind; FN SN schemes were/are production/inventory tools and do not necessarily correspond directly to feature/model changes. With that said, the “early "C" series with round hammers” were produced for a couple years beginning in ’69…these “early "C" series with round hammers” were nothing more than the existing “T” production with FN’s new SN scheme. So............you now agree with me? What the fuck is your problem? The “C” series went on to receive the spur hammer in ’71. AND…important to our discussion, the “early "C" series with round hammers”…followed by the spur hammer “C”s, were BOTH produced concurrently with the last few years of the “T” series pistols. So...........there WERE "C" series made with round hammers? Simply amazing.
In point of fact, the “T” series…with the “T” SNs, did not conclude production until ’72. That’s AFTER “early "C" series with round hammers” production ENDED. Sooo, on its face, Tom’s “early "C" series with round hammers” contention is just plain wrong. Yet you ignore the thousands of Practical models that are MkIII's (and the first MkIII wasn't made until 1988) http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail-historic.asp?fid=007B&cid=051&tid=005 http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/images/images-by-title-name/Browning-Hi-Power-Practical-MID-051005-m.jpg You sir, are full of shit. Capture for posterity  ...
|
|
Quoted:
Capture for posterity ...
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..........self serving butthurt removed........... Even forgetting for a moment the specific nature of the ‘91/’88 pistol discussion, let’s examine the “early "C" series with round hammers” example he hangs his hat on: Keep in mind; FN SN schemes were/are production/inventory tools and do not necessarily correspond directly to feature/model changes. With that said, the “early "C" series with round hammers” were produced for a couple years beginning in ’69…these “early "C" series with round hammers” were nothing more than the existing “T” production with FN’s new SN scheme. So............you now agree with me? What the fuck is your problem? The “C” series went on to receive the spur hammer in ’71. AND…important to our discussion, the “early "C" series with round hammers”…followed by the spur hammer “C”s, were BOTH produced concurrently with the last few years of the “T” series pistols. So...........there WERE "C" series made with round hammers? Simply amazing.
In point of fact, the “T” series…with the “T” SNs, did not conclude production until ’72. That’s AFTER “early "C" series with round hammers” production ENDED. Sooo, on its face, Tom’s “early "C" series with round hammers” contention is just plain wrong. Yet you ignore the thousands of Practical models that are MkIII's (and the first MkIII wasn't made until 1988) http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail-historic.asp?fid=007B&cid=051&tid=005 http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/images/images-by-title-name/Browning-Hi-Power-Practical-MID-051005-m.jpg You sir, are full of shit. Capture for posterity ...
Excellent rebuttal.
|
|
Quoted:
Thanks very much for that burkeva , much appreciated...glad to have helped .
Rest assured I've posted only correct information regarding your pistol. I don't wing it, guess or make things up as I go. If I don't know I don't post...that simple .
Glad to hear you've become interested such that you've bought the Collector Grade Book as well...I'm assuming you're speaking of Blake Stevens book.FWIW, while there are some issues with newer BHP identification/dating, his original book was "the" reference book of the mid '80s...it's a good start, a must have we owe Stevens a debt of gratitude for his BHP work. Stevens book(s) have actually been eclipsed though by Anthony Vanderlinden's FN Pistols book...so much so that Stevens quotes Vanderlinden in HIS latest edition . Vanderlinden is better with most dates, though he has occasionally conflicting dates. He's a personable guy and participates...though rarely because it's hard to answer questions without referencing his book and the mods try to separate commercial from forum on another forum.
Did you get Stevens latest 2014 Edition? If so, have a look at the pics of the MkIII on pages 273-275 and pay particular attention to the pic at the lower left of 274...for a laugh .Quoted:
Quoted:
Please, no need to apologize . I've learned a great deal about hi powers in general my hi power in particular. I've also bought the collectors grade book on the hi power to do more research, but I have also learned a great deal from this thread and I'm not confused like I was. Thanks very much for that burkeva , much appreciated...glad to have helped .
Rest assured I've posted only correct information regarding your pistol. I don't wing it, guess or make things up as I go. If I don't know I don't post...that simple .
Glad to hear you've become interested such that you've bought the Collector Grade Book as well...I'm assuming you're speaking of Blake Stevens book.FWIW, while there are some issues with newer BHP identification/dating, his original book was "the" reference book of the mid '80s...it's a good start, a must have we owe Stevens a debt of gratitude for his BHP work. Stevens book(s) have actually been eclipsed though by Anthony Vanderlinden's FN Pistols book...so much so that Stevens quotes Vanderlinden in HIS latest edition . Vanderlinden is better with most dates, though he has occasionally conflicting dates. He's a personable guy and participates...though rarely because it's hard to answer questions without referencing his book and the mods try to separate commercial from forum on another forum.
Did you get Stevens latest 2014 Edition? If so, have a look at the pics of the MkIII on pages 273-275 and pay particular attention to the pic at the lower left of 274...for a laugh .It's Blake Edwards expanded 1990 edition. Great book on the history of the pistol and evolution to 1990. Unfortunately it predates my pistol by a year or so, but still helpful. I'll definitely.check out the other book as well. Thanks again to all who posted and good shooting ! |
|
FN started calling the MkII, the MkII because the British classified their L9 version of the Hi-Power as a MkI (following the tradition they had acquired from the Inglis MkI version of the Hi-Power). As the British were one of the prominent users of the Hi-Power, when FN retooled the Hi-Power to compete for the US service pistol, they went with the "MkII" to describe that pistol.
However, FN has continually updated the Hi-Power - they've modified parts, changed heat treatments, etc. And a lot of times, you'll find different types of Hi-Powers being produced right alongside each other (for example, smooth butt MkIII cast frames being produced in the same year as ridged butt MkIII forged frames). The Israelis, especially the ones coming through importers now, can be a mishmash of parts. I had a 1991 Israeli - matching frame, barrel, and slide; but they had replaced the ambi safety with the old style safety and done some type of trigger modification where it could not even be carried safely in Condition 1. I wouldn't be surprised to see the rounded hammer in the mix. |