Well Used Surplus FN HP - and a Few Questions

[dreep]

Hello!  New to the group, this is my first High Power, and one that has been around the block a few times.  But like many surplus pistols, it does not appear to have been fired much.  It's a recent import by Mach1, so may be an Israeli turn-in.  Unlike most of the guns they have listed recently that are Mk II or MK III models, this one is considerably older, so maybe not an Israeli import?  Or perhaps military vs police?



This "thumb-print" pistol has an internal extractor and the roll marks are typical FN.  The frame is steel.  Other than the patent acknowledgement, there is no Browning brand-marking.  The proof marks are consistent with Belgian origin and proofing.  The serial number 43717 may indicate pre-'54 manufacture, or not.  The inspector's mark on barrel, frame and slide are all letter N, which could be one of two individuals as I understand, one who worked from '23-'52, and the second from '59-'68 and '74-'90.  Even though the internal extractor dates the pistol to no later than '62, it could have been inspected by either of them, depending on actual manufacturing date.  



The third photo shows the barrel and the markings on the shoe.  Any date clues from those?  I haven't noted additional date marks on various parts, but so far, I've only given the gun a quick wipe down with lubricant.  The magazine has no markings that I have found.  I will post additional photos as I get them.



Last questions:  since I intend to shoot this pistol, and there is no known service history, I plan to replace springs, as may be needed.  Are there specific springs besides the obvious ones - recoil, firing pin, magazine - that should be replaced? 

I've used Wolff springs in various Colt and HK pistols I have worked on in the past.  I see BHSS appears to be a sponsor of this group, but I ask out of ignorance - is there a comparison between BHSS and Wolff for the High Power that is worth a discussion?

And finally, anything in particular I should be concerned with as I go through this old war horse, pre-'62 model?

Thanks in advance; looking forward to some feedback.

Doug

[tnorris]

Hello Doug, and nice find!

I have a 1950 model which I have outfitted as a shooter. I "modernized" mine with SFS and the new BHSS trigger. Because it appeared the trigger pin had been installed incorrectly, I had BHSS install the parts and optimize the pistol. I usually perform these tasks myself.

You will want to replace all the springs, including the mainspring and sear spring... SFS takes care of that in mine. Depending on the condition of the extractor, you can find a good new production one at Jack First Gun Parts in Idaho. It runs about $100. I have one and will buy another as a spare. I also bought several from SARCO and Numrich, which were listed as new. They were not! The original extractors in my two thumbprint High Powers were in far better shape.

"but I ask out of ignorance - is there a comparison between BHSS and Wolff for the High Power that is worth a discussion?"

In my opinion, it is not worth a discussion. Go with BHSS for all of your High Power springs and any other springs they have. You will be happier for it.

By the serial number, I would guess yours is 1952 (or '51) rather than 1950-1960. You should find a mark on the front of the trigger guard on the right side which will be a number in a partial box. Sometimes this mark is poorly struck and requires some interpretation. In 1950, this date code was upside down in the same location on the right side. you will find similar marks on various parts of the pistol (barrel, firing pin retaining plate, slide, hammer) and they may indicate an earlier year or quarter. I go with the one on the frame/trigger guard for dating the pistol.

Post some detailed pics of those date code marks!

Cheers,

Tim

[ToddSig]

Welcome Doug, and nice find of an early High Power. I agree with Tim, early 1950s. I have a customized 1952 High Power with serial number 40230, so yours is pretty close, although serial numbers dont always reveal the proper date.

The production mark on the barrel is a 2 with what appears to be three lines around it (box, open top), which is a 1st quarter 1952 production date. The slide stop is also marked the same. As Tim mentions, check the various part for these production marks, also the  trigger, but there it could be hidden by the frame.


Image of the barrel foot with the 2, and below, the 2 on the back of the slide stop.

[dreep]

Thanks for the welcome and the info, Tim and Todd!



A few more photos here, in search of legible date stampings. The frame, just on the front of the trigger guard, carries a 2 in a partial box (hard to tell if it's an incomplete stamping, or "one-sided" box.







Several of the other marks are 1's in partial or full box, including the mark on the barrel (photo posted yesterday).  There are a few other numbers visible, but since they aren't "boxed," I'm assuming those are to be ignored.



So, I suspect the pistol was assembled '52, as suggested, Tim & Todd.  I've noted a few more "N" inspector stampings, so it seems this pistol has at least most of its original parts.  

One part that is likely not original - no marks anywhere - is the magazine.  The follower is aluminum, and a bit beat up.  Suggestions for sources/brands of good magazines?  If the High Powers are as fussy as some of my 1911s with regard to magazines, getting that right makes shooting a bit more pleasant.

Thanks again for the insight!

Doug

[tnorris]

The frame, just on the front of the trigger guard, carries a 2 in a partial box (hard to tell if it's an incomplete stamping, or "one-sided" box.

Intuitive guesses:

 -Incomplete stamping. So incomplete that my only near certain guess is it is not from the 4th quarter of 1952. Second guess is 1st or second quarter, there is no indication of a top for the box.

 -Slide Stop = 3rd quarter 1951.

 -Trigger = 1st or 3rd quarter 1951.

The magazine may not have had any date code or other marks to match it to the pistol. It is likely original.

Buy some new MecGar magazines. You can find them reasonably priced in 13, 15 or 10 rounds. Each should be around $25, give or take. Stay away from any other mfgs. There is no advantage to having "period correct" magazines other than the one you already have if you are going to shoot it. Stash the original in the spare and original parts case. Brand new MecGar 15 round magazines shoot reliably in my 1950 and 1943. I don't think I've ever had a High Power not like a magazine, so it may not be as picky as your 1911s.

BHSpringSolutions seems to have magazines in stock. Greg Cotes also sells MecGar magazines. Both are in Indiana and both erroneously think Illinois has a magazine capacity limit. We do not, and I love them both anyway! Use discount code BHVET10 for a discount at BHSS. Get on their mailing list and receive news about sales, new products and such.

Cheers,

Tim

[dreep]

Thanks for the insight and additional info, Tim!  I really appreciate it.

The online reviews of the MecGar magazines led me to believe the 15 round mags would have a last-round feeding issue that the 13 round mags do not.  Glad to hear you have the 15 round mags working well, or I would have shied away from them.  No capacity worry here in TX.

Truth be told, my "fussy" 1911s are Kimbers.  My older M1911A1s don't seem to care what magazine is used.  Two of the Kimbers (both "Pro" models, basically Commander size) were back at Kimber for warranty work before 500 rounds, for persistent feed and extraction issues.  Kudos to Kimber for quick response under warranty, and both were given new ejectors and visible polishing of the feed ramp and slide face, which solved the issues.  But those two still only "like" Kimber or Wilson mags, among those I've tried.  I have not tried MecGar in the 1911s, so may do that.  I should also say, my full-size Kimber 1911s never had the issues the Pro models exhibited.

I've been browsing through the BHSS info on SFS and springs.  I haven't decided if I want to go with the SFS, or leave "stock," but I'm liking the idea of a de-cocker.

Thanks, again!

Doug

[tnorris]

Jul 25, 2021 9:39:09 GMT -5 dreep said:

I've been browsing through the BHSS info on SFS and springs.  I haven't decided if I want to go with the SFS, or leave "stock," but I'm liking the idea of a de-cocker.

SFS is completely reversible, and also available for 1911s if you find you like it!

I have never re-installed the stock parts but I retain them, in case the next keeper wants the pistol in original condition.

It is inaccurate to call it a de-cocker.

While the hammer is in a forward position, the pistol is not de-cocked. I think of it as "hammer forward cocked and locked". I have CZs and PPKs that have real de-cockers and revert to DA after de-cocking... SFS is no such thing. Just sweep the safety off and you are ready to fire, exactly like with the stock system or your 1911s.

What I like most about SFS for carry - I can easily determine if the "safety" is on or off simply by touching the hammer. If the hammer is rearward... press it back forward and I'm on safe. It's rather elegant. I have, on occasion, discovered at the end of the day that my little Sig P938/P238 was cocked and NOT locked. Often this was due to using inexpensive "hybrid" type holsters.

The SFS hammer will also eliminate hammer bite!

If you are ever in the Chicago area, I would be happy to show SFS to you.

Cheers,

Tim

My 1950 with SFS

[dreep]

Thanks, Tim.

I understand and appreciate your notes on the "de-cocking" function.  I have a number of modern DA/SA HKs that have true de-cockers.   Chalk it up to imprecise shorthand, I guess.  Point well taken.

Thanks for the offer.  Last time I was in the Chicago area (other than passing through at O'Hare) was seven or eight years ago.  I haven't traveled much in the past two years for a variety of reasons, not just the pandemic.  Hopefully will get back to that in the not too distant future.

Doug