Springfiled Armory Hi Power?

[ToddSig]

Image from the Springfield Armory Facebook page, with the date 10-25-21. Perhaps the date for an announcement on a new product release. Possibly a Hi Power clone? There have been rumors of a Springfield Armory Hi Power clone, so maybe it is more than rumors.

The image has an image of JMB, and then if you look to the left of the JMB image, there looks like a clock, which reads "1935". There is a pistol on the right side of the table as you look at the image. Cant tell if it is a Hi Power. Anyone see other Hi Power hints or clues?

Anyone hear of anything on this?

[myassis]

PLEASE, God! PLEASE!

[myassis]

I wonder if the steel frame of the SA-35 will pass the "Yost Test" concerning the use of ammo with heavier-than-115gr. projectiles. A master gunsmith like him doesn't make such a recommendation lightly, and I wish I had more insight as to his feeling on the matter.

[ToddSig]

Oct 25, 2021 18:58:25 GMT -5 myassis said:

I wonder if the steel frame of the SA-35 will pass the "Yost Test" concerning the use of ammo with heavier-than-115gr. projectiles. A master gunsmith like him doesn't make such a recommendation lightly, and I wish I had more insight as to his feeling on the matter.

I have sent an email to Ted Yost, if I get a response I will post it on the ammo weight recommendation.

[myassis]

Thanks, !
I feel RELATIVELY certain that it boils down to slide velocity and what it does to the slide when it suddenly slams to a stop. Moderating slide velocity is the goal, and I'm sure there are more ways to accomplish it than I may have ever dreamed.
I know how I would proceed, if we were talking about a 1911-pattern pistol, but my knowledge of the P-35 is FAR less extensive. The hammer's geometry MAY have some effect on how fast the slide travels rearward, but hammer/sear "interface" on a P-35 is already an area with very narrow margin(s) for error. I'm not inclined to play with it, in the name of lowering slide velocity.
That leaves the hammer spring and the slide (return) spring. The former seems to exist in 28 lb. or 32 lb. rates. The former tends to help obtain a better trigger squeeze, while the latter lowers slide velocity. I have no idea if such springs exist in 36# (or even 40#?) rates, and even less idea of its effect(s) on an already finicky trigger. A heavier slide (return?) spring reduces rearward velocity, but will likely worsen the slide's punishment as it returns to battery.
The only other thing I could come up with was perhaps using a much stiffer spring in the magazine(s), which (could) increase the energy necessary for the slide to strip the next round from the mag and push it into the chamber. A magazine spring strong enough to lower the slide's velocity on return might make fully loading a 13- or 15-round magazine much more difficult, but it is easier to contend with than a slide that has been battered out of spec. 
Machining the front of the slide to hold a detachable (and tension adjustable?) bushing at the slide/muzzle interface MIGHT yield results, but it's more intricate machining than I can do myself, OR afford to HAVE DONE by someone else. 
After exhausting all the options I've mentioned, I'M out of ideas. If the more experienced P-35 owners know of other things to try, I would enjoy hearing about them.
TIA. 

Well, it looks like I STILL have an uncanny capacity to tap-dance right into a quiet, grassy glen, bisected by a trail FILLED with "WET BROWNIES" and land RIGHT in them! Earlier, I said that it appeared the P-35's firing pin stop was "integral with the slide". Nope, but the FPS on MINE was so meticulously fit to the slide, that I could find no demarcation between slide and FPS, even with corrected vision. I finally found something with which to depress the firing pin sufficiently to move the FPS and, with a few GENTLE taps, it slid, hesitantly, out of where it was, for closer examination. The one on my pistol has a rounded bottom to facilitate sending the hammer back under less force. So now, I wonder if any are made with a squared bottom that may dissipate some of the slide's rearward energy, in the name of re-cocking the hammer.

[jonnyc]

I have never thought twice, or ever considered NOT using 124 grain ammo in any 9mm pistol...let alone a Hi-Power. Now +P in any weight might be a concern, but not in standard velocities.

[Bob Reed]

Hello, myassis,

The Firing Pin Retaining Plate (FN's terminology) isn't integral with the slide, it removes/installs the same as a 1911's Firing Pin Stop (Colt's terminology).

But yes, the size of the radius on the bottom edge does effect slide/bbl. unlocking speed, and FN actually used a smaller radius on the Pre-1994 HP firing pin retaining plate, or at least 1994 is the closest year I've been able to narrow the change down to. I suspect '94 because the Heavy 20-Lb. Recoil Spring used in the new at he time .40 S&W chambered HP in order to make it easier to cock the hammer by hand-cycling the slide from a hammer down/at rest position - and to balance the unlocking and dwell-time with the .40's heavy 20-Lb. recoil spring. I also suspect 1994 as the change because, all the Pre-94 HPs that I own and/or have worked on have a small radius plate, and all of the 1994s and newer that I have or have seen have the large radius plate.

Edited to add: Going by the photo that Todd posted where it shows the underside of the slide along with the lower barrel lug circled in red in the other thread, it looks like Springfield just happen to use a small radius FP retaining plate.

See photo here: highpowercollectors.proboards.com/thread/1098/oh-yeah-back