|
|
Post by submoa on Jun 30, 2017 17:44:00 GMT -5
The Arcus 98 DA is referred to as :"....a Bulgarian-made High Power copy, the ARCUS......." on page 309 of R. Blake Stevens' book entitled: "The Browning High Power Automatic Pistol." It is referred to as: " This all-steel beast is made in Bulgaria. It’s basically a beefed-up, uglier Browning Hi-Power with a double action/single action trigger system dropped in." in an article in "The Truth About Guns.com" article dated December 6, 2016 by Dan Zimmerman. It is located at: www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/12/daniel-zimmerman/gun-review-arcus-98da/. This is an extensive review of the pistol in which the author centers much of his review around the similarity of this pistol with the BHP. The photographs displayed in the article show a strong similarity with the BHP design, especially the photo of the pistol field stripped. In a Chuck Hawks article at the author, David Tong presents a review of the Arcus Model 98DA in which he makes such comments as: "..... The arm is an interesting mix of the old Hi Power and newer DA designs......" and ".....Constructed of CNC machined steel forgings, the pistol’s outward appearance is influenced by the older FN design. If one is familiar with the P-35, one can see the slide stop and thumb safety lever’s shape, the plate ejector that acts as the hammer’s left bearing surface, the pressed in, frame mounted barrel unlocking cam, the magazine release, split front and rear frame rails and the general outline of the slide is classic FN." JayPee WADR, I'm in total agreement with Mr. Burgs. Contrary to the opinions of some writers for gun rags…especially internet gun rags, pamphlets and...yes, even normally respected authors, the Arcus 98DA is most definitely not a High Power "copy". In fact, it doesn’t even fit within the definition of a High Power “copy” in the first paragraph of this very piece…unless we change the definition (“appears to be a copy of an original form”) of “clone”. There is nothing in the Arcus 98DA; design, operation and particularly overall appearance that is “copied” directly from the BHP. I would suggest a test used in determining whether something violates a patent or copyright; could the Arcus 98DA reasonably be confused…by an educated consumer, for an FN BHP? I think not. As a further point…a major point IMHO, I would also suggest that the BHP is more than the sum of its parts…much more. It has a very definite “je ne sais quoi”…which the Arcus most definitely lacks. If that requires explanation  ….. As far as the cites: I don’t know that I’ve read a gun rag article on the BHP…and I’ve read a few, that did not regurgitate previously published…often common, errors. The single recent exception would be those few published by Anthony Vanderlinden. Consequently, the opinions of such writers who obviously do not have extensive experience with the BHP in particular but have instead just relied upon others existing writings, mean nothing…to me anyway. As far as Mr. R. Blake Stevens; those of us who are enamored of the BHP owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Stevens…we do and I’ve said so many times, BUT his expertise has always concerned the development and early/mid history of the BHP…not the more recent developments. Citing his inclusion of the Arcus 98DA in the Addendum only added in the 2014 Edition, should be taken with a grain of salt…similar to his misunderstandings that the T SNs ended in 1968…or 1969 if you believe an adjacent pic caption, the MkII was produced between “1983 and 1988”…or alternately a few pages later that the MkII was introduced in “the late 1970s”…there are others. We all make mistakes  . And, at the risk of appearing an FN BHP snob…though a snob probably wouldn’t own 11 FEG P9 based pistols and 3 FM pistols , I'll take it a step further; I don't consider the S/A only Arcus 94 a High Power “copy/clone” either…in spite of the internal parts. Why? See above. On a side note; FWIW, there are published pics of the Indonesian Pindad; see Blake Stevens BHPAP pg. 264 and 265 and E.C. Ezells Small Arms of the World 12th Edition pg. 547 for starters. I handled one of several while training Detasemen Khusus 88 of the Indonesian National Police at their range facility just a few years ago. It was a typical…but well worn, pre 1960 pattern pistol…wish I’d taken a few pics. |
|
|
|
Post by jaypee on Jun 30, 2017 17:48:23 GMT -5
Well, if you're going to reject the findings of those who know enough to write books on the subject, there is no point in responding to your comments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 18:14:52 GMT -5
I think that we're getting back into the "Moderator is Always Right" territory that chased folks away from the other place.
If it is your ambition to write a factual and worthwhile catalog of Hi Power variants, JayPee, you are going to need help from the members. If you insist on doing it by cutting and pasting selected bits from other writers you will get it wrong. To do this project right, you need to know enough to recognize which published data is correct and which information, often by the same author, is incorrect.
You've been offered help anonymously, so that you could massage your information, but the offers were rebuffed - hence the evidently unwanted input.
If this has become an ego thing for you, then just let us know. Some of us here think the history you're attempting to document should be factual and informative regardless of personal feelings and confirmation bias.
If this isn't your ultimate goal, just say the word.
|
|
|
|
Post by submoa on Jun 30, 2017 20:46:14 GMT -5
Well, if you're going to reject the findings of those who know enough to write books on the subject, there is no point in responding to your comments.
Really Jer? I mean really  ?
I'm going to...generously, assume there's something else going on in your life right now to cause that uncalled for response…to friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carolinaman on Jun 30, 2017 21:24:40 GMT -5
Hello Folks, First, I would like to thank JayPees excellent work at creating the article and thread. It has been a difficult 24 hours for Jer as he lost most of his pictures when photobucket.com decided to end 3rd party postings for free membership. He "ponied up" the required ransom to get the pictures restored at no cost to the membership here. It was not cheap. As most of you know, any article, thread, post can be edited for content and I appreciate that fact that Jer solicited your comments on his article. There is a huge amount of propriety experience here and as most of you folks know "this forum is work in progress". It doesn't belie the fact that we will occasionally have differences of opinion and we welcome the subject of debate. Healthy debate on these subjects is really, really good! Stephen A. Camp once said "there are no experts, but only willing students" and I think that thought embodies what we are about here. We don't want moderators to become censors and nanny language queens... We all share the same sense of community as firearm owners and that is what brought us here. Personally, I think that we have a really good group here and the only thing that I have personally had to "moderate" is accidental double postings. To Jer and all, please keep up the great work! Best and Good Evening, Chris |
|
|
|
Post by Jäger on Jul 1, 2017 2:17:42 GMT -5
More and more this is becoming the repository of BHP knowledge. I occasionally go over to the "other place", and one theme I see in the BHP sub-forum is the comment "one of the experts will be along soon". If they only knew what they tossed away. There's 24/7 moderation there NOW. As soon as "where's Burgs", "where are all the experts", etc comes up... immediate thread lock. I think they're hoping this forum goes belly up so everybody who left will hopefully go back there. Ain't gonna happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Jäger on Jul 1, 2017 3:04:16 GMT -5
I'm going to voice my support for both Burgs and submoa's comments above. Full disclosure: we email back and forth frequently, but little of that is specifically about HPs and I don't act as a homer for anybody. More full disclosure: I think I am an expert on using the HP for it's intended purpose - or at least a very experienced mediocre user - but I would never present myself as even moderately knowledgeable on High Power history and minutia.
However... if you want to be reference material, you need to be painstakingly accurate. No matter what the subject. Because somebody published a book does not mean they are therefore right, and the author himself should be his harshest critic - I got that from Clive Law, incidentally. At the low end of writing/publishing, consider the monthly magazine industry. Here we find Patrick Sweeney. I have no doubt he's knowledgeable, a proficient gunsmith, and a better than average handgun competitor. But here's a guy who one month was writing he had dragged a Hi Power around for 30,000+ rounds of +P, inviting all comers to shoot the crap out of it, and it was still as reliable as night following day. A few months later, he's writing an article extolling Nighthawk - he writes their custom offering fixes the reliability problems of the Hi Power.
Huh?
When we try to create legacy reference material, I believe the highest degree of accuracy is essential. The less accurate, the further away you get from the gold standard and the less reliable the book will be seen as. It is not uncommon for recognized experts to be wrong - Skennerton and Stratton are both considered reference level experts on Lee Enfield rifles. There are well known errors in both of their published works; I used to visit with Skip when he and my wife were both profs at the University of Idaho. We'd talk Lee Enfields while he showed me their collection of Jack O'Connor's equipment and memorabilia (remarkable) - he quite openly pointed out numerous errors in his work. The problem is you can't fix an error once the book has been published and is in bookstores. That's why you can't accept any publication as perfect, and the highest degree of accuracy is essential. Skip is gone now, so there never will be a next edition where he got to fix those errors he knew of.
So... something that looks like a Hi Power but has no interchangeable parts, is markedly different, etc. is not a "clone". It might have been inspired by the HP looks and hoped to cash in on looking similar, but it is not a clone. Change the firing mechanism to something else... that's not a clone either. "Modelled on", "inspired by"; perhaps, but not a clone.
Accuracy when preparing reference materials is essential, gentlemen. Questioned information needs to be all the more carefully checked out, rather than dismissed simply because somebody else wrote otherwise
|
|
|
|
Post by jaypee on Jul 1, 2017 6:16:30 GMT -5
It would appear then that the body of authoritative enthusiasts have concluded that the material used to establish the status of the Kareen Mk III pistol did not use the term "copy" in its proper engineering context and that the gun is too different from the High Power to accurately be considered a clone or copy. Therefore all mention of this pistol in this work has been deleted except for brief clarifying comments.
JayPee
|
|
|
|
Post by BHP940 on Jul 1, 2017 9:45:21 GMT -5
"Personally, whenever I read someone repeat all knowledgeably the Wikipedia "FN MK I" nonsense, I instantly recognize that the person making the statement has exactly zero genuine Hi Power knowledge of their own outside of Wikipedia." Ah, Wikipedia, that fount of internet (mis)knowledge. You have to admit that at times its good for a laugh.  |
|
|
|
Post by CXM on Jul 1, 2017 10:34:59 GMT -5
Gentlemen... let me call everyone's attention to Rule #1 here... BE NICE!!
It's possible to disagree without engaging in personal attacks on other members... that is completely unacceptable and must stop now.
Everyone is (in my opinion anyway) free and welcome to disagree with anything on this board. That disagreement however must be at a minimum civil... snarky, rude or sarcastic responses are not good for anyone and only generate ill feeling.
Like most areas of interest, there are established references in the field... In any discipline we have to accept what references will be used and taken as the standard. Unfortunately, we have painfully few references in the HP realm... We here don't hold ourselves out to be the final authority... we have our reference section as an aid to newcomers to the HP hobby... What we have included is based on study of the existing reference material.
Now it well may be that we have members who have better knowledge of HPs than published authorities... BUT... given the fact these authorities have not published any definitive works that can be used for reference it is hard to utilize that knowledge... In addition, how is someone to be able to decide who is correct? The established references on a member here? I think y'all can see our difficulty with this...
For that reason I think the answer may be to offer the opportunity for a sort of 'minority report' option. In this we will allow members with differing opinions to write a paragraph or two on why they disagree with something and why they think the references used are wrong. We will then add that to the reference sections to show differing views.
Free and open discussion is important to the success of any interest group. I and the other moderators want to encourage the maximum exchange of information, views and thoughts...
I sincerely ask that we all make it a point to be sure our discussions are civil, friendly and that they encourage response and further discussion.
Finally, I invite anyone who thinks they have been over moderated to feel free to contact me privately. I'm a strong believer in the concept the best moderation is the least moderation... I sincerely hope to avoid having to use that option... I definitely don't want to have to.
Let me also add I really appreciate the good start we have made here and all the good information and other material we are starting to build up.
I will finally add, that the reference sections are not the exclusive purview of the moderators... any member is not only welcome but invited to write material for the reference area.
Thanks to all
Sincerely
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by ranger566 on Jul 2, 2017 13:41:17 GMT -5
Excellent post, Chuck.
It answered lots of my questions about what else is out there, and the history of how they got there.
Steve |
|
|
|
Post by pjk9hp on Jul 20, 2017 10:46:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by GI Jane on Jul 4, 2018 14:16:59 GMT -5
I have a Browning Hi Power 9mm (more than likely a clone) brought back from Iraq in 2015. As an MP I come across many captured weapons. This one was procured from an Iraqi NCO. No manufacturers markings or dates. Just a few tiny identicle markings on the frame, slide, and barrel. All three SN# are identicle. There is one marking inside the frame near the magazine ejector: "AD" The "D" is turned around facing the "A". I'm just curious who manufactured it.
|
|
|
|
Post by GI Jane on Jul 4, 2018 14:22:42 GMT -5
I have close up photo's if needed. Thank youi for any info.
|
|
|
|
Post by GI Jane on Jul 4, 2018 16:24:03 GMT -5
Is it also true that during the Viet Nam war MAC/SOG forces were issued similar unmarked Browning High Power 9mm? I would like very much to find the origins of the unmarked non-manufacturer and non-marked dates. Thank you again to anyone that can help me out.
|
|
…..
.
?
