I carried a BHP for a bit over 40 years and my ammo of choice was the 147. Plenty accurate enough for what was needed. I just like heavier bullets. Today being long retired I still shoot the gun every now and then and use whatever I can get for the least money. They all work and give reasonable close range accuracy but for business use I liked the 147.
Hi Power
- Thread starter Ivan the Butcher
- Start date
Kp321
Member
1972 with adjustable sights is ok, 1954 with adjustable ones is a no-go.
OP
Ivan the Butcher
Member
I was wondering about that too. But I wouldn't worry until I looked the date up myself.
Ivan
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
Ivan a 71 is great because it has an exterior extractor instead of an interior extractor that was discontinued in 62 and is obsolete and is a hard-to-find part if it breaks. Sarge
Last edited:
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
Great bullet choice there. For 125 grain LRN I go with 3.5 grains of Bullseye and that is about 2000 rounds for a pound of Bullseye powder.
Rock185
US Veteran
I've owned a number of Hi Powers since the '60s. I wondered too about a 1954 Hi Power with adjustable sights. I admire you guys who were able to develop cast bullet loads that gave good accuracy. I tried all manner of cast bullets in some of mine. Never did find a cast bullet load that grouped as well as jacketed bullets in my Hi Powers. Tried all kinds of weights, diameters, profiles, etc. No luck. My Hi Powers with BarSto barrels handled cast bullets just fine, but the factory barrels; not so much..
Over a period of 30+ years, I owned three of the GP Comp models. The previous owner of one favored cast bullets, loaded them for the GP, and said it would not shoot. I acquired it anyway. The barrel was leaded up worse than any I'd ever seen. Much elbow grease later, a clean barrel with jacketed bullets shot about as well as any pistol I owned. FWIW, most accurate 9mm bullet I ever used in the Hi Power and others was the old Sierra 115 grain JHC. Don't know if that exact bullet configuration is still available. In factory ammo, the Federal 9BP 115 grain JHP has proven to be excellent as to reliability and accuracy in my guns..
Over a period of 30+ years, I owned three of the GP Comp models. The previous owner of one favored cast bullets, loaded them for the GP, and said it would not shoot. I acquired it anyway. The barrel was leaded up worse than any I'd ever seen. Much elbow grease later, a clean barrel with jacketed bullets shot about as well as any pistol I owned. FWIW, most accurate 9mm bullet I ever used in the Hi Power and others was the old Sierra 115 grain JHC. Don't know if that exact bullet configuration is still available. In factory ammo, the Federal 9BP 115 grain JHP has proven to be excellent as to reliability and accuracy in my guns..
I too have had much good luck with 9BP over the years, but I haven’t bought it for quite some time now.
Generally, with any 9mm handgun I start with 124 grain and branch out from there. Nothing seems to be a given with 9mm handguns.
My S&W 1911 Pro 9mm will shoot rings around any other ammo with Federal AE 147 grain FMJ. Another exceptional round has been Federal’s 124 gr. Hydra-Shok, and later the HST, but you have to be pretty spendy to shoot that stuff regularly. My 3913 shoots like a target pistol with it.
Generally, with any 9mm handgun I start with 124 grain and branch out from there. Nothing seems to be a given with 9mm handguns.
My S&W 1911 Pro 9mm will shoot rings around any other ammo with Federal AE 147 grain FMJ. Another exceptional round has been Federal’s 124 gr. Hydra-Shok, and later the HST, but you have to be pretty spendy to shoot that stuff regularly. My 3913 shoots like a target pistol with it.
My experience with both HiPower and other 9mm pistols is 125 & 147 grain bullets are generally more accurate and consistent.
My theory for this is it’s due to the longer bearing surface of the heavier bullets.
Comparing same design and same manufacturer, the true diameter bearing area is longer in the heavier bullets.
The very short bearing surface on the 115 grain bullet allows random rounds to not have their natural center of rotation aligned with the bore axis. Causing the bullet to leave the muzzle slightly out of rotational balance.
I believe that this principle is at least partially responsible why bullets like the 38 wad cutter is so accurate. That huge bearing area makes it virtually impossible to travel the bore without perfect alignment of both axis.
My theory for this is it’s due to the longer bearing surface of the heavier bullets.
Comparing same design and same manufacturer, the true diameter bearing area is longer in the heavier bullets.
The very short bearing surface on the 115 grain bullet allows random rounds to not have their natural center of rotation aligned with the bore axis. Causing the bullet to leave the muzzle slightly out of rotational balance.
I believe that this principle is at least partially responsible why bullets like the 38 wad cutter is so accurate. That huge bearing area makes it virtually impossible to travel the bore without perfect alignment of both axis.
Darkenfast
Member
NATO does not specify the weight for a 9mm bullet but gives a range of 108-128 grains. It specifies dimensions and pressures. The previous U.S. version was the M882 (124-grain bullet at close to 1200 fps from an M9 Beretta and still available from Winchester), and the current M1152 (115 grains at just over 1300 fps from an M17 Sig).
Pressures and velocity do not always correlate, but I would estimate that in American civilian terms the M882 is between regular and +p, and the M1152 is definitely in +p territory.
Darkenfast
Member
A completely off-topic piece of trivia to add to my above post: You have to go back to the full blackpowder .45 Colt loads in 7 1/2 inch barreled SAAs to beat the foot-pound energy of the M1152 loads!
I do sometimes use the M882 rounds in my old Hi Power, but I won't be using the M1152 rounds.
I do sometimes use the M882 rounds in my old Hi Power, but I won't be using the M1152 rounds.
I have a copy of the US training manual for the Beretta M9 9mm pistol. there was a small ad in a recent issue of the AR magazine for them for $20 and I ordered one. The stated ballistics for the 124 gr M882 ctg is 1263 fps out of the M9 at 31,175 psi. Basically just standard pressure. Propellant HPC 26 powder, probably not a standard canister grade powder available to handloaders.
Last edited:
The US Government is not going to develop a 9mm load for regular issue that is in the +P pressure range. Std pressure limit for the 9mm is 35,000 psi. Brian Pearce has published several articles on 9mm handguns and loads. He routinely develops loads with 115 gr HPs that exceed 1300 fps out of full size guns without exceeding std pressure limits. If he can do it so can the US Government. The pressure of the M1152 round is undoubtedly less than 35,000 psi, so nothing to fear about using it.
6thtexas
Member
We have an older Hi-power my dad bought in 1963. He paid $74.50 for it brand new! I run 124gr jacketed in it most of the time but it is very accurate with 135 gr cast bullets as long as they are sized .358". I know it is heresy, but I like my CZ 85C actually better than the Browning. My wife has claimed the Browning for hers and she keeps by the bed in case she has to repel boarders
Me too.......115 gr RN & 125 hr TC that I cast. Mine. Bought new 1972.
Attachments
Me too.......115 gr RN & 125 gr TC that I cast. Mine. Bought new 1972.
Attachments
Darkenfast
Member
A quick look online for 9mm pressures shows:
Standard - 35K
+P - 38.5K
M1152 - 39.7K
Anyone have any better sources to clarify this?
A bit hard to believe without real verification. Brian Pearce's tested data along with reloading manuals show that 1300 fps with a 115 gr bullet is easily achieved at std pressure levels so why can't the US Government do it with all of their resources. Also handgun life would be short with issue ammo at those pressures.
Similar threads
- Locked
