FN HP Capitan

[CLASSIC12]

Second FN HP I bought together with the 1952 commercial one.

Auction house said 1979 manufacture.

 

[CLASSIC12]

Inside

Grips were black plastic, changed them with those I bought on ebay

 

[simonp]

1979 manufacture? I'm assuming that's a typo..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[erics]

T series much older. A 1979 would have serial number 245RNXXXXX

 

[sub-moa]

WADR, not a typo and T365098 is a correct SN for a '79 Capitan. FN stopped and started their tangent sight BHPs multiple times...using up pre-existing SN blocks that had been set aside for that purpose, old stock tangent slides and newer other parts, before it was designated "Declassified" in '79. Note the "D'Armes De Guerre" pre-'73 slide legend...also note the 2nd. quarter '78 barrel.


Capitans were later re-resurrected again and produced...off the top of my head, as late as the mid-'90s, but I'm absolutely sure of the '90s period. These were with new production parts...including new tangent slides with MkIII ejection ports and period slide legends.


Classic12; are those your pics or the auction house pics? The reason I ask is that I found...and saved, those same pics several years ago.

 

[Richard Simmons]

I looks like the chamber section of the barrel is cracked almost all the way around?

 

[CLASSIC12]

WADR, not a typo and T365098 is a correct SN for a '79 Capitan. FN stopped and started their tangent sight BHPs multiple times...using up pre-existing SN blocks that had been set aside for that purpose, old stock tangent slides and newer other parts, before it was designated "Declassified" in '79. Note the "D'Armes De Guerre" pre-'73 slide legend...also note the 2nd. quarter '78 barrel.


Capitans were later re-resurrected again and produced...off the top of my head, as late as the mid-'90s, but I'm absolutely sure of the '90s period. These were with new production parts...including new tangent slides with MkIII ejection ports and period slide legends.


Classic12; are those your pics or the auction house pics? The reason I ask is that I found...and saved, those same pics several years ago.

Those are the pictures I took in April '15 and posted on the BHP section of the 1911 forum. And you gave me those infos back then already.

 

[Kurusu]

I looks like the chamber section of the barrel is cracked almost all the way around?

It's a two piece barrel. That is normal.

 

[Richard Simmons]

It's a two piece barrel. That is normal.

Had no idea. Thank you for the education

 

[sub-moa]

Those are the pictures I took in April '15 and posted on the BHP section of the 1911 forum. And you gave me those infos back then already.

Ahhhhh again . I typed that thinking you JUST bought it and was the new owner...failing to notice you mentioned you'd bought the '52...and another BHP, in '14 in the '52 BHP thread .


Incidentally, I'd saved the pics back then and put them in a folder labelled simply "'79 T" as yet another reference point that "T" production continued way past the SN change date of '68 indicated on the Browning website...that so many folks rely upon. I recognized the pics you posted here but only recalled I'd saved them a few years ago...I should have at least added "1911-BHP '15"...it is now , with "S&W" and your User Name...but from here .


As with the '52 thread; sorry for the redundant reply .

 

[CLASSIC12]

Ahhhhh again [emoji5]. I typed that thinking you JUST bought it and was the new owner...failing to notice you mentioned you'd bought the '52...and another BHP, in '14 in the '52 BHP thread [emoji5].


Incidentally, I'd saved the pics back then and put them in a folder labelled simply "'79 T" as yet another reference point that "T" production continued way past the SN change date of '68 indicated on the Browning website...that so many folks rely upon. I recognized the pics you posted here but only recalled I'd saved them a few years ago...I should have at least added "1911-BHP '15"...it is now , with "S&W" and your User Name...but from here .


As with the '52 thread; sorry for the redundant reply [emoji5].

No need to apologise, in fact 3 years ago you only replied 1952, so your today's reply is a lot more complete and informative