Springfield Armory SA 35 Hi Power

[H Richard]

I have not had an opportunity to handle one of these yet, but the hammer/beaver-tail pictured is most above look quite capable of "Hammer bite". Has this been addressed with the Springfield gun?

 

[LVSteve]

I have not had an opportunity to handle one of these yet, but the hammer/beaver-tail pictured is most above look quite capable of "Hammer bite". Has this been addressed with the Springfield gun?

Point of order, Mr Speaker, "hammer bite" only happens if you hold it incorrectly.

 

[squidsix]

I strongly disagree. I get bit by the hammer on the HiPower regardless of grip. The "no bite" hammer solved this (mostly) for me.
Some of us have pretty big hands.

 

[oldbrownhat]

re hammer bite

FWIW, here is the late Stephen Camp's article on this issue. I had a T-Series and now a slighty-customized Argy and no hammer bite with either. I have medium-sized mitts, which may be relevant.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

I always laugh when I read "replica" comments about any firearm that is manufactured based on an original known design.

Remington-Rand was an expedient war-time producer of the 1911A1. Are they "replicas"?

John Ingliss Co. made Hi-Powers during WWII. Are they "replicas"?

FN altered the original HI-Power design over time with - among other things - and external extractor and a 2-piece fabricated and brazed barrel. Are those "replicas"?

S&W made so many revisions to their revolvers and pistols over time... which are the "replicas"?

Colt has contracted the production of several of their designs over the years, presumably because they were unable/unwilling to produce it themselves. They are stamped "Colt", and sold and/or advertised by Colt. Are they "replicas"?

Some people need to get over themseleves.

Yes, you do need to get over yourself.

Back in the day, everyone in cowboy action shooting called the various Italian Colt SAA reproductions "clones". The great gun writer John Taffin disabused us of using this term by explaining that a clone has to be precisely like the original and most of these guns were not. Even "reproduction" implies very close similarity. Thus, he explained that "replica" was the correct term. The similarities are close enough but since they're not clones they must be replicas.

So, while you are laughing, if you have a better term why don't you educate us?

Your examples, BTW, have no bearing on the issue. Guns made under government contracts or guns revised by the original manufacturer are not considered replicas as that term is generally used when describing commercial "copies". Licensed "copies" are not replicas, either.

And so it goes............