FN Hi Power SFS Review
For the first review in this series, we decided to visit an old friend, John Browning’s Hi-Power. We took a brand new FN Hi-Power SFS in .40S&W and put it through the paces. 200rds later, we were still smiling. Our main dislikes centered around the magazine disconnect feature, which we found unnecessary. This feature also makes the trigger pull heavier. Disabling the magazine disconnect would make this a perfect pistol!
Technical Specifications:
- Caliber: .40S&W
- Weight (empty): 2.1 lbs
- Length: 7.9″
- Height: 5.1″
- Width: 1.35″
- Barrel length: 4.6″ (bore and chamber)
- Rifled length: 3.9″
- Number of grooves: 6
- Twist and direction: 15.7″, right-hand
- Magazine capacity: 10+1
- Muzzle velocity: 1150 fps
- Ammunition: 200x Winchester White-Box FMJ .40S&W
What a great concept. Nice to read about the pros and cons while actually seeing it action.
You guys did a great job offering a comprehensive and objective review.
I look forward to more spots and subsequent on site discussion.
Thanks,
Roy
Comment by Roy Waters — November 14, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
I agree with Mr. Waters. Well done. It’s also good to see the St. Petersburg Police Pistol Range featured. I look forward to further reviews.
Comment by Mama HK — November 14, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
Its great to see a .40 cal put through the initial paces. 200 rounds is good for a new pistol but how does it fire after 1000 or 2000 rounds?
Comment by Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
great overview! Any future reviews for which pistols you suggest for concelead weapons? Which type of holsters as well?
Comment by Horatio — November 14, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
That’s a pretty cool review concept you have going here. I didn’t know you shoot at St. Pete Police Pistol Club. Maybe I’ll catch you guys down there sometime.
Regards,
Phan
Comment by Phan — November 14, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Yes, I’ve been shooting at the SPPPC since I was 10 years old. It’s a great place. I also shoot at the Wyoming Antelope Club, Myakka Archery and Gun Club, and the Hernando Sportsman’s Club.
I think we’ll be doing reviews at each of those venues in the coming months. Stay tuned!
– Evan
Comment by Evan — November 14, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
Our initial idea for these videos was to review some of the more uncommon firearms that people may not have immediate access to in their local shops. We figured no one needed to hear another Glock, SIG, or HK review, as their merits are well known and documented on the net. On the other hand, I think a concealed weapons comparison review is a GREAT idea, seeing as I have cycled through a fair number of them in the past few years. Thanks for all the feedback, and keep it coming!
-Erik
Comment by Erik — November 14, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
Looks great. Awesome review.
Comment by Gus — November 14, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
I really liked the review of the P-35, this is a great way to inform your clintel, about the diffrent models.
Comment by Wolf — November 17, 2006 @ 11:25 am
Evan, you have to lose the wedding ring. With all the female fans you’re making you don’t want to look taken.
Comment by WEK — November 21, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
Good stuff Man! Very impressive!
GO GATORS!!!!
Comment by BARRETT .50 CAL — November 21, 2006 @ 11:32 pm
Excellent piece, it was put together nicely. Considering myself somewhat of a novice, I really enjoyed the format. I will be checking back in the future for your next review.
Comment by Double Tap JT — November 27, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
Interesting idea; looking forward to seeing more.
Comment by Matt — November 28, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
Excellent review! I agree that it was nice to see a review of a lesser known firearm. Appreciated your objectivity and thorough review.
Comment by Trevenator — November 29, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Nice review fellas. Like the idea of the hammer re-cocking when the safety is disengaged, making it much safer for carry. Also, good to see a bobbed hammer is used since I know first hand about the hammer bite.
A word to RHP - good work with the editing and the updated graphics.
Now, how about some Glock reviews?
Comment by John W. Nighttrain — December 5, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
Very informative gentlemen, well done.
Comment by Ehren — January 18, 2007 @ 8:02 pm