Jump to content

Talk:Browning Hi-Power/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

King of Nines?

I have always heard the Browning Hi-Power referred to as the "Queen of Nines." How prevalent is the "King of Nines" nickname?


-I have never heard the Hi-power called "King of Nines." I am a Hi-power owner, and love the pistol, but this seems like partisan nicknaming. Fallshirmjager

-To the editor who keeps adding "King of Nines" nickname, please provide source. JG 08:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources by 155.84.57.253 13:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30153

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-88944.html

http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/ikealove/21173.html?mode=reply

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-8197.html

http://www.fictionpress.com/read.php?storyid=2069060

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-101928.html

You must be kidding...what kind of sources are "Evangeline's Metamorphosis chapter 2" or "Fiction » Supernatural » In the Eyes of the Tiger" and bunch of forumwritings...? --81.197.218.62 13:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

They are certainly better than your complete lack of sources to support your untenable position. 155.84.57.253 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that burden of proof is on your side Mr. Multipersonal. Its you who is adding some fictional "facts" to the article so YOU need to present some credible sources.--81.197.218.62 14:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You only asked for one. Why reneg? 155.84.57.253 14:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So you dont have any real sources, just the ones you have written.--81.197.218.62 15:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Several are from shooting sources, any one of them would do. Unlike you, I don't reneg. 155.84.57.253 19:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


So lets waste still some time to this... Your reliable sources of gun knowledge are:

  • Polk Audio: some radiostore forum where someone who uses alias jdhdiggs, Polkhead uses the phrase.
  • The Highroad.org: Someone who uses alias Rival uses the phrase in forum.
  • Evangeline's Metamorphosis chapter 2: some sort of a short story written by alias E for Emma (ikealove).
  • The Highroad.org: Someone who uses alias CZF uses the phrase in forum.
  • FictionPress: Fiction » Supernatural » In the Eyes of the Tiger, some sort of a short story by Author: Scooz
  • Internet Infidels: A nonprofit educational organization dedicated to the growth and maintenance of the most comprehensive freethought website on the Internet, the Secular Web Library, a virtual library of information on nontheistic worldviews, including agnosticism, atheism, freethought, humanism, and secularism. Our central mission is the defense and promotion of naturalism, the hypothesis that the physical universe is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it, thus entailing the nonexistence of supernatural beings, including the theistic God. Someone who uses alias walking point uses the phrase in forum.

And you say "several are from shooting sources"...really.

Wikipedia:Verifiability says:

Self-published sources

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic.

Burden of evidence

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. --81.197.218.62 20:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


81.197.218.62, you are technically correct in your assessment of these sources. However we need to show some judgement. The nickname is hardly controversial. I don't think you are suggesting that it has been made up by any editor here, or that it is an elaborate hoax. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources". This is a pedestrian claim, and minimal sources are needed. Though no one of the sources that has been provided is fully reliable, in aggregate they are convincing. Oh, and here's another, a historical reproduction store, The American Historical Foundation. Chambered in 9mm, and because of its combat record, its been known for decades as “the King of Nines”.[1] I hope their gunsmithing is better than their grammar. Anyway, let's not strain at a gnat. -Will Beback 23:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, the June 2005 issue of the magazine Combat Handguns has the FM model (Argentine licensed copy) as its covergirl for that month. In the article the FM is described as the "Queen of Nines" as opposed to the FN (Belgian) as the "King of Nines." It would seem that the nickname must be widely accepted for gun writers to make puns about it. 155.84.57.253 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I figure we just keep the reference out this says it all really, the forum references aren't valid sources, and it seems that the nickname is used for multiple guns. In all though I agree with Will Beback, it's not a big deal, but saying it seems to have gotten heated for some reason I felt the need to add my thoughts. Galactor213 6:28, July 23, 2006 (UTC)

Importation

(and imported into the US by Browning)

What does this mean? Did John Browning import them, or does a company of the same name? Twinxor 12:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proper name

I think the weapon's more proper name is Browning HP (an acronym) rather... It was also produced as Browning GP (in French) Pibwl 16:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well it should be called Browning GP as they are made in Belgium, but Browning HP is a more popular term and so used more often. Also, printed on most guns. Wolfmankurd 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Australia

Could someone add australia to users? I dont know how. (See Weaponry of The Australian Army for Citation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.188.76 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Separate article for DA?

IMHO, HP-DA (or BDA or whatever it is this year) should have its' own article, as it is essentially a different gun compared to old Hi-Power. Also, some clarification between all the different pistols marketed under BDA name but which have nothing in common between them (Beretta 84, SIG and HP-DA) would not hurt. --Mikoyan21 20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Many and some???

Quote from article: "The P-35 Models (..) are considered by many to be Browning's finest pistols, and by some even the finest pistols ever." Who are many? Who are some? I doubt many people even know this gun exists. Also I'm sure they are considered to be pieces of crap by "some" as well, as there are many different people with differing opinions. This piece should either be removed, or the article should actually mention WHO thinks this. Also see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Retodon8 08:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the list of references to films/tv/video games to a new pages and replaced the section with a link to it. Besides the arguments against such lists (see What Wikipedia is not, specifically "lists of trivia", WP:NOT) this is to keep the article clean and uniform with other similar articles and List of firearms in video games and List of firearms in filmspages. (see Heckler & Koch MP5 / Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture or MAC-10 / MAC-10 in popular culture) for similar ...in popular culture pages).

Deon Steyn 11:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You can see the Browning HP, e. g., in "Beverly Hills Cop III" as a gun of det. Foley, in "Matrix" as a gun of Switch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.0.210.102 (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Names

Anyone ever seen the terms "gran potencia" or "rosario/rosaria" used? 76.186.119.234 04:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Confused... duplicate page?

How is this possible? Inglis Hi-Power seems to be an -exact- duplicate of this page, save the replacing of "Browning Hi-Power" with "Inglis Hi-Power", manufacturing location (Canada/Belgium) and associated changes (picture of Inglis HP versus FN or Browning) — even the talk pages are exact duplicates.

Also, there is an FN Hi-Power page which is an unsourced, seemingly "handwritten" page. If given the choice, I'd say FN Hi-Power should be the main page and Browning and Inglis should be redirects. But at the very least, unless I'm missing something, we have at least one near-perfect duplicate page.
71.235.66.254 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the history of Inglis Hi-Power and Talk:Inglis Hi-Power, it would seem that EX STAB just copied both the original Browning Hi-Power and its talk page, and pasted them. I don't know why someone would do that. Pride in Canada or Inglis, perhaps?
I think the main article should be named Browning Hi-Power and FN and Inglis should redirect to it. Browning Hi-Power is how most people refer to it. Also, even though there is the American company Browning Arms Company that makes the Browning, Browning Hi-Power is a neutral term that doesn't favor particular manufacturers. The Browning in the name refers to John Moses Browning, not to the Browning Arms Company.Pettifogger 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW: Browning Arms Company does not physically construct the Hi-Power, or much else in their product lineup. The manufacture of their firearms have always been farmed out to other companies such as FN. In this case, FN has always been Browning's source for Hi-Power pistols. D.E. Watters 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Rather than contribute to an edit war, I figured I might as well bring this up on the talk page. Lengthy discussions have recently taken place at the talk pages for Glock 19 and Walther P22 regarding the propriety of including links in those articles to the article about the Virginia Tech massacre. Consensus at Glock 19 was against inclusion of such a link, while opinions were pretty evenly divided at Walther P22. At a mediation cabal request for the P22 article, an editor pointed out that this article has a similar link and suggested that the link was inappropriate. What say the editors of this article? PubliusFL 06:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections have NO PLACE in an encyclopedia. K1ng l0v3 12:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The premise here seems to be that these gun articles should confine themselves to narrow discussions of the guns' technical qualities, history of production, and so on. We should be discussing this premise. Why confine these articles to such a narrow purlieu? The object of an encyclopedia is to provide information. I'm not suggesting that every murder conducted with a Browning should be listed in the article, but surely the extraordinary events in which the gun was involved should be mentioned. BTW, many, many Wikipedia articles have Trivia section. Look around and you'll soon discover that. Griot 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also see WP:AVTRIV and WikiProject Trivia Cleanup. Trivia has no place in this or any other article. K1ng l0v3 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any policy banning trivia sections. Just a guideline saying it's usually better to avoid them. But more importantly you're the one who brought up trivia sections. There's no reason that notable criminal uses of a weapon need to be placed in a trivia section. Place can be found in the main body of the article. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Fifteen years from now, people will log onto those pages, and if they see "The Glock 19 achieved notoriety for its use in the Virginia Tech Massacre", it'll have no meaning and no value to that person — that's why these "this gun was used for this shooting" need to be kept out of WikiPedia. While they may dominate the news and may seem to be the most important thing for the weeks after it happened, within a few years, people will say "what?" when you mention it. These things lose relevancy quickly. 71.235.66.254 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The Thompson submachine gun article mentions its use in the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, an event that happened over 80 years ago. It's still considered very notable today. I don't see any reason we should assume that, for example, the Virginia Tech Massacre, will be forgotten and no longer notable in 15 years. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Just briefly, I'd like to propose a merge per WP:GUNS#Variants. The Browning BDA is just a double-action Hi-Power.--LWF (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This really is a no-brainer. It is already mentioned in this article, the other page shouldn't have been created in the first place. I'd say just go ahead and redirect. — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been told that the BDA is actually more different than its article says. Koalorka has promised to expand it to make that clear.--LWF (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are certainly not a simply variant of the HP. I will expand the BDA page this weekend. Koalorka (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being so timely about improving Browning BDA when asked, Koalorka.--LWF (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

1962 Modifications - More detail?

Has anyone got a copy of the R. Blake Stevens book mentioned in the references? I read it years ago and it referred to the 1962 modifications in some detail. From memory, the extractor was but one modification; There were a number of significant changes as FN took the opportunity to clean up the design. The new external extractor was more reliable and more robust but also simplified some machining cuts in the slide, reducing manufacturing costs. I remember that the Stevens book also stated that the camming mechanism on the barrel/frame was modified to improve durability, but it also said that the changes were made deliberately non-interchangeable with previous versions, and so are referred to in the book as 'watershed' modifications. I understand that FN did this to reduce competition with the war surplus Browning HPs on the market at the time. In British and some Commonwealth forces the Inglis wartime pistols and the other pre-'watershed' pistols were kept in service alongside the L9A1 (which is a post-'62 version - L9A1s are generally dated late 1960s) but in the 1980s all the pre-L9A1 pistols were retired as they were not interchangeable and certain bits like the extractors were becoming harder to obtain. Has anyone got the R. Blake Stevens book so some of this detail can be added to the page? I think as a significant change to the design and the surrounding political factors, all this is very relevant and should be added to the page with the Stevens book cited as the reference. I do not own it/have access to a copy otherwise I would do it myself. Strangways (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

External extractor more reliable?

Within the article the statement is made that the Hi Power was converted to a 'more reliable' external extractor, but no source is given to support this notion. Importantly, noted sources and authorities including Stephen A. Camp who has written several books on the Hi Power do not support the notion that the external extractor is actually more reliable, instead citing that the switch to the external extractor was driven by a desire to simplify production and thereby lower costs. According to these sources it is simpler and cheaper to make the external extractor perform reliably, but that is a matter of cost and not reliability.

Unless somebody wants to produce an argument for the contrary I think this should be corrected and properly referenced. Syr74 (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Camming

Anyone have a picture of a Browning Hi-Power's barrel next to a 1911's barrel to show the difference? It would be even better to have a SIG P220's barrel next to that to show the evolution of camming and locking. The phrase "linkless camming like the Hi-Power" (or some derivative thereof) is used several times throughout other articles, so it'd be nice to have a picture of it.  :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Improvement over the M1911

A majority of magazine articles, gun enthusiasts, and fans of the Hi-Power have stated this over and over again - the HP is an improvement over the M1911 pistol, PERIOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.137.249 (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Then it should be very easy for you to come up with the sources to back that claim up at which time it would seem logical to add it to the article. Then again, if there are several publications which state that the 1911 is the superior weapon (there are) we should probably add that too. But then, that would probably get confusing, wouldn't it? Syr74 (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Error

Barrel length is stated as being 11mm or 4.7 inches. 11mm is not equal to 4.7 inches. Either the barrel is 4.7 inches long (119.38mm), or it's 11mm long (0.43307 inches). Can't be both. 67.0.12.220 (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Two flaws?

I work with a former British Serviceman who served as a close protection officer for the Royal Family and he informed me that when drawing the Browning HP from a shoulder holster it is easy to catch the magazine release near the grip and have the magazine fall out out the pistol. I am no firearms expert so if anybody with first hand knowledge can verify this then the flaws could be updated to three rather than two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.106.40 (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you but unless that is a documented problem which has been published in a reliable source, we can not use it because it would be considered original research. Since we don't know which specific model or configuration of HP and we don't know which type/make of holster, those assertions are incomplete. Fwiw, I just tried to emulate this and can not get this to happen as described. My release is on the inside facing my body and I have to actually extend my thumb forward in a very awkward manner to even attempt this and find it hard to do.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. Upon reflection I believe my colleague was referring to the performance of this pistol in a specific quick draw and snap shot suppressive fire scenario particular to close protection work. I couldn't supply model numbers but given the British Army's tendency to do things on the cheap it may be a specific issue with a military issue pistol in the U.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.106.40 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The reference to a British Serviceman providing close protection to the Royal Family is odd because their close protection is provided by the Metropolitan Police. Mind you, if all of the people who claim to have been on that balcony in 1980 had actually been there it would have collapsed into Princes Gate.

Close protection is provided by more than the Metro Police. You don't really think the Metro Police follow them outside of London, overseas perhaps, for example? That said, given the miniscule size of the magazine release, I am not sure how the original comment regarding shoulder holsters causing magazines to fall out has a basis in reality. How is a shoulder holster different from any kind of holster as far as potentially activating the magazine release? You don't hear complaints of inadvertant magazine releases - and with the mousetrap springmagazines that have been around for awhile now, anything that even briefly activated the magazine release would be launching the magazine, even fully loaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.80.143 (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Close Protection of the Royal Family is provided at ALL time both at home and abroad by SO14 (Royalty Protection) of the Metropolitan Police. The comment about them not operating outside of London shows an ignorance of the British Policing System. In addition to the policing of London, the Metropolitan Police Service has many National duties. (Until recently it was responsible to the Home Secretary, rather than under local control.) Additionally ALL British police officers are "Police Constables", that is to say their powers as a Police Constable (but not their rank) extend across the whole of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.120 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Inglis Magazines

Is it worth noting that Inglis-made magazines held and functioned with 14 rounds, i.e., one more than other factory standard capacity magazines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.188.249 (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Browning Hi-Power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Browning Hi-Power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Manual cocking

In contrast, a single-action pistol must be cocked manually before the first shot, by pulling the slide to the rear and releasing it.

Is it not possible to cock the Hi-Power by pulling the hammer back directly? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. If a round is already chambered, the the gun can be carried with the hammer gently released down.
The quoted paragraph was probably referring to weapons with no external hammer, such as some of the French MAB designs such as the MAB Model D pistol. These have no hammer and must be cocked by pulling back the slide.
Hammer-less automatics were popular among some of the European police forces pre-war as the gun could be carried in a trouser pocket by a 'plain clothes' man - such as of the Gestapo and later Milice - and withdrawn quickly without the hammer possibly snagging on the pocket. This is the reason for guns such as the GP35 later having the hammer changed from a spur to a rounded, knurled knob, which was less likely to get caught. This is also why the Walther PP and Walther PPK had such hammers, as did the Beretta. There was a large European market for so-called 'police pistols' that did not exist in the UK, as many of the European police forces were routinely armed, whereas the UK's is not.
It was for the same reason that users such as the Parachute Regiment and SOE preferred the Browning to a normal service revolver, as in the former organisation's case they would at some time possibly be not using a normal holster, and it would be less likely to get snagged on a Denison smock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Photo Labeling

There is a photo that says it is a BHP in 40 S&W and acurately describes how the slide should look. But the photo title on the jpg is a 1971 Browning HP, which is correct. The Photo caption needs to be changed to a 1971 BHP (the photo has the serial number which proves it's not a 40 S&W. 40 S&W serial numbers begin with 2W5 when they were first produced (Based on my 1996 BHP practical in 40 S&W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.152.10 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Browning Hi-Power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Browning Hi-Power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Browning_Hi-Power/Archive_1&oldid=1065738823"