Thread: 9mm vs.45
View Single Post
Old March 26th, 2005, 12:28 AM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,288
Originally Posted by johnlee
LOL, that's an interesting way to frame it. Too low of a bore axis. That's a new one. I suppose one could be too rich or too good looking or too skilled or too whatever as well.

LOL-well then this must be the penultimate ergonomic design in your opinion...

Originally Posted by johnlee
The Hi-Power actually as a very low bore line. I think it that with the exception of the P7, the Hi-Power has a bore axis as low as any other 9mm. It's about as low as the bore axis on the Glock, and it's considerably lower than the bore axis on the 226. The 226's bore axis is ridiculously high.

Seriously, I don't have the Hi-Power anymore but the Glock 9mm has a bore axis (as measured from middle of trigger to middle of bore) of ~1.5". The SIG Sauer 9mm is ~1.75". For me, the difference in recoil is more noticeable in the glock due to it's light weight and seemingly more uneven weight distribution. Also, as I mentioned, recoil in 9mm has never been a problem for me. My point is that many features affect the handling of the weapon of which the caliber is obviously the single largest factor.

Originally Posted by johnlee
Whaaaaaaaaaaat? What about the 1911?

What about it? One of the factor's that I always hear the 1911 worshippers rant about is it's relatively low bore axis and how wonderful it is. So this must be a great firearm in your opinion, right?

My brother-in-law is one of the 1911 faithful and he has just about every model of Colt versions (Officer's, Gold Cup, etc.) as well as a WWII Remington and, of course, the Para-Ordnance models from P10-P14 in both alloy frame and steel. Never liked them and wished Browning had designed and FN had made the Hi-power in .45 as well.
Reply With Quote