[Steelharp]

In the "Compare to 1911" thread, the few that have answered so far have chosen the Mark III. What is the advantage of the Mark III over the Practical, if there is one? I'm thinking of saving up for a 9mm, and asthetically the Practical appeals to me more, at least from the Browning website photos; I've yet to see either of them in person. Is the preference simply economical, or something structural?

Thanks, Mikey

[This message has been edited by Steelharp (edited 08-30-2001).]

 

[gtf]

It's purely aesthetic. I think the only reason that many would opt for the Mk III is that they don't like two-tone guns. However, in the thread you mention, I believe that they are simply recommending the Mk III model over the standard model, not necessarily the Practical.

The Pachmayr Rubber wraparound grips, two-tone finish, and commander-style hammer are pretty much the only differences. If you prefer the look of the Practical (which was my first and still favorite handgun), then by all means, get one--if you can find one, that is...

[This message has been edited by gtf (edited 08-30-2001).]

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. It's just personal preference for me in that I prefer the semi-post front sight on the MkIII over the ramp (non-serrated) of the Practical and the Browning ball hammer that comes (came?) on the Practical bites me and would have to be replaced. The hard chrome is nice, but I personally prefer dark pistols. There is nothing wrong with the Practical and if you prefer it over the MkIII, go for it.

Best and good luck.

 

[Richard]

Own some BHPs and my guess is my Practical is finished a little better than my MKII or my MKIIIs. The trigger on my Practical is fine right out of the box and the same can't be said for my MKII or MKIIIs. I use the Practical for target shooting and the adjustable sights and factory front sight are fine for this purpose. Regards, Richard