Who knew that Libyan dictator Mummer Gaddafi was the man with the golden gun? The BBC. You’ll have to watch this report by Gabriel Gatehouse — which offers considerable insight into the cluster-you-know-what that is post-Gaddafi Libya — to find out if the intrepid correspondent finds the pistol in question. SPOILER: he does. Now what?

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

47 COMMENTS

    • When it is no longer a supposed secret that you are ruling your subjects through the power of the gun it helps if you are personally wearing a really flashy gun that keeps the fact IN THEIR FACE.

      • So is that why Obama doesn’t have a blinged out gun? Because it’s no longer a secret he’s a dictator?

  7. If you really want some insight on post- Gaddafi Libya, read the comments on the You Tube video. Not a lot of love for the USA or UK there or the west in general for that matter. I can’t say I blame them, they are way worse off now than before. Sometimes it’s just better with the devil you know.

    • Buy one. I got the bug to own one and really enjoy it. The history of the gun is second only to the 1911, some would say second to none. John Browning was a genius, owning anything he designed is a must.

      • Just be aware that todays made High Powers are a far cry from the originals. Not that they are worse than the plasicky crap being made today but here is a run down on how they have changed.

        1. New High Powers have frames made of casting not forged steel. (After 1994)

        2. After 1989 they installed a passive firing pin safety that only left 1/16 or less metal behind the firing pin stop which can lead to slide cracking especially with dry firing.

        3. The Barrel extended barrel hood projection that helped stabilize the barrel for accuracy was done away with to save machine time and increase profits.

        4. The safety for quite some time has been made of a brittle casting instead of a forging. Its ok unless you bump it too hard.

        5. The frame is now wider because it is made of a casting, not a forging and this exacerbates the problem of a fat grip that is often too big for some peoples hands to wrap around and still reach the trigger. The extra wideness for me makes the gun feel not at all like the original High Power did.

        6. The long trigger reset has always been a problem on this gun but strangely it can be reduced by just a little light gun-smithing but I warn you do not attempt this job as it is not for the amateur. I have always wondered why Browning never changed this but then again why did the knuckle heads not ever bring out a permanent model with a short barrel for concealed carry like the Argentine High Powers had in their Detective model or why did not Browning also offer a Detective model with the addition of a light weight aluminum frame.

        Having said all this the trigger reach is still shorter than the long reach of the CZ75/85 gun which is really a stretch even for a man with very long fingers. Accuracy is still good, the gun still looks good if you get one that is blued. The gun points and balances well. And it is nostalgic to own.

        • “I have always wondered why Browning never changed this”

          Because he was dead. He started the design but it wasn’t ready for production until 8 years after his death.

          • I was referring to the “Browning Company” not the man. Actually Browning had little if anything to do with the gun FN would market as the “High Power”. Belgians do not call the gun the “Browning High Power” but rather the “grande puissance” which means “great power”. Dieudonné Saive was the arms designer who actually invented the High Power not Browning. About the only thing he borrowed from Browning was the staggered column magazine. Browning’s gun was actually a striker fired gun while Saive’s gun is a hammer fired one. Belgians are well aware of who Saive was while he is relatively unknown in America. Claiming Browning invented the High Power in Belgium would get you a punch in the nose and a well deserved one at that.

            There is a controversy to this very day on why they called it the “High Power”. Some say it was the high capacity magazine while others claim the gun was designed to withstand heavy 9×19 military loadings that were often originally designed for use in sub-machine guns.

  9. I remember the man who killed Gaddafi shot him with a High Power but I cannot remember if he used his own gun or Gaddafi’s golden gun to do it.

    Saddam Insane also carried a High Power as well. It seems to be a popular gun in the Middle East.

    • Hi-Powers were standard issue for the British and Israeli armies until recently, along with fifty-something other countries. Many obsolete or simply well-used weapons were handed down to fledgling post-colonial states as they formed their armies. Combine that with everything from the occasional bribed guard to the international arms trade and you have massive potential for Hi-powers to float around the region. Like the AK pattern, I’m sure they’ve just withstood the test of time and garnered a reputation for themselves.

    • He may have had a Hi-Power, as a lot of Third World dictators collect Hi-Powers and Colt Pythons, but Saddam had a Glock 18 on him when they found him in that hole. I remember something about George W. being presented with that Glock as a memento. I also found a couple pictures of Saddam with a nickel-plated Thompson.

      • Your post about Saddam also reminded me he had a special run of AK-47’s made that were gold plated. I cannot remember if they were to be used as ceremonial rifles or were to be used for an elite guard.

  10. Anyone see how sorry the condition of that relic was after only a few years left to this idiot’s tender mercies?

    • Yes I did notice the wear and tear on it and it reminded me of the Morons in my State of Ohio who treat guns in much the same way. They take a fiendish delight in altering or outright destroying everything they get their hands on. I guess this gives them an excuse to go out and buy something new and start the process of mass destruction all over again.

  11. I’d like to know a few things:

    Is that gilded steel? Frame and-or slide milled from 10 karat or lower gold?

    Etc, etc…

  12. The High Power has always been my favorite gun since I first got my hands on my Dad’s gun he brought home from WWII. I must say after owning, collecting and shooting many types of 9mm guns there is only one that I would bless to take the place of the High Power and it is unfortunately not made anymore. I might add also that this gun should also have been the U.S. military gun not the Beretta as it was still in production when the Beretta was adopted. So what was this gun? It was the Star Model 28/30. The Model 30 being an update to the Model 28. The Star M28 with stood an 180,000 round test conducted by Interarms before they agreed to import the gun as they wanted to see how good it really was.

    The Star M28/30 was made of forged steel and built like a tank. Unlike the Beretta and Sig 226 it had a forged steel slide frame not a fragile aluminum frame. The Star had no pins rather the pin was integral with its corresponding part reminiscent of the Mauser Broom-handle pistol. Contrast that with the flimsy stamped sheet metal roll pins of the Sig 226 and its original stamped sheet metal slide. The Star had an extended slide stop on the pin end which was done so that it could be used as a tool to disassemble the fire control system and the firing pin.

    Accuracy was superb as it was a loose copy of the Sig Neuhausen P210 with its tucked in slide in frame and kidney shaped barrel track. Trigger pull both double and single actions was superb. Sights were w&e adjustable and very good combat sights. It game with rubber grips similar to the American pachmayr grips.

    If the Military had not been so prejudiced against a Spanish pistol it would have been the best choice by far for the U.S. Military 9mm pistol.

    • I’ve been wanting a Star Modelo B for a while now.
      I was told that my granfather had always kicked himself for not being home his pistol. He was told to turn it in, but after he got out he realized his buddies still had theirs. You wouldn’t know what a tail gunner on a B-24 in the Air Corps would have been issued would you? I’ve been curious.

      • Air crews in all the branches were issued a hodge podge of sidearms. Mostly 1911a1 .45 acp, model 1917 colt and smith and wesson revolvers in .45 acp and revolvers from the same 2 companies in .38 special.

        Some Brazillian made revolvers based on the 1917 smith appear to have been purchased by the US.

        And this was a time when service men could and did purchase their own sidearms out of pocket. Right thru the mail.

        No way to know for sure what an individual crew man on any aircraft carried unless he specifically mentions it in his diary or other writings. The possibilities amongst even one crew were nearly endless.

  13. Well that’s real purty…and yeah the mideast was better off with that lunatic in power. The law of unintended consequences…

  14. I cannot help but think about why the West deposed Gaddafi. As he grew older he renounced terrorism just as the West wanted him too. He also cancelled his nuclear program just as the West wanted him too. He opened a dialogue with Western powers and was willing to talk on any problems between the West and his country.

    So what did the West do, they over threw him and replaced him with no one and now 5 years later chaos reigns in Libya and the West is now talking about yet another war of invasion. It seems as though the West could not screw up the Middle East any more even if they tried.

    • Keeping the middle east screwed up and in turmoil works for the west. Is it right? No. But it’s the history of the world.

      • Yes keeping the Middle East Screwed up really worked for the West didn’t it. We now have terrorists attacking both Europe and America. The West has spent billions on several wars that have made things worse. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein resulted in the rise of Isis that has proved to be 1,000 times worse the Saddam ever was. The refugee crisis was the result of the overthrow of Saddam and has uprooted millions of innocent people who have fled en-masse to Europe to escape the insane fighting there and now Russia has intervened which could in the short or long run result in a war with Turkey, Europe and America. And now the West is talking about invading Libya to start another war.

        How any of this could have benefited the West or anyone else for that matter is unknown to me.

        • First of all, the Middle East has always been screwed up, dare I say ever since the introduction of Islam, and long before the advent of Western Powers.

          Second, the very fact that a strongman dictator like Saddam (who by the way, had no problem invading other countries or waging some personal secular jihad when it suits his needs) is needed to keep these various middle east societies in some sort of contained order is evident of their lack of a civilized society. Which means their problems are far rooted deeply then just the west overthrowing Saddam.

          Third, plenty of leftist were willing to see Saddam go. The Clintons were very vocal about it during Bill’s tenure, and it’s no surprise the authorization for force in Iraq was backed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were just much eager to change their narrative as soon as the post-occupation went south under Bush.

          Fourth, ISIS was only able to make inroads into Iraq after establishing their capital and base of operations in Syria, when Assad effectively allowed the insurgents to establish supply and smuggling routes as a means to counter our presence in Iraq. Which meant when Assad crushed the generally peaceful protests in his country, the only ones capable of standing up to him were the Al Qaeda and Insurgent backed elements who had built a network of experience and supplies with this tacit approval only years before. “Blowback” doesn’t just occur against the West.

          Fifth, the decision to overthrow Qaddaffi was a poor decision in our part, mainly because it wasn’t in our interest to do so. But the operation was started by the French and British, who have more vested interests in that region, and Obama wanted to have some wartime creds to his resume. Fortunately for him, most voters have given him a pass on his failed efforts in Libya and Syria.

          • Quote:—————–First of all, the Middle East has always been screwed up, dare I say ever since the introduction of Islam, and long before the advent of Western Powers. Quote————-

            You ignore that fact that Middle East Wars had much more to due with Tribes fighting Tribes over land for living space and that Europe has had its share of wars over land and because of religion as well.

            Quote————Second, the very fact that a strongman dictator like Saddam (who by the way, had no problem invading other countries or waging some personal secular jihad when it suits his needs) is needed to keep these various middle east societies in some sort of contained order is evident of their lack of a civilized society. Which means their problems are far rooted deeply then just the west overthrowing Saddam.———————–

            More full blown blatant racism. I suppose the horrors of WWI or the Gas Chambers of the Nazi’s were not equally as uncivilized and were done by your favorite group “The White People” of Europe.

            Quote———————-Third, plenty of leftist were willing to see Saddam go. The Clintons were very vocal about it during Bill’s tenure, and it’s no surprise the authorization for force in Iraq was backed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were just much eager to change their narrative as soon as the post-occupation went south under Bush. Quote——————–

            Wow you Right Wingers sure have a way of twisting history by the wildest of speculations as your post admits. And remember it was under Busch not the Democrat’s that this blunder took place so do not try to shift the blame on the Democrats.

            Quote: —————– Fourth, ISIS was only able to make inroads into Iraq after establishing their capital and base of operations in Syria, Quote———–

            Quite true but you conveniently left out the most important part. The rise of Isis was due to the Republican blunder of letting one Religion discriminate against another i.e. Sunnis v/s the Shiites. It shows how naïve the Republican Morons are when it comes to understanding Middle East Religion or Culture.

            Quote—————–Fifth, the decision to overthrow Qaddaffi was a poor decision in our part, mainly because it wasn’t in our interest to do so. But the operation was started by the French and British, who have more vested interests in that region, and Obama wanted to have some wartime creds to his resume. Fortunately for him, most voters have given him a pass on his failed efforts in Libya and Syria. Quote———————————-

            You assume Obama has absolute power and authority over the Europeans which he does not. I think the Ukraine Crisis showed America how far apart Europe often is when dealing with Russia or the Middle East. But I do agree with you on the fact that overthrowing Gaddafi was a great European mistake but overthrowing Saddam was a far bigger one which Europe had warned the U.S. would lead to more war and chaos but even they I think were surprised at how big the refugee crisis would become even though Jordan had taken in many refugees before they started flooding into Europe. I think when right wing morons claim that Middle East States are not taking in their fare share of refugees they should look at Jordan and Turkey and how they have been burdened with this long before Europe was. And since the U.S. was responsible for the current refugee crisis it is obscene the small number of refugees the U.S. is taking in. We were the cause of it and we dumped our screw up on the backs of the European states. Small wander Europeans often do not agree with our policies as we seem to have constantly f**ked up the world since the obscene, immoral Vietnam war.

    • Exactly. The statists on the left howled for years about Saddam being harmless because we “had him in a box”. Then suddenly when they controlled the levers of war, every secular dictator in the Middle East had to go. Funny, that.

      • Some of your rendition of History is totally backwards. It was the Moron Busch and his son Busch the Second that started all the Middle East Wars. I would not rate either Busch Presidents as Leftists. And even farther back in time it was Reagan that was bombing the hell out of Gaddafi although at that time he deserved it.

      • Oh, “the statists” hollered that Saddam had been in a box, sometime after decades of hollering that he was a bad guy we had to get rid of. Your real outcome is always worse than my imagined one.

        It is tribal, in the U S I mean. Complicated situations with no good answer, whatever the other tribe did (in recent memory) was obviously bad, stupid, and likely evil. That is, if anything is less than perfect now.

        If only *those people* had done the other thing, conveniently a counterfactual free of side-effects in the land of imagination, it would all be fine.

        Also, where’s my unicorn?

  15. I think those people advertising the “24 kt gold plated NRA commemorative MAT-49 sporters” you always see advertised in the back of American Rifleman chose the wrong hemisphere to peddle their wares.

  16. Oh and comparing the GP35 and the 1911 is a disgrace. The 1911 is like the fat alcoholic STD-addled trailer trash cousin of the Hi Power.

  17. I was still issued Hi Power even in the early 90’s by Australian Army
    It was the first pistol I shot back in the 70’s Very interesting using 9mm loaded for a heavy (9 pound) F1 smg. Always impressed me that it stood up to those rounds

    • I got ahold of some surplus Egyptian sub gun ammo at a gunshow. Quite the bark and flash out of a pistol. I only used it in my Ruger p89. It was the only handgun I had that I trusted to hold up to it.

Comments are closed.