# Best sidearm of Great War



## The Basket (Jul 15, 2017)

As a child of the Empire then I would say Webley revolver.
But of course it was more a badge of rank than a war winning weapon.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 15, 2017)

The M1911, a lot of stopping power in that .45acp, and if those run out, it was also a pretty good club.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 15, 2017)

M1911, hands down. Not even a competition. Still one of the finest handguns in existance today.


----------



## stona (Jul 16, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> M1911, hands down. Not even a competition. Still one of the finest handguns in existance today.



Yep. You can't really argue with that.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## The Basket (Jul 16, 2017)

The revolver still played a large part in the war and was certainly not obsolescent at this stage. Also small calibre semi autos were about like the Ruby and the Mauser 1914
I thought the Luger would get some votes. Or the Broomhandle.
Frommer Stop because long recoil pistol in .32 is absolute nuts but gotta love anyone who does.


----------



## stona (Jul 16, 2017)

In 1907 the Americans tested a .45 calibre version of the 'Luger', two or possibly three examples of which were brought to the US by Luger himself, against the Browning/Colt and went for the Colt.
The Swedes also tested the model 1900 'Luger' against the 1903 Browning, and also favoured the Browning.
No doubt the 'Luger' was a fine weapon, but even if a close run thing, the Browning design was often favoured in tests. Of course, I have no idea what those tests entailed or what bias might have been employed 
I would also wonder how many succeeding automatics have adopted the rather complicated action of the Borchardt-Luger designs?
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jul 16, 2017)

Luger gave up on the 45 ACP because it was too much work for a vague possibility of orders from the USA when the USA had a small military anyway. It already been upgunned with the 9mm parabellum anyway.
The Lugers weakness was it's complexity and cost of manufacturing and that's why it died a death although that was later. The problem was at this time designs and patents were legion and every idea was tried.
So by 1918, the Luger was a dead end even though the pistol itself was excellent. The original design....for sake of argument...was 1893 and it was the first workable semi auto so it was already 25 years old and that's a long time in gun years.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 16, 2017)

Whilst the pedigree is clear, there were substantial differences between the C.93 and what most think of as a 'Luger' pistol.







Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jul 16, 2017)

Indeed. Short recoil toggle locks.
In fact the gun that started the war was a Browning FN 1910 which killed Franz Ferdinand and a beautiful weapon it is. Very small, low capacity pistol using either .32 ACP or .380 ACP which were very common in Europe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2017)

There can be little doubt that the Colt 1911 was the best pistol of WW I. By WW II the title is more in question (By the FN P-35 primarily) but in WW I there was no other pistol with the combination of desirable attributes of the 1911. 

Small pocket pistols firing .32 or .380 ACP ammo had the main advantage of being available in many armies vrs any real combat advantage.


----------



## stona (Jul 17, 2017)

As far as revolvers go, confronted with a target a few feet away in a trench a Mk VI Webley would be a useful and reliable thing to point at it. It will certainly put the threat on it's arse.

The Americans were happy to supplement the limited supply of M1911's with the Colt 'New Service' revolver during WW1. The British also rechambered them to .455 calibre and used them as a substitute for their Webley revolver.

In the famous Bentley/Craig murder case it was a Colt New Service revolver with which Craig shot and wounded Detective Sergeant Fairfax before murdering Police Constable Miles, a crime for which the eighteen year old Bentley would hang (joint enterprise, Bentley never used any weapon and was in fact already detained by the wounded Fairfax when the fatal shot was fired) and the sixteen year old Craig would not; he would serve just ten years after being sentenced to detention 'at Her Majesty's Pleasure'.
If I had a quid for every time I've seen the weapon misidentified as a Webley.....  

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2017)

I would note that while the US did use both the Colt New Service and S & W Model 1917








They were a substitute standard and retired as soon as possible. Yes they were brought out of retirement (storage) and used in WW II.
Even with the half moon clips they are slower to reload than an automatic pistol.
For trench warfare Revolvers are generally less suited than _some _automatics. Depending on designs some pistols of both types are more likely to let mud, dirt in than others. While you can try to use brute force on a revolver (two hands on the trigger or puling with one hand while forcing the cylinder to turn with the other) the vast majority of revolvers are much harder to field strip, if they are supposed to be taken apart in the field at all. A 1911 can be (aside from the grip panels) total dismantled with the aid of a pencil, let alone field stripped.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 18, 2017)

A few points.
I don't want to get into the revolvers v Semi autos thing as it opens a can of worms But the major armies had plenty of revolvers including the Americans and the majority of semi autos were pocket pistols with weak rounds and a small capacity. The Webley stacks very nicely against them. 
A sidearm would normally be in a holster so the mud should be less so than a rifle. 
Is a pistol a war weapon or a badge of rank? This is important as if it's a badge of rank then a 1911 is over done! 
Also sidearms were secondary to the rifle or artillery so armies are not going to pay top dollar for something which they don't consider important. Also in some countries an officer would have to buy his own pistol.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 18, 2017)

Since WW1 had a lot of trench warfare, just how impressive would a "badge of rank" be to a opponent in a trench raid ?
Any man carrying a pistol in the trenches in WW1 needed a effective, fast to reload, weapon.

I think the M1911 fulfilled those requirements better than any other WW1 era pistol.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 18, 2017)

Here is a link of the main types available in the great war

WW1 Service Pistols (1914-1918)

A lot of these weapons Im not familiar with, as in Ive never handled them. ive always been curious about the beretta semi auto for example.


On the basis of what I do know, id have to go with the M1911 colt. This weapon is not without criticism. The round that it fired was worshipped by the US Army, still is, but it is simply too too powerful for the average grunt to be anything better than bad to average shot with it, plus that artillery shell did reduce the magazine capacity considerably


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2017)

In some armies the pistol was a badge of rank, In other armies it was a "back-up" weapon or alternative weapon for troops whose primary duty prevented the carrying of a full size rifle. The original PDW? 
Many Continental armies in years leading up to WW I issued "carbines" with rather short barrels. some of them less than 18 in long while the standard infantry rifle had a barrel of 28-30 inches or so. A few armies issued a varity of barrel lengths or models depending on the using _service, _as in artillery men or engineers/sappers got a different carbine than the cavalry. ALL of them getting a different rifle than the infantry. the action and cartridge were the same but different bayonets (and bayonet mounting) different bolt handle (often bent) different sights and so on.
The British dodged this mish-mash with the SMLE. _Everybody _got the same length barrel rifle which was 24in as a compromise. British rather restricted the issue of pistols and yes, officers had to buy their own, with the provision that they use the standard British service cartridge which stopped a lot of the small weird and wonderful stuff that showed up in some Continental armies. However it did allow for the Webley-Fosbery automatic revolver. 




WHich, however well it may have worked on the pistol range combined pretty much the worst of both worlds as a service pistol ( I still want one though 

The Germans had a bit of everything with long rifles, carbines and _some _pistols fitted with oversized holsters which doubled as shoulder stocks to turn the pistol into an ersatz carbine. These pistols, at least the Lugers, had a barrel about twice the normal length and a rather ridiculous rear sight with settings to 800 meters, compared to the normal side arm pistol. 

The further removed from the front lines the smaller, lighter, and less effective some pistols became. 

The US had a somewhat different take on pistols having issued them to _every _cavalry man at times during the indian wars and using one of the most powerful pistol cartridges of it's time (only the Montenegrins having used a more powerful round) with the pistols being used at ranges of up to 300yds on rare occasions. 
The .45 auto was a bit less powerful and was issued to some enlisted troops like machine gunners and artillery men. However out of a gun crew only a few would have pistols. The rest had rifles and the US had also gone for a "standard" length rifle in the 1903 Springfield with a 24 in barrel. 
The US experience was that the pistols could provide a bit of last ditch defense against an over running enemy that bayonets could not. 
US also stuck with the single shot rifle longer than most European powers ( some troops in Cuba in 1898 had the single shots and not Krags) which may have influenced things. 

Between the wars or in WW II a number of .380 automatics were obtained for high ranking officers and a VERY limited run of cut down .45s were built (shorter barrels/slides and a shortened butt and magazine.) 

The French in WW I used a bewildering variety of pistols due to lack of manufacturing capacity. Most were pretty dismal as combat weapons but then the French service pistol was pretty dismal also. Tens of thousands of pistols being purchased from Spanish gun makers with little standardization.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 18, 2017)

I'd consider the broom handle Mauser maybe second best, with stripper clips, fast to reload, in 9mm or 7.63, a fairly effective round, and that stock-holster could be useful in close situations.

Didn't the Germans manage to get a few SMGs in the trenches late WW1 ?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2017)

parsifal said:


> On the basis of what I do know, id have to go with the M1911 colt. This weapon is not without criticism. The round that it fired was worshipped by the US Army, still is, but it is simply too too powerful for the average grunt to be anything better than bad to average shot with it, plus that artillery shell did reduce the magazine capacity considerably




Most armies gave rather minimal training for pistols and any large caliber pistol needs more than 21-18 shots of annual training. 

Adopting small light pistols with weak cartridges may make the accountants happy in peacetime but rather shortchanges the men on the pointy end of things. 

BTW a 1911 .45 with a new barrel and magazine only holds 9 rounds in the magazine instead of 7. Lugers and P-38s held 8 rounds in the magazine.
Yes the FN P35 held 13 rounds but the magazine and magazine well are wider than the 1911 and the magazine is double stacked or staggered.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Since WW1 had a lot of trench warfare, just how impressive would a "badge of rank" be to a opponent in a trench raid ?
> Any man carrying a pistol in the trenches in WW1 needed a effective, fast to reload, weapon.
> 
> I think the M1911 fulfilled those requirements better than any other WW1 era pistol.



Due to the confined space in a trench, pistols were often preferred to rifles and some other rather strange weapons were also carried. like trench knives and even sharpened entrenching tools. 









Of course what was wanted vs what was available were two different things.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2017)

Just a note, since I noticed it brought up in this discussion, (and an off topic note by myself):

The US Army replaced it's .45 1911's with the 9mm M9 in 1986. 31 years ago...


----------



## pinsog (Jul 18, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Due to the confined space in a trench, pistols were often preferred to rifles and some other rather strange weapons were also carried. like trench knives and even sharpened entrenching tools.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you mention strange weapons, don't forget the Winchester 1897 pump shotgun. That would have been a ferocious trench weapon in WW1


----------



## parsifal (Jul 19, 2017)

You will never read about the use of shotguns in the official histories, because they were contrary to the hague convention. Having said that, I know that for a fact, the AIF used them extensively in trench assaults as substitutes for SMGs. They were effective in keeping the turks and later the germans heads down whilst the assaults were trying to embed themselves in the enemy trenches. mind you, the ANZACs also used the gurkhas, previously used mostly as water carriers, as a special night assault force to great effect. armed mostly with just their kukris, these guys were extremely good at night fighting and didn't need pistols to do it.


----------



## stona (Jul 19, 2017)

I don't think that British officers were obliged to buy their own side arm, though many did.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## The Basket (Jul 19, 2017)

The French standard sidearm was the Model 1892 revolver which was robust although it fired a weak cartridge. The Ruby was Spanish built pistol made by several factories in Spain which didn't standardise against each other so a magazine wouldn't fit unless it was from the same manufacturer as the gun.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2017)

You are probably correct, I may have mis-remembered "allowed to buy" for "shall buy."

Not sure if any of these made it to WW I but some were chambered for .455 Webley




In the days where a British officer (or trooper) could spend years in India, the Sudan or elsewhere with spare parts months away, a rugged, reliable firearm was of great importance.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2017)

The Basket said:


> The French standard sidearm was the Model 1892 revolver which was robust although it fired a weak cartridge. The Ruby was Spanish built pistol made by several factories in Spain which didn't standardise against each other so a magazine wouldn't fit unless it was from the same manufacturer as the gun.




And the Model 1892 revolver was a pretty inferior weapon in 1914-18.





While sturdy enough and possessing an interesting feature as regards cleaning




The cartridge for a 30 oz (.85kg) pistol is best described as anemic. The cylinder also swings out to the right instead of the left like the majority of the worlds revolvers with swing out cylinders. How much of a problem this is for reloading I have no idea, Pistol gripped in strong hand (right hand) for the majority of shooters while reloading is done with the weak hand for the rest of the world while the French either swap the pistol to the left to hold and reload with the right or hold with the right hand and cross the left hand over to reload?
Pistol is overly large and heavy for a combat revolver considering the cartridge. However first issue was to officers while non-commissioned officers made do with the older MAS 1873 revolver.




11mm cartridge at least used a 180 grain bullet even if velocity was very low. 337,000 built and quite number used in WW I. Reloding was accomplished by swinging down the loading gate on the right side and punching out the empties one at a time with the ejector rod. Reloading was done one round at a time.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 19, 2017)

Shame the Reichsrevolver didn't see service.
Beast of a gun. I would say that was the reason for the Luger.
The Broomhandle was certainly the gun you're looking for. Really good in solo operation. But certainly was a force to be reckoned with especially when used with Stormtroopers.

The Spanish had no word for copyright infringement so made copies of most things including Broomhandles and FN1903. The Model Star B is the 1911 clone in 9mm as used by Samuel L Jackson in pulp fiction. Spain became a manufacturer of arms for France and Italy during ww1. Selling guns in war is a growth industry.

The French do things Frenchly when it comes to thier guns. Strange for the sake of strange.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2017)

The Basket said:


> Shame the Reichsrevolver didn't see service.


It did, just not front line service.

These old revolvers were no more capable and in fact perhaps less capable than the old Colt cowboy revolver. the model 1873.
(Webley being a major exception) 




The Reichsrevolver being good for six shots and then used as a club. Trying to reload in combat?? remove cylinder pin and drop cylinder out to the side, use cylinder pin to punch empties out one at a time, re-assemble the 3 pieces and then load one round at a time through the loading gate. OR take _supplied _stick or rod from ammo pouch and punch empties out one at a time through the gate. 
At least the Colt and the old French revolvers had a spring loaded ejector rod attached to the gun to cut the juggling act to a minimum. 
The Colt was also chambered for quite a variety of cartridges, a number of them much more powerful than the French or German cartridges. 

The Webley was fast to unload.




AS the gun was opened the extractor would rise until the fired cases were clear of the cylinder, un-fired rounds would still have the bullets in the chamber. opening the gun a bit further and the extractor would snap closed. loaded rounds, if any, should fall back into place. In some cases (private purchase?) a speed loader holding six cartridges was available making reloading much quicker than sticking rounds in one or two at a time. 
The Webley also used a fairly powerful round. 

Please note that on any of these revolvers that use the 6 shot extractors (Webley, Colt, Smith&Wesson, etc)




that a piece of dirt or crud that gets under the extractor "star" can prevent the cylinder from being swung back into the gun. I have had it happen from unburned grains of powder.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 19, 2017)

The Reichsrevolver is a classic case of a revolver been seen and not used. 3rd tier weapon behind the rifle and sabre.
One of the few revolvers with a safety although the gun was single action only and pulling the hammer back was a workout.
So...the Ruby don't look so bad! Odd to say but Reichsrevolver might be one of the worst reliable guns ever made. 
By 1914 it was very obsolete but it's cartridge was powerful and robust. And if you had someone charging you with a bayonet then it's actually not so bad.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2017)

Ruby type pistols make lousy clubs 

Unless the Reichsrevolver actually broke in use at an uncommon rate not sure were the lack of reliability comes from.

Many of these old revolvers used blackpowder for propellant and so old ammunition can be very iffy. And even smokeless ammo for the first 30-50 years had it's share of misfires. Things got a lot better after WW II.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 19, 2017)

Wrote that wrong
Reichsrevolver is reliable. But it still bad. So a bad, reliable gun. 
My choice of pistol is the Webley but only if I can get the bayonet attachment. 1911 didn't have a bayonet.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 19, 2017)

webley was fast to load but the canvas webbing used to hold spare rounds, particularly if wet, was nearly impossible to extract ammunition from. Add to that the regulations requiring the wearing of a lanyard whilst holding a sidearm, and the poor British officer might as well have been using a paint ball gun.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2017)

Granted it is WW II but..............................




Col. David Shilling

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jul 20, 2017)

I have been shot with a paint ball gun. Not by a Webley. Revolvers are seen as obsolete and archaic but I doubt anyone would like to be on the wrong end of a .455.
The British officer could find themselves in Iraq or Palestine or Salonika so mud and rain was not an issue. 
Plenty of revolvers around such as Nagant, Type 26, Bodeo, Rast and Gasser m1898, so very much a revolver war and in cases the revolver was more robust and reliable than the semi auto supposed to replace it. 
The 9mm pistol may replace the revolver but not in ww1


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2017)

That still leaves the M1911 as king of the hill. 

The Nagant, Type 26, Bodeo, Rast and Gasser m1898 all saw use but in general were pretty poor specimens of combat pistols. 

The US Colt and S&W police revolvers in either .38S&W/Colt New Police or .38 Special were probably better or at least just as good. 

The Germans were about the only major combatant to use the 9mm Parabellum cartridge. 

The Italian 9mm round used a smaller powder charge and was thus less powerful, The Austrians used a longer 9mm cartridge of slightly more power. 

Do not confuse the hundreds of thousands of cheap, low powered modified pocket pistols used in desperation for actual service pistols. 






Please note that Austra-Hungary, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium and others had all adopted semi-automatic pistols before WW I and even the British were toying with one. 





The 25-40 year old revolvers saw use because they couldn't build the automatic pistols fast enough and the antiques were dragged out of storage.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 20, 2017)

I don’t think it is possible to even estimate the numbers of revolvers fielded compared to the numbers of revolvers. But in terms of the numbers of different type, it looks as if there were more types of semi automatic pistols to revolvers fielded. From that list I posted earlier, there are 13 different types of semi automatic pistols to just 10 different types of revolver. And at least one, the type 3 Smith & Wesson was really only in use by the US army until 1915, ie as a training weapon.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 21, 2017)

The Bodeo lasted well into ww2 and the Glisenti model 1910 was not that good. The Glisenti 9mm round was made because the 9mm parabellum was too powerful for the pistol but the Italians still wants 9mm.
The Japanese semi autos were Nambu and the Belgians used the FN 1900 so neither were as powerful as the Webley.
1904 Webley automatic for me....455 Auto for me

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jimbob (Jul 22, 2017)

M1911 is the best side arm of WW1 and any other war of the 20th century..


----------



## The Basket (Jul 22, 2017)

I would concede that 1911 overall when everything is considered is perhaps the best pistol of ww1. Or at least the best semi auto.

To say it's best pistol of the 20th Century?
Er...have you ever heard the story of the Mars Automatic Pistol?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2017)

It is hard to argue against it being the best military pistol to have been used in the 20th century.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 22, 2017)

I would put the Hi-Power above the 1911.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2017)

How so?


----------



## The Basket (Jul 22, 2017)

The 1911 is only a lump of metal so the moment a new pistol comes out with higher capacity or less weight or less bulk or costs less then the 1911 becomes obsolescent and has to be replaced. 
Ww1 that's not a problem as the 1911 is up against revolvers and weak pocket pistols and evolutionary dead ends like the Broomhandle or luger or Steyr Hahn or Frommer Stop. 
By ww2 the field is much better and by the cold war you have polymer 9mm with high capacity. The Beretta M9 is a case in point.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2017)

The Baretta M9 is not better than the 1911. I have used both, and the M9 was my primary weapon in the Army. I also own an Italian made civilian one in .40 S&W (96A1).

It is a fine weapon (and my favorite handgun), possibly the smoothest action I have ever felt with a handgun, but it is not better.

Ammo capacity, and material construction do not make a weapon necessarily better.

I would not disagree that there are better weapons today, but I don't think there is a better 20th century (1900-1999) military handgun than the 1911. It's premise and design was the basis for all short recoil handguns after it.

And it is still being produced today....

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 23, 2017)

I taught my 15 year old grand daughter how to fire a CZ-75 in 9mm, I think I can understand some of the problems the US Army had with teaching lighter personnel to use the M1911, which ended up with them going to a 9mm.

It's called "limp wristing", where if the weapon isn't held firmly enough it will jar back in the hand and not allow the action to open enough to eject the fired round fully, or insert the next round. Most people can be trained to eliminate the problem, but it takes time, and patience, those last two things the military doesn't often consider using.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2017)

The .45 had two other problems but these were shared by many other service pistols of the time. One was poor sights, as in small and not easy to use in poor light. The other was a poor trigger pull. 
Both make a pistol difficult to use for a novice.

The .45 did have more recoil than most but not that much more, a lot depends on the weight of the pistol in comparison to the power of the ammunition fired. Aluminium framed snub-nose revolvers be being notoriously difficult to shoot despite the medium power (at best) of the.38 special. A .38 in a heavy large frame revolver isn't that much worse than a .22. 
Some people's hands just fit certain pistols better than others.

Two other points.
1. The Mars was pretty much a disaster as a military side arm. Between the type of action (long recoil) and the power of the ammunition, the .45 Mars being closer to the modern .44 magnum than it was to .45 ACP. 
2. about the only "high capacity" 9mm to see service in WWII was the Browning hi-power. Any other 9mm held one or two more rounds in the magazine than the 1911 in .45 with the exception of the Broomhandle Mauser.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 24, 2017)

Most militaries focused on the 9mm semi auto, Like the Hi-power,After ww2.
The Mars is a fantastic pistol. Not because it's a good pistol but a designer followed his heart to make a silly big complex overpowered pistol. Everyone told not to do that but he followed his heart and went bankrupt. Brings tears to my eyes


----------



## soulezoo (Aug 23, 2017)

The Basket said:


> Most militaries focused on the 9mm semi auto, Like the Hi-power,After ww2.
> The Mars is a fantastic pistol. Not because it's a good pistol but a designer followed his heart to make a silly big complex overpowered pistol. Everyone told not to do that but he followed his heart and went bankrupt. Brings tears to my eyes



There are a lot of stories like that in the firearms world. Another case in point the Bren Ten.

the 1911 is easily the best military side arm of the 20th Century. The 1911 is in the discussion amongst the best handguns of all time. The Webley, while a fine weapon in its day, is not even in the discussion of the best revolver, much less handgun. Upon examination, it had very similar features to the old Smith and Wesson Schofield revolvers that were made about 20 years before the Webley.

The US military switched to the 9mm for a number of reasons. Commonality of NATO rounds being chief among them. 9mm makes more fiscal sense as well. Berettas and Sigs are a lot less $$ than a 1911, easier to shoot, lighter. And etc. There are a lot of sound reasons for the change, none of them were about the effectiveness or popularity of the 1911 or .45 ACP.

In fact, a few years ago, the USMC had a limited production run of new 1911's in .45 procured for use. The reasons why are interesting for discussion. That means that the 1911 saw service in the US military for over 100 years. (Not uninterrupted of course, but still...)

Back to the Webley... upon examination, you'll find that it has quite poor ballistics. Yes, a big fat .455 caliber 260 grain slug. Travelling at a very pedestrian 600 fps (a full 260 fps slower than the 230 grain .45 ACP). That only equates to a low or mid 200 ft-lbs of energy. Or less than a modern .380 ACP. Not a lot of "stopping power". The .45 ACP is going to have close to 50% more energy.

Don't let nostalgia cloud objective observations!


----------



## The Basket (Aug 23, 2017)

Not really nostalgia as it was the main sidearm of the British in ww1 and it was a better gun than a lot of the truly bizarre and wacky collection of ww1 pistols. .380 ACP would have been considered a rocket compared to the various pocket pistol .25 ACP.
Most pistols were simply something that fired some kind of projectile in the general direction it was aimed. At best purely for self defence. Maybe the American experience in earlier wars made them take the pistol seriously enough to order a proper powerful pistol


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2017)

The American experience with pistols was probably different than many European armies. The US military experience during the Indian Wars post Civil war and pre Spanish-American war was mostly small unit with little or no artillery/heavy weapon support. (Custer left his Gatling guns behind) 
The Cavalry fighting by far the most actions (infantry fighting very few) and most Cavalry troopers were issued 3 weapons, from the mid 1870s on. The trap door carbine. 





Which used a different round than the trap door rifle. A lighter bullet and lesser powder charge. The rifle used a .45 cal cartridge with a 70 grain powder charge and a 500 grain bullet. Hence the .45-70-500 designation although the 500 was often left off. The Carbine used a 55 grain powder charge with a 405 grain bullet in order to cut recoil in the light carbines. .45-55-405. 
The Colt 1873 revolver




used a 40 grain powder charge in early loadings with a 250-255 grain bullet. Bore was actually a few thousands off the carbine diameter but that didn't affect the effect. 
In dry dusty conditions the Cavalry troopers sometimes used the pistols at 200-300 yds range (sitting or lying behind horses lying on the ground or other cover, not from horse back or even standing on the ground) by walking the impacts onto the targets. 
3rd weapon was the saber. 
Obviously the pistol bore an important part in many fights once the range got close. Also please note that the .38 cartridge introduced in 1892 that got such a poor reputation in the Philippines was NOT the .38 special but an even lowered powered cartridge called the .38 Long Colt. it used a slightly lighter bullet at a lower velocity than the .38 special. 
At some point a slightly shorter .45 round was adopted that would fit both the Colt and the Schofield (Smith & Wesson) top break revolvers. Bit it was still fairly powerful compared to most other service cartridges of the time. (before 1900) 

Please note that even in the Spanish American war many state militia/ national guard/ "volunteer" units were armed with the Trap door and not Krags so revolvers still played a part in beefing up a unit's fire power. 

So, yes, The US did have different experience with pistols than most other countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 24, 2017)

Most militaries were small peacetime affairs which were suddenly expanded greatly and so the Ruby now makes sense as an inexpensive pistol using readily available cartridge which can be bought in huge numbers.
The USA army pre ww1 was small and not lavishly equipped so the choice of a large expensive pistol would have been eye opening especially when revolvers and small pistols were the fashion. The US army used the M1917 revolver in large numbers so not all troops were equipped with 1911. 
I would concede the 1911 as perhaps the best side arm of ww1 but I would be not keen on saying it's the best of the C20th.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 25, 2017)

Part of the US use of revolvers was production tooling. Both Colt and Smith & Wesson already having tooling/production lines for both medium frame (.38) and large frame (.44-.45) revolvers. While Colt also had tooling for the .45 automatic. Both companies could churn out thousands of revolvers while increasing (or tooling up for) automatic pistol production. 

The US forces also used large numbers of revolvers in WW II but the US, in both wars, tried to issue pistols in a range of need. As in front line troops got the .45 automatics. Vehicle, gun crew or supply troops got .45 revolvers IF not enough 1911s in the area. Home front factory guards, military policemen, and auxiliary troops got .38 special revolvers. A lot of aircrew got .38 revolvers (they were smaller/lighter than the .45 revolvers) 

The US Armies use of the 1911 .45 automatic was not particularly eye opening as they had been working towards it for quite a number of years. 
Colt 1905




developed from the 1902 model in .38 automatic. 
The US Army had pulled the .38 long Colt revolvers from service and re-issued the old .45 Colt single action revolvers after the experience in the Philippines. A number of Companies submitted prototype .45 automatics in Army trials before the M1911 was adopted so it didn't exactly take the world by surprise. 
Not to mention that most of Europe was buying automatics as fast as they could from about 1906 on, except for the French and British. 
And that is *service *automatics and not pocket pistols which only entered military service in 1914/15 due to shortages. 

as far as this statement goes:

"I would concede the 1911 as perhaps the best side arm of ww1 but I would be not keen on saying it's the best of the C20th."

I don't believe there is any *perhaps *about it unless you can come up with a better pistol in WW I? 
The 1911 (or 1911A1) is also a contender for best pistol of WW II with only two viable challengers, The German P-38 and Browning Hi-power. 
I would also note that any other viable challengers only appeared in the 1980s.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Aug 25, 2017)

Think about it this way, if the Sopwith Camel survived to be a first rate fighter in WW II as well, and slogged on through the Korean War and the Vietnam war and was not supplanted to any great degree until the late '80's, no one would be arguing against the Camel being the greatest fighter of the century.

Shortround, I think one has to personally experience and run a 1911 to know what we are saying here. In the same way we respect the opinions/views of the pilots that "flew 'em" in other parts of this forum.

Full disclosure: I have owned 1911's, had a war time P-38, had an 80's model Hi-Power, CZ-75, Sig P-226, Glocks, Bren Ten and a few Smith and Colt revolvers. I have shot and carried both the Beretta and .38 revolver during my service days.

My go-to guns to this day are either a 1911 or my P-226. The Glocks are just almost there... the others would be "in need only".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2017)

I personally prefer the Baretta. Used one as a primary weapon in the military, and personally own a .40 S&W Baretta 96A (M9 just .40, not 9mm). I just prefer the action. I find it the smoothest of them all.

Of course my opinion is based off of the actual civilian made Italian models, not the US built military ones.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 25, 2017)

My experience with the M9 consists of qualifying "expert" with it the first time I ever fired one in a state militia /National guard match. 
I didn't even fire 14 of the allotted rounds (10 in one string due to screwing up the safety/hammer drop) which speaks as much to qualification standards as is does my marksmanship. 
I do own a Match 1911. 

I don't want to get into a discussion of the post 1980 pistols here as it seems to be really off topic and I have little more to bring to that discussion as I haven't owned any of them or fired more than a few shots from a borrowed gun. 

But in WW I there were NO double stack 9mm (Broomhandle Mauser aside) so most of the 9mm guns held one more bullet than the .45. Most military automatics had miserable sights and poor triggers. 
Easy of dismantling and reassembly, durability, reliability, _safety_ and cost of manufacture do all enter into an evaluation and with everything factored in the 1911 is a very hard gun to beat in WW I (read impossible).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 27, 2017)

A point of order Mr Chairman
As this this is about ww1 then the 1911 has to be the ww1 model. Vietnam was a French colony called Indochina in ww1. And Korea was under Japanese domination.
As noted before there were other FN Browning pistols about which shared common features with the 1911 so the 1911 was not unique.
A good example of a ww1 pistol was the Webley-Fosbery revolver. An acceptable weapon which was barking up the wrong evolution tree. The Fosbery was bad timing and a dead end but as a weapon of war did ok but by today's standards is better as a curio relic.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2017)

The Webley-Fosbery revolver combined the worst of both worlds.




Same ammo capacity as a regular revolver. Same difficulties reloading.
However it also could "jam" due to limp wristing or dirt in the sliding surfaces just like an automatic.

In actuality the 1911 was fairly unique among the automatics of the time and even among the Browning's of the time.
It was among the _safest pistols _available. See Picture of the 1905.

No safety catch, no grip safety. Just a half cock notch on the hammer and an inertia firing pin.

A few had a "safety" that involved moving the rear sight "UP". but a safety more likely to knocked out of engagement by accident I have trouble imagining. 

The 1911 had a grip safety, the backstrap of the butt must be depressed in order for the trigger to work. In other words the pistol must held in something approaching a proper grip in order to fire.
It also had a safety lever which would lock the firing mechanism. It still had the half cock notch.
It also had an inertia firing pin. The firing pin is shorter than the distance from the hammer down position to the primer in the cartridge and depends on being thrown forward.
Many of the early Browning pistols had two of these features but I don't think any had all of them. Many of the early Brownings either had a hammer concealed within the rear of the slide or were striker fired meaning that carry was pretty much either chamber empty or "cocked and locked".
Many Armies still had large numbers of cavalry and pistols that were "safe" to use from horseback were important. 
The Roth-Steyr 1907 




for example (note lanyard loop) used the power of the cartridge to extract, eject and reload the pistol but was nearly unique (for a number of decades) in that the firing spring was only partially cocked (or not cocked at all?) and depended on a heavy pull on the trigger to fully cock the firing spring and fire the pistol.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 27, 2017)

The Webley only held 1 less cartridge than the 1911 and with the ejection of spent casings and use of speedloaders then it was quicker to reload than most. I suppose the revolver v semi debate was still in its infancy in ww1.
The use of holsters made mud less of a problem than rifles. 
I seen a mud test and a 1911 came out well. It wasn't really a 1911 it was a Ballester-Molina but almost a 1911


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2017)

If you want to you can stick one round in the chamber and then insert the 7 round magazine in a 1911.
However on a more practical level. Spare magazines are thinner than speed loaders even if longer, and changing magazines requires a bit less fumbling than speed loaders. And yes I have used speed loaders on .38 revolvers and used 3 round half moon clips and 6 round full moon clips on a Smith & Wesson model 25 In .45 ACP. 
Just for historical accuracy here is a speed loader and pouch as used in WW I.




and speed loader alone








One also has to ask the question as to wither the Speedloaders for the Webley were government issue (the Pistols for officers were not) 
or private purchase. 
The extra magazines for the 1911 were government issue but only 2 extra magazines per gun. How many extras were in the supply chain is unknown. Extra ammo came in cardboard boxes for loading into existing magazines. Pre WW I leather magazine pouchs




Changed to web pouches at some point before the war ended. 

A 1911 can be field stripped without the use of tools 




although a small stick or pencil can come in handy. Firing pin and firing pin spring can be removed using a pencil as a tool. 
Please note that in addition to officers The US issued 1911s to machinegunners and troops manning mortars and the 37mm trench guns.
The 1911 requires much less hand fitting than a revolver and replacement of parts is much simpler for the majority of the parts. 
Important considerations when dealing with hundreds of thousands of pistols.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 30, 2017)

FN 1903 does bear resemblance to a 1911
Although blowback and using a 9mm Browning long. I suppose a blowback 9mm doesn't work in parabellum but needs a weaker cartridge. 
The Nagant revolver held 7 rounds and although criticised for being awful does seem to be rugged. I am not familiar with Savage pistols of this era so that's not good.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 30, 2017)

I am not sure were this obsession with antiquated weapons comes from. Interesting and perhaps funky looking though they may be. A serious weapons of war some of them leave a lot to be desired. 
Quote from Modern Firearms website sums up the Nagant rather well.

"Being somewhat complicated and relatively slow to reload, with ammunition of marginal power, Nagants were otherwise good guns, reliable, accurate and quite popular among the troops."

Of course the troops in Russia in either WW I or WW II didn't know anything else except captured guns. 
A soldier with a 1911 could probably fire 21 rounds (2 magazine changes) before the soldier with the Nagant fired number 8 (1st round of first reload) due to the Nagant having a reloading "system" that makes the Colt 1873 look positively modern and up to date. 
Please note that in WW I the Nagant came in two versions, double action for officers who could be trusted with high rate of fire weapons and single action (thumb cock hammer) for enlisted men who could not be trusted with the higher rate of fire


----------



## The Basket (Aug 31, 2017)

This is a historical forum. So old engineering are the thing.
1911 is just as old. They are an interesting engineering conundrum with a solution.
How they get around patents is just as interesting


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 31, 2017)

There is old and good and then there is old and bad.
The Nagant revolver was obsolete in 1895 on the first day it was issued. Simultaneous ejection on revolvers was already a number of years old using several different methods. The fixed, spring retracting ejector rod was over two decades old. 

Getting around patents is interesting but buying 2nd class weapons just to avoid paying royalties does an army no good when the shooting starts.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 6, 2017)

Worth noting, that the M1911 was replaced by the 9mm M9, which was more or less a modernized Walther p38. The "man stopping" effectiveness of the .45ACP has been exaggerated, while the 9mm is down-played. Pistols kinda suck at killing people, as you are mostly just punching holes in a guy until something important is hit. Shot placement has proven to be of greater importance than projectile diameter, and the flatter shooting, less recoiling 9mm lends itself better to this end.
Browning himself (or Saive, who further refined it) intended the new Hi-Power to be the successor to the venerable 1911. And it really was a superior pistol in most, if not all, respects. And as good as the Hi-Power was, it was itself eclipsed by the double action, double stacked CZ75's, P226's Beretta 92's ect. And now the polymer framed, striker fired guns reign supreme. 
All of which were available before 1999, so by what criteria is the M1911 considered the greatest of the 20th century? It was a great design, no doubt, but so was the Model T Ford.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 9, 2017)

awful story. But relevant to the usage of a sidearm in ww1.
A British soldier who had been in various battles went AWOL and was captured and court martialed and sentenced to death by firing squad. He was still alive after the firing so the officer has to take his sidearm and perform the coup de grace. Which he couldn't do so he gave the gun to a Private who did it and got 10 days leave. That Private was said to have said on his deathbed 'what a way to get leave!'
I am sure the Webley, whatever it's muzzle velocity or round capacity was up to the job.


----------



## Elmas (Sep 10, 2017)

If I remember well, during WWI, just 15% of the casualties were from rifle bullets, the vast majority. coming from MGs, shell splinters, gases, bayonets, trenches and galleries collapses, frostbites and various diseases and so on.
Having say that, how many casualties is reasonable to attribute to pistol fire in WWI?

I don’t think to be far off if to pistol bullets could be attributed just 1% of the total of the casualties, probably less.

That makes 6.000 in the Italian front, considering that Italy had 600.000 deads in that war: probably bayonets killed more men than pistols.

We have to consider this and see it with the sparing mentality of Ministers of Finances and Generals of those times, expecially those of the poorer Nations, always attentive to the ratio of cost/performance of a weapon: from their point of view to use a bulk, heavy and extremely expensive pistol to kill 6000 men out of 600.000 in a long war was a nonsense.

So, FMPV, in the realm of pistols, not always the bigger is the better.

British Army in Africa understood the necessity of a weapon that could stop a Zulu warrior before his spear could be dangerous, but I suspect that no British Officer attempted to engage a moving target at a distance of more than 25 meters, pardon, yards…. from my personal experience, to engage a target over 25 metres is much easier with a .38 Special than with a .44 Magnum, let alone if the target is moving.

I’m 5’10” tall but I have a small hand, 18 cm from wrist to the top of middle finger and, when I tried to shoot with Beretta 92, italian version of M9, I could barely grip it. Let’s imagine women in the todays Armies. So, if I was an Italian officer in a war, first thing I would procure myself a less clunky pistol. Never shoot with a Colt 1911. but I can imagine.

Reverting to WWI, that reminds me another point. Generally pistols were given only to the Officers, so pistols were often used by them, rather than to kill enemies, for the harsh duty to enforce discipline amongst men not very willing to go out of a trench to be massacrated in a frontal assault. Not nice to say, but it was so, and in that case a small weapon that could be carried even when asleep was certainly handier than a big one.

Sometimes the soldiers consider some of the enemies weapons, for one reason or another, better than theirs: so, as I’ve already said, as Tommy gun was a prized prey among Italians in North Africa and PPSH in Russia, so was Beretta 34 among the Allied Officers. Was Beretta 34 better than Colt 1911 from a ballistic point point of view? Certainly not, but those Allied Officers considered that, in their personal warfare, a smaller pistol was, all things considered, better than a big one.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 10, 2017)

.... not to be under-estimated. Trench raiding was an ongoing strategy and was always close quarters .... this was
silent, unlike any pistol


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 10, 2017)

How could it be determined if a casualty came from a bullet fired from a MG, or rifle ?

In almost every army involved in WW1, their rifles used the same cartridge as their MGs.

You'd had a man apparently wounded or killed by a bullet, but knowing the source of that bullet ??
Italy might have used different rounds rifle bullets from MGs, but most didn't.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Sep 10, 2017)

Quite simply, comparing battles where mostly rifles or mostly MGs were present.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 10, 2017)

I agree that spending huge chunks of cash on pistols isn't cost effective.
Although interesting that the Luger and C96 were are used as carbines which I don't think the 1911 ever was. Could be wrong on that which would make the German designs more versatile


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 10, 2017)

Elmas said:


> Quite simply, comparing battles where mostly rifles or mostly MGs were present.


Do you really think there was any WW1 battles where there were more MG's present than rifles ?

Now I don't doubt than more rounds might have been fired by the machine guns.

But if you have a British troop wounded or killed by a 7.92 mm bullet, how do you determine it's source, both their machine guns and rifle used the same round and both had barrels with 4 grooves with a right hand twist. Though under a microscope you could no doubt tell the difference in the grooves made by the rifling in the barrel. Do you really think they did that ?

Or did someone just look at the inventory sheets and see x amount of rounds expended by each weapon, and since the MGs used up maybe 10 times more ammo than rifles, then they caused 10 times the casualties . 

In other words, they just took a WAG.


----------



## Elmas (Sep 11, 2017)

In October 1918, just a few days before the armistice, a Squadron of German Cavalry tried a napoleonic style charge against an extremely well defended Italian position, mostly by MGs, in a narrow valley in the Alps. This charge was so bold as it was silly.

A few minuts afterwards the entire Squadron, nobody excluded, was to be buried.

This scandal is not very often mentioned in the Annals of the Italian Army, as it was a case of mass suicide rather than a war episode.

Question: how many fusiliers should have been needed to stop this charge in the same thoroughly way?

It is obvious that Generals, in between a game of Bridge and a glass of Champagne, tried to answer this question, (personally I do believe that this episode has been studied by far more by German Generals than Italian ones..) as all these informations are the basis for one of the most important disciplines of modern warfare, Operations Research.
See

Operations research - Wikipedia

for a quick reference.

So, after a battle, a well seasoned Warrant Officer will be able to estimate, as it is humanly possible of course, how many man of his platoon have been hit by rifles and how many by Mgs: debriefing in the Army is just as important as it is in Air Forces.

Of course that is Statistics and someone has said that Statistics are like bikinis: what they show is exciting, but what they hide is the essential... but Statistics sometimes work, for big numbers.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 11, 2017)

Look at any WW1 unit"s, any WW1 Army's, TOE, and see how many unit's there are with more MGs assigned than rifles. Even a MG squad had several men assigned as ammo carriers, they were armed with rifles. The gunner and his assistant were usually armed with pistols. So even withing a MG squad there'd be more rifles than MGs.

Estimate is just another word for Wild Ass Guess. Unless that WO saw each gun fire, and each man fall, he's just guessing.

I don't doubt that more casualties were caused by MGs than rifles, but to put a %number on it is questionable.

Maybe because I was sometimes in on doing some arty fire, and bomb damage reports, and noticed the final reports seemed to have no relation to what I saw.

I was also in on several after action debriefings. They'd ask questions that there would be no way you could answer with any accuracy, so you just came up with something they'd accept, in other words you lied. I know I'm not the only one.
When you're under extreme stress, you mind isn't in memory mode, it's entirely devoted to trying to get you through the next few seconds.


----------



## Elmas (Sep 11, 2017)

Exactly... they tried to estract from you all the useful informations they could get, and you replied to the best of your possibilities.

Having collected several thousands of reports, someone will able to draw a line and obtain some kind of conclusion.


----------



## Elmas (Sep 11, 2017)

I'm not saying that in WWI there were units with more MGs than rifles, of course.


But there were situations where the proportions between MGs and rifles were different, where Mgs were more or less effective, as in mountain warfare for example or against well entrenched troops , and it was the confrontation between all these different situations that permitted to give an estimate, roughly as you want, of the losses to attribute to MGs and to rifles.

In the situation A
ax MGs, by rifles, cz losses. conditions: terrain exposed, up sun, foggy
in the situation B
dx MGs, ey rifles, fz losses, conditions: terrain covered, down sun, clear
situation C ....
and so on.
In Mathematics that is defined a “System of equations”.

Certainly it was not by chance that Germans developed MG34 before and MG42 later, while the vast majority of the Wehrmacht troops had on their shoulders an extremely good but old fashioned bolt action rifle.


And it was the experience of the war that suggested that bolt action rifles were a thing of the past, ad it was time to develop an assault rifle like SturmGewehr-44. In a hurry, possibly.


Of course debriefing is not a mirror of true facts, the reports of fighters hit by the gunners of B-17 over Germany excedeed in some cases the number of fighters deployed by Luftwaffe.

But in a debriefing they try to estract from you all the useful informations they could get, and of course you replied to the best of your possibilities.
Having collected several thousands of reports, someone is able to draw a line to obtain some kind of conclusion. Often not the right one, but in a war a quick decision now is better than a better decision tomorrow.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 11, 2017)

Whilst it was generally suicide to charge well defended positions with cavalry, there were a number of exceptions. as an Australian the best that calls to mind for me is the capture of Beersheba by the Anzac 4LH regiment (really a bn sized unit) against a full regiment of Turkish infanty, more than 1000 strong equipped with either 9 or 18 MGs and well dug in. by attacking the defenders with utmost speed and surprise, the guns were unable to track quickly enough, and despite the headlong charge of more than 1000 metres over open desert, casualties amounted to only 50 killed or wounded from the Australian force. Many of the defenders fought with both rifles and pistols, but their bayonet defences fell apart pretty quickly.

Cavalry wins by shock value. lose that and you are toast basically.


----------



## Elmas (Sep 12, 2017)

Last cavalry charge in history of warfare was Italian

Charge of the Savoia Cavalleria at Izbushensky - Wikipedia

but it was in a flat and wide Russian plain, and not in a narrow valley in the Alps, extremely well defended by men toughened by years of war. A nonsense by a military point of view.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2017)

Elmas said:


> Sometimes the soldiers consider some of the enemies weapons, for one reason or another, better than theirs: so, as I’ve already said, as Tommy gun was a prized prey among Italians in North Africa and PPSH in Russia, so was Beretta 34 among the Allied Officers. Was Beretta 34 better than Colt 1911 from a ballistic point point of view? Certainly not, but those Allied Officers considered that, in their personal warfare, a smaller pistol was, all things considered, better than a big one.


Different armies issued pistols for different reasons. 
And many officers, if they could, tried to use different weapons/pistols for convinence. 
Most high ranking officers (major and above) are NEVER going to get within Pistol shot of the enemy and a large heavy pistol is a nuisance unless trying to project an "image". 
On the Other hand in the US Army in WW II most junior officers (lieutenants and captains) were issued Carbines and NOT pistols so the acquisition of any pistol by these front line officers (actually likely to fire their weapons) has to be viewed in that light. 
The US army, before the issuing of the Carbine, handed out pistols to artillery crewmen, vehicle drivers, radio operators and others whose basic job and load prohibited the use of rifle. 

Some foreign armies did the same thing, some did not. 

The whole issue gets revisited every few decades. I believe it was back in 1989/90s that there was quite a lot of press and prototypes about PDW (personnel defense weapons) that would be more effective than pistols yet easier to carry at all times than a rifle or submachine gun. 

It is true that a very tiny fraction of enemy causalities are caused by pistols but without some sort of personnel defense weapon some troops might be more likely to retreat (bug out) rather than stay and serve their support weapons. The Pistol has a morale value and issuing cheap, y pistols doesn't do much for morale.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 13, 2017)

If it's Italian and they using Breda 30 then the no one was killed by machine gun fire.
Riddle me this....if the 45 ACP is a game changer then why did Europe not adapt it?
In fact some famous German inter war pistols were .380 ACP.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 13, 2017)

At least some of the reasoning behind using captured weapons was the image boost that it conveyed. the owner of the captured weapon could only have acquired it by killing or capturing at least one enemy soldier.

For some other less well supplied armies the use of captured weaponary was due to actual material shortages. Best case I can think of was the Australian use of Italian equipment, particularly artillery in the defence of Tobruk, 1941.

German forces used captured weapons on an industrial scale during WWII. Not sure about WWI, but would expect some similarity.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2017)

The Basket said:


> If it's Italian and they using Breda 30 then the no one was killed by machine gun fire.
> Riddle me this....if the 45 ACP is a game changer then why did Europe not adapt it?
> In fact some famous German inter war pistols were .380 ACP.



You had an awful lot of *NIH. *(not invented here). The Germans had the 9mm parabellum. and despite much of the hype in gun magazines there isn't that much difference between the 9mm and .45. the 9mm has a higher velocity and flatter trajectory which makes hitting at a distance easier but since armies never give enough pistol training this advantage disappeared in reality. 

French theory in both pistol and submachine gun cartridges and weapons is totally unfathomable to a non-Frenchman. AN awful lot of time and money spent on some of the least effective weapons of their class. 

That covers the two largest European armies. 

The "_famous German inter war pistols were .380 ACP_" were blowback *pocket* pistols. Used in service because of shortages, distance from the actual fighting and weight/size requirements. Like issuing to pilots/aircrew who were very unlikely to fire their pistols at another aircraft in flight. They were also issued to tank crewmen who are also very unlikely to fire them in combat unless forced to bail out of their tank. 

By the way I have owned a Walther PP in .32 ACP, (Ex West German Police pistol) a Mauser 1914, a Colt pocket auto, and a Beretta 948. which is an aluminum framed model 94 in .22 caliber. Yes you can carry them in a holster on a belt with a spare magazine but trying to use them in combat against powerful service pistols? 

I would also note that the British commonwealth used over 500,000 S & W revolvers in WW II. Chambered for .38/200 like the between war Enfield and Webley, so the issuing of non-standard pistols to some forces doesn't mean that the weapons were considered first choice by the armed forces involved. 
The US Navy and Marines also issued the same revolver to aircrews in WW II and in fact a few leftover revolvers were issued to National Guard Air tanker crews during Desert Storm. Sure doesn't mean anybody really thought the old S&W 10 was the equal of the Beretta 92/M9.
It meant there weren't enough M9s and viable .45 1911s left in inventory. 

I would also note that of those "_famous German inter war pistols" _three of them were double action pistols. You could carry them with the hammer down on a loaded chamber with the safety in the off position and a simple long pull on the trigger would cock the hammer and fire the pistol. But in regards to this thread (Great War) they didn't exist. 
And I am not convinced that carrying a 1914 Mauser "cocked and locked" was really a very good idea.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 14, 2017)

It's far easier to train raw recruits on a low powered weapon. Better a low powered hit than a high powered miss.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 14, 2017)

The Basket said:


> I agree that spending huge chunks of cash on pistols isn't cost effective.
> Although interesting that the Luger and C96 were are used as carbines which I don't think the 1911 ever was. Could be wrong on that which would make the German designs more versatile




C-96 was perhaps the first modern pistol to be so converted, but nearly all pistols are more or less capable of some form of adaptation to carbine

Pistol Carbine Goes Mainstream


----------



## Elmas (Sep 14, 2017)

Of course i’m not saying that pistols have not practical value in a war…

From wiki
_“The optimum operating crew of an MG 42 for sustained fire operation was six men: the gun commander, the No.1 who carried and fired the gun, the No.2 who carried the tripod, and Nos. 3, 4, and 5 who carried ammunition, spare barrels, entrenching tools, and other items. *For additional protection the commander, No.1 and No.2 were armed with pistols, while the remaining three carried rifles.* This large team was often reduced to just three: the gunner, the loader (also barrel carrier), and the spotter. The gunner of the weapon was preferably a junior non-commissioned officer (or Unteroffizier).” (My bold)_

Germans Generals probably found Walther P38 more than adequate to the task.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 14, 2017)

The C96 wasn't modern. 
Ok it was modern in concept but it was quickly outdated and only worked at its best as a carbine.
The design wasn't copied and quickly outdated


----------



## Elmas (Sep 14, 2017)

IIRC Winston Churchill in his memories talks about how C96 saved his life in the Battle of Omdurman, but more than once complains of how heavy C96 was with all its gadgets.
Apparently Lawrence of Arabia used a C96 as well.
Webley was not fashionable between British Officers, or so it seems.
In Italy C96 was adopted enthusiastically by Regia Marina. I can imagine: sailors, generally, don't not have to march like Infantry...


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 14, 2017)

How many German generals actually made use of a pistol, other than a means to end it all when things didn't go well.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 14, 2017)

The Basket said:


> It's far easier to train raw recruits on a low powered weapon. Better a low powered hit than a high powered miss.


 Most armies didn't give enough training for the caliber to really matter, It was a rare army indeed that allowed even 50 rounds of pistol ammo per soldier on an annual basis. And most of the low powered pocket pistols had small sights, closer together and small grips. 





Plastic finger rest on the bottom of the magazine is for the little finger. Often the spare magazine does not have it and depending on the size of the hand the little finger catches the edge of the bottom of the frame or goes under it. 
Try holding a pistol with the 2 middle fingers and pulling the trigger with the fore finger. The little finger may not seem like much but it does help. 
There were a variety of sub-caliber conversions for Webleys and a few other pistols. Reduced power ammunition for training was also a possibility for training if an army was serious about it. Most were not. 

Soldiers may not have been well educated in ballistics but some once said that when faced with an armed adversary intent on killing you any weapon you can pick up with two hands is going to seem too small. 

Back to the great war. This is a Mauser 1914




See the lever and the button behind the trigger?
Push the lever down to put on safe. push the button and the safety flies up and off. 
The pistol is striker fired and striker protrudes out the back slightly when cocked. 
There are no other safety mechanisms. 

Pocket pistols are not service pistols.


----------



## soulezoo (Sep 14, 2017)

That's a nice PP you have there SR6. Assuming of course that's yours.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 14, 2017)

I would have to see figures that British officers used broomhandles during ww1. They were usually limited to Webley 455 rounds. The C96 was surprisingly long lived in the Chinese civil wars and even were copied by the Spanish. Coz after all it's a very iconic gun.
Did the 1911 have a shoulder stock version? If memory serves FN pistols did. Pretty much all pistols of the 1900s decade offered shoulder stocks. So would have to assume the 1911 had likewise.

Walther did have a very successful pistol in the war the model 4. Simple blowback in 32 ACP. I gets the feeling that pistols were more swag than shooters.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 14, 2017)

soulezoo said:


> That's a nice PP you have there SR6. Assuming of course that's yours.


 Not mine, Mine has more holster wear.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 15, 2017)

The Basket said:


> I would have to see figures that British officers used broomhandles during ww1. They were usually limited to Webley 455 rounds. The C96 was surprisingly long lived in the Chinese civil wars and even were copied by the Spanish. Coz after all it's a very iconic gun.
> Did the 1911 have a shoulder stock version? If memory serves FN pistols did. Pretty much all pistols of the 1900s decade offered shoulder stocks. So would have to assume the 1911 had likewise.
> 
> Walther did have a very successful pistol in the war the model 4. Simple blowback in 32 ACP. I gets the feeling that pistols were more swag than shooters.


 You know you can google some of this stuff fairly easily.





And this brings out some of the problems with pistol/carbines.

1, you need a large, heavy and clunky stock and while the _idea _of using the stock as a holster sounds good you wind up with something that few soldiers really want strapped to their belt all day long.
2. you get a screwed up sight picture. The pistol sights were meant to be used at arms length or close to it and bringing the rear sight back to just a few inches in front of the eye means that the rear sight notch/grove appears much too wide for the front sight meaning less precise aiming.
3. Unless you use a complicated sight like the Mauser or artillery Luger the curved trajectory of pistols means they are very hard to hit with at long range, long for these weapons being 150-200 yds. If sighted for 100 meters a 9mm Luger bullet is about 12 cm high at 50 meters and about 40cm low at 150 meters, at 200 meters it is 116cm low. The .45 is even worse. 
If you have fixed sight pistol the sights are usually set at 25yds/meters and very rarely at 50. This means the drop at ranges over 100yds/meters are even more pronounced. 

Now I will note that changing to a longer barrel with a 1911 is a matter of minutes should you have one available. Changing the barrel on the Luger or C96 requires a gunsmith. 
I would also note that in carbine form you can't hold the barrel of any of these guns without chancing malfunctions as anything that slows down the recoil of the barrel may screw things up.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 16, 2017)

I would assume the shoulder stock on the 1911 was a civilian add on as not got details of its military use.
The 45 ACP doesn't come across as a long range round. Bit too fat.
So...the Lange Pistole artillery Luger with 32 round Trommel Magazin and shoulder stock offered plenty of trench goodness.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2017)

It offered trench goodness but you couldn't turn a standard Luger into an artillery model in the Field or even in a unit (battalion) armory. 

The snail drum magazine was not cheap and it was hard to reload, it needed a special tool to fully reload against the stiff magazine spring/s.

The Snail drum was a rather specialized bit of equipment. 




5 magazines, loader and boxed ammo in a wooden crate. There were leather belt pouches to hold the magazines. 

had anybody wished to devote the same manufacturing effort into turning another semi-automatic pistol into a trench gun it probably could have been done. 





Extended Magazines for the .45 did exist and fitting a shoulder stock was not a big trick. You need a new main spring housing 




machined to fit the stock attachment of your choice. 





There is nothing in that picture that could not have been made in WW I. 

None of these pistol rounds are "long range". Best of the Bunch is the 7.63 Mauser and then you have a 86 grain .308/9 bullet at about 1400fps compared to the WW II American carbine round of 110 grains and .308 diameter but at around 1990fps and it wasn't that great over 200 yds.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 16, 2017)

I don't know what you consider long range with a pistol , but 100 yards would be it for me. 
At that range don't count a .45 out.
Pistol barrels, Federal FMJ 
9mm initial MV 1160 fps, 345 ft. lbs 100 yards 960 fps, 250 ft. lbs.
.45 initial MV 850 fps, 370 ft. lbs. 100 yards 770 fps, 305 ft. lbs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2017)

You can hit at long ranges but it takes _lots_ of practice, good sights and either knowing the distance or taking ranging shots. 
One of the most famous long range pistol shooters was Elmer Keith, and american gun writer who helped develop the .44 magnum. 





he also used special front sights.




something like this to help with the proper elevation without using screwdrivers on the rear sight. 

laying down or sitting with the back supported can help a lot but hardly practical for most combat. try googling 'long range pistol postions'

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 16, 2017)

I've read of Elmer Kieth's abilities with pistols before, not many people are going to approach the accuracy with a pistol he had.

I carried a M3 ( grease gun) as a E&E weapon in the chopper for a while. With practice, and work on the sights, it was acceptable at 100, sorta at 200. It's 8 inch barrel helped speed the .45 ACP up a little more, but firing from a open bolt just made real accuracy impossible.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 16, 2017)

That Elmer Keith picture doesn't show a shoulder stock and shoulder stocks didn't seem to go past ww2 for pistols.
The C96 Schnellfeuer would have been perfect but wasn't in this time frame
If you look at the Luger Carbine it's too big for a pistol and too weak for a rifle so it ends up as neither. The Chinese civil war was a main user of pistol carbines due to the fact rifles were banned from import but pistols were ok so turning into carbines have a distinct advantage.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2017)

In the US there was a law passed in 1934 that pretty much banned pistols with shoulder stocks ( they were considered sawed off rifles or a shoulder weapon shorter than 26 inches). So that did away with the largest commercial (non military) market. As time has gone on som eof the older weapons have reached curio/relic status and the restrictions have been lowered. 
I don't know what the Chinese laws were but since the country was effectively broken up into larger or smaller territories by various warlords in the 20s and 30s effective enforcement of a law by a central government/power wasn't good. 

The C96 Schnellfeuer had a few problems of it's own and was used as a small submachine gun. Since it fired closed bolt and had a small/light barrel it tended to reach temperatures where it cooked of rounds in the chamber fairly quickly compared to real submachine guns. Great weapon for War Lords or South American dictators facing ill armed peasants. It also tended to climb rather quickly (a fault of most if not all full automatic pistols, even with stocks) and the preferred technique by some Chinese "soldiers" was to hold the gun horizontal (sideways) at waist level and the the recoil create a horizontal fan of bullets. Hardly long range stuff. 

None of this takes away from the 1911 being the "_best side arm of the Great war" _as by the time you add detachable shoulder stocks, wooden crates for magazines, special barrels and so on the gun/s cease being a side arm and become a primary arm. 
Nobody carrying a M98 Mauser was also carrying an Artillery Luger with shoulder stock and snail drum magazine. Chinese private army troops with C96 Schnellfeuers were not carrying Mausers across their backs at the same time. And so on. 

The Picture of Elmer Keith was to show the positions needed for long range with a pistol, that is not standing up and using either one or two hands. a lower braced position is needed. It was also to show that simple military sights don't work at long range.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 17, 2017)

I accept the 1911 is the better side arm of ww1. 
It isn't the most interesting.
It's certainly lasted the test of time.
In my view 45 ACP is not the best round and 9mm parabellum would be better or 7.63 Mauser. 
However the logic of choosing the 1911 is there.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 17, 2017)

A good portion of the WW1 era American army was made up of country boys, already familiar with firearms.

These men grew up hunting squirrels in the early morning in the summer, and turkey and deer in the fall.
Not too far removed from Wild West traditions of Colts, Winchesters, S&W, and Remington rifles and pistols.

A lot of them had a lot of exposure to firearms before they ended up in the war.

In European armies most of the enlisted men had never held a gun unless they were from Serbia, Montenegro , or one of the southern islands of Italy .


----------



## Elmas (Sep 17, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> A good portion of the WW1 era American army was made up of country boys, already familiar with firearms.
> 
> These men grew up hunting squirrels in the early morning in the summer, and turkey and deer in the fall.
> Not too far removed from Wild West traditions of Colts, Winchesters, S&W, and Remington rifles and pistols.
> ...



Exactly.....





Giovanni Corbeddu Salis, Sardinia, second half XIX° C.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 17, 2017)

There was a weapons embargo on China from 1919 but pistols were not classed in the terms so that's a loophole.
C96s and Spanish copies sold like hot cakes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 17, 2017)

They may have sold like hot cakes but the arms embargo wasn't anything near 100% effective and in any case it ended in 1929 which is before most of the full automatic C96 versions were built, wither German or Spanish. 

ARMING THE CHINESE

In some cases they got around the embargo by simply selling equipment (machinery) to equip arsenal/s to manufacture weapons inside China. This includes a chemical factory to manufacture TNT. 
Illegal arms dealers were dumping WW I surplus in China in multiple rail car loads.


----------



## soulezoo (Sep 18, 2017)

I will say this:

If you are relying on putting shoulder stocks to pistols, you are doing it wrong.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Sep 18, 2017)

soulezoo said:


> I will say this:
> 
> If you are relying on putting shoulder stocks to pistols, you are doing it wrong.



Certainly, but it must be considered the time frame when shoulder stocks appeared.
Semiauto pistols were produced at the end of the XIX° C, about thirty years before that designing and mass producing a semiauto rifle that could be carried by a single soldier was possible. So the possibility to shoot ten of more rounds in a few second to some minds appeared very promising, for irregular troops, for example or when aviators, after a few weeks of a sort of sportmanlike behaviour and before finding a way to install a MG in an aircraft, tried to kill themselves at the end of 1914. Probably as aviators were mostly Officers and upper class, and they had their personal C96 at hand.
Rightly, Generals never considered shoulder stocks of any value in a mass conflict.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 18, 2017)

Of course today a shoulder stock and lengthened barrel seem nutty but not in the early 1900s.
That was the only semi auto hand held weapon in town and offered firepower in a small package. So a Luger Carbine with 32 rounds will be an effective short range shooter and in an emergency will get rounds downrange when a comrade is trying to work the bolt on a K98.
A dead end but since virtually every pistol in this era has a shoulder stock then its certainly the fashion and somebody thought it was fantastic.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2017)

Shoulder stocks for pistols go back to before the American Civil war, How much earlier I am not going to guess. 





Model of 1855. Used standard .58 cal minie ball or roundball but reduced charge from musket. 
Intended for Cavalry or mounted troops. Ram rod is attached to the weapon and it is equipped with a tape primer system. Much like a cap pistol, cocking the hammer advanced the tape and fresh pocket/dot of priming compound was placed over the nipple meaning the trooper didn't have to fumble with percussion caps while on horse back. 
They were popular on Colt revolvers during the Civil War. One version even used the stock as a canteen. 
A few units (mostly irregulars) carried up to four revolvers per man to avoid reloading on horse back.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 18, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Shoulder stocks for pistols go back to before the American Civil war, How much earlier I am not going to guess.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's very interesting to me. Ive read somewhere that during the Mexican wars, the Mexican cavalry had been equipped with a nearly useless carbine that some sources describe as more like a pistol with a stock.


Mexican cavalry was meant to be modelled after the Napoleonic cavalry of the French army (I think). Certain British light dragoons had been equipped with a light and short pistol, good for about 10m range. These pistols were patently unsatisfactory, and were replaced by a weapon known as the Paget rifle. This was essentially a cut down version of the Brown Bess and was basically obsolete before it was designed. It was outranged by the French carbine, which Ive read had a barrel about 14 inches longer than the Paget rifle. French cavalry could engage regular Infantry with this weapon, though it was not advisable. British cavalry was so outclassed it had no hope. With no lancers and no workable mounted firearm, the british cavalry units had a hard time of it. As did the Mexicans, who found their short carbine/pistols not worth the trouble.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2017)

Thank you for the reference to the British Paget carbine. After a short internet search (I make no claims as to the accuracy of the results) 
It seems the Paget was a smooth bore with about a 16 in barrel. Effective range would obviously be short. It was of .65 caliber and used a .62 in ball, powder charge is not given in the sites I did find which makes comparison difficult. 
Interestingly the British sold 15,000 to Mexico in the late 1820s and so they were used at the Alamo, other battles in Texas and later in the Mexican war. 

At the time, if not equipped with a short carbine, cavalry was often equipped with one or two single shot pistols which hung in holsters over the saddle pommel. One reason they were called horse pistols. They were not commonly carried on the belt and thus could be larger than a "belt" pistol. 

The American "pistol" of 1855 was pretty much a cut down musket in that it used the same diameter barrel and projectile. The powder charge may have been about 2/3s (?) of that used in the full length Musket however with a definite effect on range. Only a little over 4000 were built and they were not a great success.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Sep 19, 2017)

In fact semiauto pistol with shoulder stock was not the mother of the semiauto rifle but of the SMG.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 21, 2017)

On one of the YouTube gun channels I watched the person chose a .32 ACP Savage over a Webley Mk VI.
10 rounds over 6.
455 v 32 ACP
Recoil v less recoil.
Semi v Revolver.
Small size v Big.
Light v heavy.
Interesting point about the Webley is that it is heavy and big and solid to pistol whip good.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2017)

Not every one who makes a YouTube video is really an expert.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Sep 21, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Not every one who makes a YouTube video is really an expert.



AMEN to that!


----------



## The Basket (Sep 22, 2017)

The Savage 1907 32 ACP is certainly no firepower super star but it does have distinct advantages over the Webley Mk VI. Although one could argue that the only point of a firearm is the bit where the round hits the enemy and if it dont kill em then you're carrying a paperweight.
The Savage is lighter and smaller with less recoil, more rounds, easy to reload, can have quick follow up shots and would fit nicely on the hip. The Webley is basically big. Certainly from the big is beautiful school of thought. 
Of course the Savage was not used by the Americans but by the French as a Ruby alternative.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2017)

The Basic problem with the Savage (which was a nice enough pistol otherwise) is the .32 ACP cartridge. Which has always been about the bare minimum for police or military duty. In some cases it is below the minimum. The _goal_ of any military/ police/self defense pistol cartridge is not necessarily to kill but to render the target incapable of further offensive action as quickly as possible. There is no pistol cartridge on earth that is a 100% certain one shot stop cartridge. However the smaller rounds, .22LR, 25 acp, 32 ACP and various 32 caliber revolver rounds have a rather poor record on stopping people with a single hit. If you have to shoot an enemy more times with the small caliber pistol to get the desired results then what does that mean to your supposed extra ammunition capacity?
Even with 9mm, .40s and .45 they are now teaching double taps. With a .32? Triple taps? 

The less recoil than the Webley is a bit of mis-direction, no army at the time provided enough ammo for training for it's troops to become proficient with pistols and while the Webley fired a heavy bullet, it did so at a low velocity and from a heavy pistol. Yes it will have more recoil than a .32. But was it so bad as to cause poor shooting? The Service Webley round was little more powerful than the .45 ACP mid-range target loads.


----------



## soulezoo (Sep 22, 2017)

The service Webley was closer to 2/3's the energy of .45 ACP loads (average .45 load being 230 gr. bullet at ~825 fps from a 5" barrel)


----------



## The Basket (Sep 23, 2017)

The Savage 32 ACP was a self defence pistol and French war use was based on necessity and that it used same round as Ruby. The 45 version was beaten by the 1911. 
The Webley Revolver had been going for a good few years before ww1 so a tried and tested design used against locals who carried spears and not Mausers. 
The British kept revolvers well after ww2 as main sidearms so that is saying that they were happy enough. 
If you had to shoot 3 taps on the Savage 32acp then still got 7 rounds left!


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2017)

recoil is more proportional to momentum than energy, momentum being just mass times velocity but 265 grains X 600-620fps is certainly going to come out lower than 230 grains X 825fps.

.45 target loads are 185-200 grain bullets at 750-770fps.
The Webley is roughly half way between the two.

I am not counting the mass of the propelling charge or velocity of it's exit. change would be minor.

for the 32 Auto the momentum is roughly 1/3 that of the .45 but to figure recoil you need the weight of the gun. a 40 ounce gun is going to recoil at 1/2 the speed of a 20 ounce pistol using the same cartridge.
A .45 auto Pistol in theory would have a free recoil speed of about 10.9fps while a 20 oz . 32 auto would have a free recoil speed of around 8fps. (free recoil would be if you could get the pistol to fire without any means of support, as in being held in hand or vise).
_Energy _of the recoil goes back to being proportional to the square of the speed.

*Felt *recoil is another matter and takes into account the shape of the grip and how it fits the hand, any sharp edges or rough areas and so on.
It also covers the "action" of a pistol. A revolver pretty much "sits" there, it fires, recoils and then everything stops. Automatics fire, recoil and have varying amounts of metal moving about on top of the pistol. It may not change the total amount of force transmitted to the hand/arm but does tend to keep the disturbance going on longer even if it is just the slide/bolt going back forward.

I have a heavy .22 revolver on a .38 frame, 3 target .22s that go well over 40ounces, and a .22 conversion kt for a .45 auto. While the last does kick much less than full .45 loads it is the hardest to shoot rapid fire with (5 shots in 10 seconds) as it moves around the most. a much greater mass of metal bouncing around on top with each shot. When shooting 5 shots in 20 seconds (timed fire) there is very little difference in scores/difficulty as you have more time to recover.

Armies often looked for "magic bullets" to lessen time/money spent on training. The reduction in recoil that was to accompany the change from the .455 Webley to the .38/200 and the No2 Enfield may not have been as great as anticipated. The cartridges had almost identical velocity and the .38 used a bullet about 75% of the weight of the .455 Webley so things should have been on the right track. Unfortunately the new pistol weighed about 70% as much as the old pistol and so, while nicer to carry, it really didn't do a whole lot for recoil reduction.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2017)

The Basket said:


> .
> If you had to shoot 3 taps on the Savage 32acp then still got 7 rounds left!



If you need 3 shots per adversary then the 10 shot 32 is good for 3 1/3 adversaries. If you need to double tap the .45 then the 7 round 45 is good for 3 1/2 adversaries and the Webley is good for 3 adversaries. 

It won't work out like that in real life but small caliber pistols loose a good part their "high" capacity advantage in real life.

A 10 shot 32 acp beats the hell out of a 6 shot 32 revolver though and guess what, the 8mm Lebel 1892 revolver *was* an anemic, 32 caliber revolver. No wonder .32 ACPs looked good to the French.


----------



## Elmas (Sep 23, 2017)

Vintage, but effective even nowadays...








from
Behance

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 24, 2017)

Looks like a Riechsrevolver
One would assume if your firing a Savage 32 ACP the target is only metres or yards away from you so target practice is not necessary and 10 rounds of 32 ACP should be ample. Trench raid and all that. 10 shots quick!
I am a fan of the Savage design. Very Art Deco. Looks like the stylish choice for the man about town. Probably have to wear a tuxedo while firing.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 26, 2018)

A few pointers.
A few handguns had their own proprietary rounds which makes sense from a business point of view but means that their wasn't standard round in some armies.
The Austrian view was stripper clips for their handguns and not changeable magazines so this doctrine influenced hand gun design.
Many guns that became service pistols or made in big numbers would never have been such without ww1 so often it's a case of grab what you can.
Mauser....and this is Mauser....couldn't build a 9mm parabellum pistol that worked. So if Mauser couldn't then that shows stuff. The 9mm parabellum was hot sauce in 1914 so a blowback wasn't the way forward so needs a locking mechanism which they couldn't create a military grade one.

I assume this is due to patents or to ease complexity as I would suspect it must have been simple enough to copy even the C96 as that fired 9mm.


----------

