Best sidearm of Great War

[The Basket]

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]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[stona]

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]

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]

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

 

[The Basket]

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.

 

[stona]

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

Cheers

Steve

 

[The Basket]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[parsifal]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...