- Thread starter
- #41
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I would put the Hi-Power above the 1911.
Best sidearm of Great War
- Thread starter The Basket
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How so?
- Thread starter
- #43
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
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.
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....
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....
Last edited:
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.
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.
Shortround6
Major General
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #47
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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
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
Senior Airman
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!
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #49
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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
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
Major General
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #51
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
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.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
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.
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.
soulezoo
Senior Airman
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".
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".
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.
Of course my opinion is based off of the actual civilian made Italian models, not the US built military ones.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
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).
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).
- Thread starter
- #56
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
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
Major General
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #58
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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
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
Major General
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #60
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
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.
