Rifles and Machineguns of WW2

Sure do, Heckler Koch manufactured its legendary MP5 design for both calibers.

I am sure that the 45ACP was picked for the Thompson and Sten partly because of ammo commonality but the M1 Carbine did not have any commonality with any other weapon.

45 acp in the Sten ?, never heard of .

The M1 carine was a completely new design specily dmade for paratrooper and for providing something beast than a pistol to second line soldier like artillery,communications, etc. Completely new design so it was logic to use a new catrigde.

I am quite familiar with the carbine having qualified with it and carrying one for a year. I was not fond of it except it was easy to carry. My point was that the US did not seem reluctant to introduce another type of ammo into the logistical stream. Speaking of the carbine, it may well have been the first "assault rifle'"

Well, evidently the U.S army was confident in its industrial support.

rifle - M1 garand
SMG - Tommy gun
LMG - Bren
Machine Gun - MG42

The Sten gun didn't use .45 ACP, it used 9mm Parabellum.

Some Stens were made in 45 ACP. I am sure(I think) that I read somewhere that some Stens were made in 45 ACP. Probably in an "American Rifleman." I can't find the reference so I stand corrected. The Sten came only in 9 mm parabellum. It still would have been a neat weapon if the Thompson had been chambered in 38 Super.

Actually, Auto Ordnance DID make some .38 Super Thompsons, a total of three, I think it was. I've seen photos of them in a book I foolishly loaned out, (it was never returned). I think a Super .38 Thompson would be a mistake, though, the semi-rimmed cartridge would be a pain to load in a double-column magazine, it would require due diligence to make sure the rims didn't overlap and cause a feeding malfunction, which is, I'm guessing, why Thompson A/O didn't make any more than three of them.

I could really like a 10mm Thompson, though.................


Don't ever look at paper ballistics, though, and assume that the Super was better than a .45 ACP, it shot flatter, but didn't hit nearly as hard as a .45. I've loaded for 9mm, .38 Super, 10mm, and .45 ACP, among others (and had pistols for all these chamberings, and only the 10mm comes close to the .45, and only comes close, it doesn't surpass it in any way. I shot competition a lot before arthritis took the fun out of it, (every weekend for nearly 17 years, in fact), so I've dealt with all those and the major revolver cartridges, too, .38 Spl. .357, 41 Mag, .44 Spl and Magnum, and .45 Colt. I've hunted with most of those, too, and seen what they do on game (stick with rifles!).

Something I just read about British WW2 SMG's. A book called 18 Platoon which describes the history of one platoon from D Day to the end of the war the writer who was the Platoon leader for the period, describes the Sten as a wretched weapon which was normally replaced by the MP40 as it was a far superior weapon. However his unit came across some Beretta SMG's which were being used by the Germans and preferred these over the MP40.

The Beretta was more accurate for single shots and had two triggers one for single shot and one for automatic.

Its a good read and describes life in an infantry platton in a different manner than most books. Its required reading at Sandhurst so must have something going for it.

The Beretta 38/42 SMG:

I think when it comes to SMG, Suomi m/1931 from Finland has got to be either the best or one of the best during WWII. It was accurate up to 300m - which I think is unusual for a SMG.

Thanks,glen, what you say about the magazine and feed problems for a Thompson in 38 Super makes sense. The tables I have seen show the 38 Super to have more ME than 45 ACP and I would assume more at say 75 or 100 yards. I do understand that some 38 Super ammo is downloaded for liability reasons. I have a friend, close friend of my brother who is a retired Texas Ranger and a real pistolero. His carry gun is a 38 Super and he seems to prefer it over 45 ACP although he has a number of 45s. I have hunted often with 41 Mag but never scored. I missed a mulie in the Davis Mountains one time that was no more than ten yards away although I was looking over my shoulder and shooting with one hand. It was funny as I was sitting down resting with my hunting buddy, a big yellow Lab named Hud. He looked behind me and huffed and I turned my head almost 180 degrees and there stood a little buck partially obscured by a little scrub bush with his head and front of his chest exposed. I had a No 1 Ruger in 270 Win but wanted to try with the Ruger 41 Mag. I eased it out of the holster and still looking behind me extended the one hand and tried to squeeze off a round. No ear protection and it went off. The buck disappeared, my ears were ringing and Hud looked kind of disgusted. My best chance to score with a pistol and I blew it.

I agree with beserker about the Suomi KP/-31 in that it was probably the best SMG of the war, but it was expensive to manufacture, too expensive for a large army. But aside from that it seems as the highest quality SMG of the war.

Hello Glennasher,
Why do you think the .45 ACP is better than the 10 mm?
I shoot the .45 ACP much more than the 10 mm and reload for both. I also stay away from the top end 10 mm loads because I don't really have a need for that kind of power, but I do appreciate that the possibility is there. Even at nearly the same power levels, the 10 mm has more choices of powder because of the much higher pressure limits. The accuracy I get isn't terribly different between them with 1.5 inch 5 shot groups at 25 yards although they are shot out of very dissimilar pistols. Sometimes I have done better with the .45 ACP, but I have also tried out many more loads there as well.

The .45 ACP usually tends to be a very dirty round which I believe is because of the low pressure. I actually tuned one gun to have a slightly longer lockup and it seemed to stay much cleaner, but haven't shot it enough to come to many other conclusions.

- Ivan.

Sheer momentum of the heavier bullets tends to favor the .45 over the 10mm. I had a very early Delta Elite Colt, and it was put together RIGHT, but even with the heavier 200 grain loads, it doesn't hold up with the .45 really. Using a +P load with 230s in a .45 makes it a better round for hunting, too. You also can't ignore the great diameter of the bullet, size DOES matter, and probably always will.
As far as the Super goes, it's llke the difference between a 5.56 and a 7.62 Nato, it's just no comparison when it comes to ooomph. Texas Rangers always liked the Super because it shoots flat for longer distances, and ranges in Texas are "indeterminate" most of the time, it's simply easier to hit with the Super than the .45 when the yardage is longer. Hits matter, too.A 10mm would split that difference nicely, of course.

My pistols were customized for IPSC shooting, compensated, all the gadgets and gewgaws, etc. and I'd taken pains with them to shoot well. The Super had a Barsto barrel, the 10 had a Barsto, and a Hienie compensated barrel, and the .45 had another brand of good quality barrel, all smithed by guys who knew their business. The 10mm was probably the most accurate of the three, but it was nip and tuck. By far and away, the .45 was more reliable, and more comfortable to shoot.

I never found cleaning a pistol to be a real chore, Ivan, so I never let it bother me. Try some Accurate #7 powder in your 10mm, or some HS-7 with the 200s, you should get close to 1300 with the 200s, scary good accuracy, too. I shot 231 in the .45 mostly, especially at the USPSA/IPSC Nationals, when I had to shoot well. I came in 5th in my class in 1989 (C, Open).

I sure do miss my pistol shooting, but the arthritis took all the fun out of it. I still carry around a Colt Custom Shop 1991A1 Limited model, but I can't do the competition thing any more, my rheumatologist forbids it. I REALLY miss the Lightweight Commanders I was carrying, but they hurt to shoot.

Hello Glennasher,

Seems like you know your business with handguns.
I believe part of your discussion is contradictory though: You state the .45 auto has greater momentum with 230 grain bullets, but the numbers you quote for the 10 mm clearly show it has greater momentum at 1200-1300 fps even if it were shooting 180 grain bullets.

I tend to load my 10 mm rounds with a 180 grain bullet at 1000 to 1100 fps. My .45 Autos typically get fed with 230 grain truncated cone bullets (Lee Mould) at about 850 fps to duplicate military ball. Most of my .45 Auto loads use W231 but I still haven't settled on a powder for 10 mm yet. Just about everything seems to work pretty well. I don't have any experience at all with a .38 Super.

With the .45 ACP in a M1911 type, I notice that powder residue seems to get everywhere. It is especially noticeable in a stainless gun because black stains are so much more obvious. It isn't that any one place is all that difficult, but there are lots of corners, lug recesses, and angles on the breech face that need cleaning. Generally some time before I finish, I end up with a ripped up paper towel and toothpicks to pick out all the residue in the corners.

- Ivan.

The .45 is a bit dirty shooting, but most all cast bullet loads are, to some degree. Jacketed bullets are cleaner, of course. 231`isn't the cleanest burning powder for a .45, either, try some Universal Clays for clean shooting, if it really bothers you, it's similar to Unique in loads, but it's a LOT cleaner.

180s are good in the 10mm, but you have to factor in the diameter of the bullets, too, and the .45 has a good bit better cross-section. You can, judiciously, hit nearly 1000fps with a 230, if you've got a well-fitted gun and stiffer springs. I wouldn't use a load like that everyday, of course, but limited use won't hurt anything.

Most of the time, in my 10mm, I shot a 200 gr. SWC (cast) (CP Bullets out of Toledo or nearby) using AA#2, for 950 fps. It duplicated, numbers-wise, the load I used for IPSC shooting my .45s, and it was back when Accurate Powders were substantially less expensive than 231, and easier to find locally. I finally switched the .45 over to AA#2, also, it was a bit cleaner than 231, but VERY similar. Back in those days, data was "where you found it" or "whatever you could come up with on your own", which was interesting, you never could predict what was going to happen. I had some data sheets from Sierra and Hornady to help a little, but no manuals had anything in them until later. I never had good luck with the recommended AA#5, that powder and I didn't get along well, but AA#7 is superlative for warmer loads in 10mm, try it and see.


I had scads of data I'd worked up, in a notebook, but that notebook has gotten away from me somehow. I'd worked some with the .41 Action Express, too, at one time. The notebook had data for everything I'd been dinking around with. I think it got lost in a move, somewhere along the line.

Interesting article in latest "American Rifleman" about guns of D day. One of the German defenders at Omaha beach was using a Czech version of the Browning water cooled MG not the Mg42. Another good story was that a Airborne sergeant landed on the steeple of the church at Ste Mere Eglise and was shot in the stomach by a German soldier. The German turned to shoot another paratrooper and the soldier shot in the stomach pulled his 1911 Government Model and shot the German in the back of the head before he died. Sounds like a heck of a shot.

Velocity matters more than size, and this is a well proven fact.

As for the .45 ACP being a man-stopper = pure rubbish. The .45 ACP stops a man no better than a 9mm Parabellum, and that is despite what some smartass cop may claim. That a .45 ACP supposedly does stop a man better than a 9mm is just another one of those ever persisting urban myths out there.

To be even more clear however, safe from some of those freak of nature guns out there, there's pretty much no handgun in the world that could ever be classified as a "man stopper", and if there really was I'd never want to be the one using it.

A handgun is a sidearm, and 90% of the time your last ditch weapon if something goes wrong with your primary. Only in very close quarters, such as inside a small house or room is it your primary weapon.

A pistol will not stop a running man dead in his tracks, be it even a .50 cal Desert Eagle, if it would then you'd be thrown back on your ass every time you fired it.

Newtons third law of motion:
To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

That having been said a pistol round can be just as lethal as a rifle round if you know what to aim for, and one of the obvious places is the head ofcourse, but there are other places as-well, such as directly centermass. If you hit a man centermass with a std. 9mm parabellum round it will go straight through his organs and sever his spinal chord = instant relaxation. And this is something a .45 ACP for example can have issues with because of its lower penetrative capabilities.

But aside from that the .45 ACP does make a bigger hole, and a bigger hole means higher bloodloss, so if hit anywhere other than the head spine, then a .45 ACP is a deadlier round long term than the 9mm. But that's not really of much importance in the heat of battle where you want your enemy to die as soon as you hit him and not a second after as that could cost you your life. (Also explains why the military went for the 9mm) But in that case you're most of the time also far better off NOT choosing the pistol over your rifle.

If you're looking for a weapon which will stop a man 100% of the time nearly nomatter where you hit him, then you need look no further than your own 12 gauge shotgun and fill it with slugs. Now there's something which will stop a man very quickly.