pistols of ww2

which pistol would you uses if u were in ww2?

luger
walther p38
colt M1911A1
Marm 6 webley
tokarev tt33
beretta modello 34
94 shiki kenju
star modello b super

personally i would use the clot wit the 45 slug

 

radom vis35...The tests proved that the handgun was very accurate and stable (due to its size and mass, most stresses are absorbed and not passed on the shooter, while at the same time remaining reliable after firing more than 6,000 rounds.The Vis was generally regarded as one of the best military pistols of that period....

 

good choice i just perfer the stoping power of the colt.

 

very similar in design,I like the colt45 too....

 

i also own a star modello b super i found it in my great grandfathers safe. But doesnt have a clip and i cant find one so i cant fire it.

 

I'd actually go for one not listed here ; the Browning HP35. 14 rounds in the mgazine would be useful.

 

Depending on your place of residence, (outside of the USA for example) you may be able to find the clip for said pistol on this site.

Goto:

Firearm Parts and Accessories | Numrich Gun Parts Corp. | e-GunParts.com

And rumage around, the clip might very well be in there somewhere.

Forgot to answer the query! If I was collecting I would pick the Luger, for battlefield use, the .45 ACP. I had a Browing HP, and while it was a great little 9mm pistol it lacked the real "thump" of the .45 as all smaller calibers do.

 

Colt 1911A1 would be my first choice for reliability and stopping power. The Browning HiPower would be my second choice, and third would be between the Radom and the P-38. Theres an awful lot of 9mm's on my list. Anything Japanese would be on the bottom.

 

m-14 nambu

 

The 1911 - if i had to pack a handgun in war i'd want something thats going to stop whatever i have to shoot at!
alot of weapons choices in war are made for political reasons, or because of someone's agenda. Usually the wants and needs of the soldier seem to be the very LAST consideration. For example the US switched from 45 auto weapons in the 1980's and replaced the good old 45 auto with the Beretta M9, in 9 mm. This had nothing to do with anything the soldiers wanted, it was done 100% for political reasons - for NATO commonality in the handgun caliber.

Not a huge deal since pistols in war have very limited use, usually as a badge of rank for officers and people whose job does not usually include trigger-pulling as a matter of course; or as a backup to someone with another weapon to tend, such as a machine gunner. Even so 45 was a better caliber than 9 mm for serious combat use (and there's no other kind of combat after all).

 

I'd prefer the Colt 1911 for its stopping power. If not, then a Luger just for its looks.

 

luger's cool !,but expensive to produce,and maintain,and due to the machined tolerance's which were quite tight,they would,nt operate under extreme conditions,as dust grit or other particles caused jamming ,hence the arrival of the p38...

 

Yes, the well known Clot 45

 

There are some very good points here. The .45 was and is a great combat weapon of last resort. The Browning HP which was not on the list would be the next choice.

That said, a fire arm that has been over looked by history mainly because of the limited numbers was the S&W Registered Magnum. As Gen. Patton use to say, "The Colt .45 (Peacemaker) was for show, the S&W was there if there is any killing to be done".

I talked with a veteran of WW2 and Korea who carried a .357 magnum in both wars, and in both wars dispatched "bad guys" (his words) at both close and medium distances (point blank to 10 yards and 50+ yards respectively). He said the close combat the .45 would have done just as good a job, but at the medium distances, he said the .357 out performed the .45 hands down. (This from firsthand experience was pretty compelling.)

I know there are the reload and follow-up shot arguments to follow, but I would have no problem carrying my S&W M28 .357 as a backup to a Garand/carbine/'03 Springfield etc. Even in todays combat I would take it over a 9mm. $.02 doesn't buy you much these days dose it?

 

Surfersami,
Currently some SEAL teams use S&W .357's as thier preferred sidearm. .357 is also a superior cartridge to the 9mm, but their were very few of these registered magnums available in the 1940's as it was a custom made gun.

 

While I'm tempted to go with the 1911, for semiauto I'd pick the Browning. 9mm may not pack the punch of the 45acp it's higher capacity and lower recoil would IMO make up for that. More importantly it's double action would insure the pistol was ready to shoot without have to either cock it or lower a safety.
In reality though I'd want the M1917 revolver. 45acp and always ready to shoot. As long as it's clean it's the most reliable and deadly.
But you only use a pistol to fight your way to a rifle.

 

m1911 for above said.
But nowadays the glock you can burrie it, let it in ground for 2 years wash it and fire 500 rounds...without 1 jam.

 

Which 9mm are you referring to here, not the Browning HP for sure since it is a single action. Perhaps the P-38 German 9mm which replaced the jam prone Luger? Only the Browning HP has the huge 13 round capacity though, and it is a single action. At least it always was in the High Power designation. The newer Brownings may be double actions, but not the old HP from the thirites clear into the seventies. I owned two of these fine pistols, and wish I had them back these days since I sold them WAY to cheap.

 

I would use the Colt. It's very famous for it's effectiveness.

 

Which ones? Care to cite a source? The last time I've seen an up to date photo of the SEALs, they were all packing automatic pistols. No US Army or Marine special operations units use revolvers as they are considered, for all intents and perposes, obsolescent.