So which handgun is your choice for the best of WW2? Mine is the M1911A1, the Colt .45 automatic. You hit anyone with one of those rounds and they are going down, even if you don't kill them instantly.
I like big calibres, so the .45. But the HP35 or the P38 were advances in design and very good. So one in each hand and other in a back holster :bang:
I have samples of the Colt.45 and the Browning Hi-Power-the former was the most imitated pistol in the world-manufactured in large numbers for the US and its Allies, copied in Argentina, Norway, Mexico and Spain (and strangely enough, by the Viet Cong, in rather crude gun shops!) built under license in Argentina..A 9mm Parabellum has a muzzle velocity of 1880 fps, the Colt laround 860 fps, but the .45 has more stopping power..
Dave would you care to elaborate on this?..I think that this stopping power is the reason why the.45 cal. round and up-dated versions of the Colts 1911A1.. are making a coimeback....
my granpa had a mate shot by someone in a america buy a 1911 .45 he was shot in the back and then in the head
At the range l attend. shooters ussually want to sample each tohers's guns..l was approached by ;is sweet young blonde, who tapped me on teh shoulder..(we were all wearing "Ear Muffs") and asked whether l; would let her try out my .45..I was about to ask whether she could actually lift it, when she handed me, most graciously the weapon she was firing...a 44.Magunm..the "Dirty Harry" gun..... We each enjoyed samplifg the other'spiece...nyuk nyuk! nyuk! It was a nice weapon, though l prefer pistols to revolvers...... :smok:
A cynical response to the question would be to say that the gun with the most safety features would be best, because most handgun casualties in WW2 were probably 'own-goals' caused by guns going off by accident. However, if you are evaluating handguns as serious weapons then you need some criteria. IMO, first and foremost comes reliability, followed by immediate availability for firing, followed by accuracy potential (in terms of ease of shooting accurately), followed by effectiveness (individual cartridge x ammo capacity), followed by weight. Most of the military handguns in WW2 were quite reliable, with the exception of the Luger which had a very exposed mechanism easily jammed by dirt. Revolvers are also more prone to dirt-clogging. With automatics, the key point of unreliability was the magazine, since any damage to the lips (easily done) would present the round for loading at the wrong angle. The Polish Radom 9mm scored well here as I understand that the control of the cartridge angle was built into the gun rather than relying on the magazine. The Germans certainly liked the Radom and used it a lot themselves. Immediate availability for firing means that it goes bang when you pull the trigger without having to think about safety catches etc. That favours double-action revolvers and automatics with double-action first trigger pulls. OTOH, the double action first pull is long and heavy, not conducive to accurate shooting. This is more of a problem with revolvers, since it applies to every shot, and they also have a small ammo capacity. In terms of effectiveness, the .45 had an advantage in immediate effectiveness becuase of the size of the hole it punched, although a large-capacity 9mm (at that time, only the Browning P35 was available) compensated by holding twice as much ammo. The heavier recoil of the .45 also militated against accurate shooting. It's worth considering the choices made since WW2 to find out what was considered the best approach. The following points are clear: - the 9mm has become almost universal and is clearly regarded as offering the best compromise between effectiveness, recoil and magazine capacity. - the automatic pistol with a double-action first shot has become almost universal, as this offers immediate availability for the first shot, with short and light trigger pulls for follow-up shots. The Glock system offers an alternative approach which is probably better. Having said all of that, when I had to devise a new British pistol in 1935 for my alternative WW2 novel, 'The Foresight War' - details on my website - I chose the M1911 as the basis because I wanted to chamber the gun in the same 9x25mm Mauser Export cartridge as I had already chosen for the SMG, and the Colt has the longer action to make this possible. Of course, I provided a double-stack magazine as well! Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
1880 fps from 9mm Parabellum? Maybe from some very, very hot smg-loading and shot from long barrel. But from pistol, I dont think so.
I would at glance probably choose the .45, simply because if you hit, he goes down ! But offcourse there's more to it than that, the P38 also has alot of advantages, like very low recoil, making it highly controlable in fast semiautomatic fire. With that in mind, i would have to say the Browning Hi-power would be my choice for the best pistol of WW2. KBO
The big problem with high-powered handguns is that you need a good deal of training to use them properly, otherwise you are forced to resort to 'spray & pray'. WW1 soldiers tended to be rather contemptuous of pistols. I have read an account by an old soldier who claimed that he saw men killed by all manner of weapons, including catapults & slingshots, but never a pistol. My vote would probably be for the .45 also. The Germans produced it for the SS. Maybe the Walther P-38 as runner up. I know that the Japanese made possibly the worst pistols...