Colt 45 auto, vs. Nagant Pistol vs. 9mm luger pistol

Because of a previous threads endless popularity "M1 garand vs. Mauser" in which much interest was generated, I decided we should have a discussion of another set of unlike weapons. So I am bringing forth the subject of these 3 standards for their respective armies for an unlike comparison of weaponry. I would say about the American Colt 45 that it would blow a 55 gallon heavy drum right over(if you shot at the top) where the other two weapons would only result in a small hole. What do you think? The nagant with same caliber would be somewhat behind and the luger would be last........but I could be wrong just being a hobbyist however I have to start the argument somehow.

 

Having shot both, I can say I prefer the 1911 for the following reasons:

1. Stopping Power:
The Nagant fires a 7.62mm round with a kinetic energy of around 350J. The 1911 rounds (.45ACP, 185gr) has a kinetic energy of nearly 840J. The 1911 has over twice the kinetic energy. The 1911 round has more "stopping power" so to speak -- the 45ACP round delivers a much larger impulse to its target than the 7.62x38mmR round of the Nagant.

Result: 1911

2. Handling:
As expected here, the Nagant is a rough gun. Its made well (ie: tough and durable), but doesn't have the ergonomics of the 1911. That's saying a lot, because compared to other handguns (the P08 Luger is a good example), the 1911's ergonomics aren't the best. The Nagant weighs less by about half a pound, and is overall a smaller gun (in terms of surface area).

Result: 1911

3. Reloading:
The Nagant must be reloaded one round at a time through the loading gate (like a Single Action "Wild West" revolver). This take time -- the cylinder holds 7 rounds, so you're going to be there for a good length of time, and there is no "speed loader" type device availabe to assist. When the Germans are in front firing at you, this is a severe disadvantage. The 1911 takes a magazine with 7 rounds. When empty, pop it out and reload it. Or, pull out another magazine from your belt and get back into action right away. Furthermore, magazines are much easier to reload than a single-action type cylinder.

Up until the early 1920s, the Nagant was produced in single-action only. This makes it neccessary to cock the hammer before each shot. The 1911 only requires manual hammer-cocking for the first shot.

Result: 1911 by far

4. Reliability:
This is a tough one. I wasn't shooting either outside in the mud and cold, so I can't really draw a well-educated conclusion. However, I'll say that in terms of grime and dirt, the Nagant can probably hold up better. Its a simpler gun than the 1911. Generally, less moving parts = less prone to breaking. That being said, the US Army did put the 1911 through some pretty harsh tests before it was adopted, and it performed well. I've never had problems with my 1911, but as I've said I have never taken it into Eastern Front Winter 1941-like conditions.

Result: Uncertain, but probably the Nagant comes out in front.

5. Accuracy:
I didn't notice much of a difference here, but the 1911 handles better, making it easier for a novice to zero in on a target. For a military sidearm (specifically a military comprised of draftees), this is important. The sights were about the same -- the GI 1911 sights were poor, as are the Nagant's.

Result: Uncertain, but the 1911 is easier to handle.

Victor: a better choice for a comparison might be the Tokarev Vs 1911, as both are semi-automatic pistols. Both designs date from around the same time period as well, as opposed to comparing a 19th century revolver to an early 20th century semi-automatic.

 

Very good comparing points you have made and perhaps you are right about the Tokarev however I am trying to model a little bit the Garand vs Mauser thread that seemed to gain momentum from being unlike guns to compare. I just thought that Armies did use the three I chose and they were unlike for comparing. That was my thinking there. I did enjoy your comparisons.

 

The problems with all pistols is that: 1. They're difficult to shoot accurately with out a lot of practice. This is especially true of the 1911, which tends to intimidate first-time pistol shooters. 2. NONE OF THEM arel really all that powerful compared to rifle rounds of the day. Unless the central nervous system or the heart/major blood vessel is hit the super-adrenalized enemy soldier can still often throw that grenade or squeeze that trigger. 3. They give a false sense of security.

Actually, I'd go with the Nagant. It could do the two jobs the Russian/Soviets demanded of it: It was a badge of rank (any pistol works here) and it was powerful enought to execute soldiers who were reluctant to charge enemy MG positions.

 

Thanks.

I see what you mean. I've been watching a Mauser Vs Garand thread myself, and am suprised its continued for so long. Just for fun, how about STG44 vs AK47? These are two unlike guns that people seem to think are closely related. Heck, how about the M16 Vs the Lee Enfield?

 

Now you have the idea Alan.....we will see how it works and Harold I do have an affinity to the "readiness" of the six shooter to be available for relatively short tasks at hand, with less concerns for storing magazines or maintaining a well oiled slide. Simple and rugged.....can sometimes trump other performances.

 

Valid position, I guess. It was certainly a badge of rank (interestingly, the Nagant was held in higher regard than the more advanced Tokarev TT33 pistol until well into the Cold War). Commisars certainly used it. Interestingly, when the double action model was first introduced, officers were issued with the double action model while soldiers still recieved the single action model -- I guess the DA version was "more prestigious" than the SA model, and was a "higher level" status symbol.