"Top 10 Combat Handguns"

Discussions on the small arms used by the Axis forces.
User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#16

Post by LWD » 16 Jul 2008, 13:48

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Schyarf,

My proposition is that there never has been a "combat hand gun" of any military significance and that any list of the top ten therefore has no real meaning. The ACW diversion was illustrative of that.
I'd agree if you said seldom rahter than never. During the time when wheellocks pistols were in common use the pistol was the primary armament of some cavalry. As we've discussed during the period from roughly 1835 to the latter part of the 19th century the hand gun was again an important and thus significant part of the armament of cavalry and to a lesser extent support troops. It continued to be a signifcant arm as far as officers and support troops were concerned for some time. I find it hard to believe that there would have been a cry for a hand gun with more stopping power if it were completly insignificant and such a cry lead to the development of the M1911.
....The handgun is little more than symbolic weapon in the military. It is really a civilian weapon of very little practical military value, and this has almost always been the case. ....
It's utility has declined as alternatives have proliferated (submachine guns, carbines, and such) however it still has signficant military value:
1) It's often a moral builder for the troops carrying it. At least if they trust it.
2) There are some places and times when it is supperior to most other weapons. In particular in very close quarters.

If you are looking at say WWII and what's causing most of the casualties you could say similar things about rifles. IE artillery, machine guns, mines, and such caused the vast majority of the casualties. That however doesn't mean that rifles were ineffcitive or of no military signfigance.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#17

Post by LWD » 16 Jul 2008, 13:51

JTV wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote: ...
Compared to this day during WW2 at paper at least it doesn't seem to have been so unusual to issue officers just pistols (I am pretty sure low ranking infantry officers of most nationalities carried typically also rifle or submachinegun). But on the other hand in those days hand automatic pistol offered yet some firepower advance from a short range when compared to what most armies issued to most of their infantry soldiers - bolt action rifles. Nowadays this advantage is obviously gone - the average infantry soldier is now armed with select-fire assault rifle, which has advantage over pistols in every possible way....
It wasn't just officers who were issued pistols but support troops and in some cases NCOs. I'm not all that famiar with other countries but many of these troops in the US were being issued M1 carbines or especially in the case of tankers M3 submachine guns by the end of the war.


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#18

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 Jul 2008, 14:09

many of these troops in the US were being issued M1 carbines or especially in the case of tankers M3 submachine guns by the end of the war.
But was this because they were better for the job of being "side arms" for support troops...or because sheer weight of production made them available? :wink:

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#19

Post by LWD » 16 Jul 2008, 14:18

phylo_roadking wrote:
many of these troops in the US were being issued M1 carbines or especially in the case of tankers M3 submachine guns by the end of the war.
But was this because they were better for the job of being "side arms" for support troops...or because sheer weight of production made them available? :wink:
That's a good question. I'm also not sure what the unit of issue was. For instance I think the M3 was issued with or too the tank. So the tankers may have still been issued pistols. Then of course they may have aquired other weapons. I remember gameing with an army officer who served on Okinawa. He carried a carbine but used it more as a pointer than a weapon. I think he said he never fired it at a Japanese although he did toss a few grenades at them.

First step to answering this might be to get a good deffintion of "beter". At the trooper level I suspect:
1) more is better if they don't have to carry it.
2) If they do lighter is better if they don't have to shoot it.

User avatar
JTV
Member
Posts: 2011
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:03
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#20

Post by JTV » 16 Jul 2008, 19:53

phylo_roadking wrote: ...

It wasn't just officers who were issued pistols but support troops and in some cases NCOs. I'm not all that famiar with other countries but many of these troops in the US were being issued M1 carbines or especially in the case of tankers M3 submachine guns by the end of the war.
Yes, I could have added "for example" in some place there, but I was trying to paint with the the wide strokes. For example down here Finnish Army first armed infantry NCO's mostly with rifles since there were not anywhere enough pistols - later most got submachineguns. Also most infantry low rank officers got themselves submachineguns.

Jarkko

User avatar
JTV
Member
Posts: 2011
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:03
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#21

Post by JTV » 16 Jul 2008, 20:18

phylo_roadking wrote:Jarkko - the reason there were not radical changes was more likely...there's not a lot new you can do at any point with a pistol. They're actually very simple items anyway and do a very simple job...in the case of a revolver SO simple you're relying on gravity or a shaking hand to clear spent brass!
While that is true from technical point of view large caliber automatic pistol is still mechanically bit more complicated than most simple submachinegun designs (like Sten, which was just mentioned). In other words they need inbuild recoil mechanism of some sort (Browning's "tilting barrel" being the most popular), while for example Sten is a simple blowback-design firing from open bolt (from mechanical point of view it can't get much more simple than that). Otherwise some excellent points.

One observation that one might make is also that while during World War 2 most countries manufactured military handguns and their own designs were common, nowadays many countries don't anymore have factories for manufacturing them and also own designs of various countries are much more rare.

Jarkko

wisbechlad
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 30 May 2008, 08:09

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#22

Post by wisbechlad » 17 Jul 2008, 11:38

AFAIK many officers didn't carry handguns because they marked you out as an officer to snipers. Jary (who wrote a great book on being a junior officer) carried an umbrella, on the basis it was more useful than a handgun (could probe for mines, hold down barbed wire, keep off the rain etc)

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#23

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 Jul 2008, 15:42

large caliber automatic pistol is still mechanically bit more complicated than most simple submachinegun designs (like Sten, which was just mentioned). In other words they need inbuild recoil mechanism of some sort (Browning's "tilting barrel" being the most popular), while for example Sten is a simple blowback-design firing from open bolt (from mechanical point of view it can't get much more simple than that)
...or unfortunately more stoppage-prone!!! The Sten paid for its simplicity...

User avatar
trapperP
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 20:13

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#24

Post by trapperP » 17 Jul 2008, 18:51

"....The handgun is little more than symbolic weapon in the military. It is really a civilian weapon of very little practical military value, and this has almost always been the case. ...."
Not true in every case. The handgun saw a lot of use in 'Nam for covert action, withness the S&W variant know as the Mk22 - Mod O "Hush Puppy" - a silenced 9M/M used to take out sentry dogs.
Image
Also used was a Ruger variant in 22LR but that was after my time and I know little about it. But rest assured handguns were definitely used by the military, not just carried for looks.
trapperP

User avatar
JTV
Member
Posts: 2011
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:03
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#25

Post by JTV » 17 Jul 2008, 21:33

phylo_roadking wrote:
large caliber automatic pistol is still mechanically bit more complicated than most simple submachinegun designs (like Sten, which was just mentioned). In other words they need inbuild recoil mechanism of some sort (Browning's "tilting barrel" being the most popular), while for example Sten is a simple blowback-design firing from open bolt (from mechanical point of view it can't get much more simple than that)
...or unfortunately more stoppage-prone!!! The Sten paid for its simplicity...
I don't really agree on that. I have some experience about Sten also and IMHO instead of the mechanical design the main handicaps seem to have been poor materials and manufacturing quality (for example magazines were poor quality, materials used for manufacturing receiver could have been bit thicker, magazine well was too flimsy etc...). It wasn't anywhere near the best weapons that a soldier could have even during WW2, but from mass-production point of view it was a smart design and worked quite well for a weapon so cheap (however considering price-quality ratio IMHO PPS-43 did even better).

Jarkko

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#26

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 Jul 2008, 21:53

JTV - it did (thankfully) improve fast, but the first two marks were horribly prone to both random firing if dropped or jogged...AND stoppages LOL the flimsy receiver in particular giving a lot of problems when it twisted and didn't extract brass cleanly. I think It's Messenger has the anecdote of a whole raiding party of Commandos sitting with their new issue...and a piece of paper specifying alterations to be made to the bolt and a file each! :lol: I believe even worse-made German copies like the ERMA managed to preserve some of the original faults even longer!
mass-production point of view it was a smart design
This I agree with - the only real problem was that the point of production was killing the enemy! Not your mates if you dropped it on the floor...or the aeroplane cabin floor...or the deck of the boat.... :lol:

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#27

Post by South » 17 Jul 2008, 22:21

Good afternoon all,

When I first read that article in 1994, I focused on something completely different than the article's panel of experts and also the views arriving here in 2008.

The "Top 10 combat handguns" surely relates to combat and handguns but not necessarily as a parallel to the top ten ASSAULT rifles. I framed the material differently in 1994 and still do.

My mental reference toward the article and thread subject is that a handgun for combat is:

-a tool

-there are various combat environments determining which "tool" is best suited for the mission objective.


MG Claire Chennault (1890-1958) saw more combat than most Americans. He carried a handgun.

I learned how to use a telex by a former USN submarine skipper who carried a handgun while on combat missions.

I served in the military with someone who had an unofficial title for his job; he was a "tunnel rat". He carried a handgun.

Can we not say the combat arenas and the numerous tools invented (and improved upon) PRECLUDE a selection of "best"?

In a tunnel, the environment dictates something that works differently than eg a submarine berthing at a somewhat unsurured location.

An aviator does not rely on a handgun to accomplish the mission except when crashed. What is the aviator's best choice for a handgun after a crash. Do note crashes frequently result in injuries precluding the ease of chambering a round in an automatic pistol.

Just my thoughts for now................


Warm regards,

Bob

User avatar
Hauptmann Kloss
Member
Posts: 192
Joined: 13 Jul 2008, 15:56
Location: Greater Poland, Choragiew Siodma Kaliska

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#28

Post by Hauptmann Kloss » 18 Jul 2008, 01:09

South wrote:...

1. Colt Government Model

2. Sig-Sauer Autos

3. S&W K and L Frame Revolvers

4. Glock Pistols

5. S&W J Frame Revolver

6. Browning Hi-Power

7. Seecamp .32 Auto

8. Para-Ordnance .45 Autos

9. S&W N Frame Revolvers

10.Beretta M-92 Series Autos
Americans and their "combat". I see some of you trying define combat as some kind of military engagement. Not in US. When two guys shoot at each other in the alley that is "combat".
I do not understand infinite wisdom behind that list, that put seecamp .32 next to the 1911 or K frame next to J-frame. Probably list of primary pistols for service duty and back-ups to accompany them.

IMO:
1911, Para-Ordnance 45 of Beretta M92 are monsters of pistols I find them impossible to conceal in light clothing.
High-Power- grandpa`s old and heavy for caliber.
Glock-no adjustable or grip safety- too much of the risk to owner in shaky situation
Revolvers- I would not carry one, in the car yes, it works better in confined space with limited movement.
Seecamp? nah.. rather have good knife...
Sig-Sauer-like to shoot them 226 is way to big for caliber, never broke for 229. Sig-Pro, likeable exept for SA trigger.

So what I find a OK. Croatian HS (SA XD). I like compact model 9mm. Compilation of Glock, SIG and 1911. Light, good trigger, grip safety, SIG take-down mech and sights. Work with modified sig 226 mags for back-up role
***

User avatar
JTV
Member
Posts: 2011
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:03
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#29

Post by JTV » 18 Jul 2008, 07:49

Hauptmann Kloss wrote:
Americans and their "combat". I see some of you trying define combat as some kind of military engagement. Not in US. When two guys shoot at each other in the alley that is "combat".
Different country, different culture and different legislation... Down here one is allowed to carry a firearm only temporarily and for an approved cause (going to/returning from either hunting, gunsmith, shooting range etc...) - and even then it has be transported concealed and unloaded (preferrably in a bag of some sort, carrying pistol or revolver in a holster under the clothing is frowned upon). Carrying for self defence is not permitted unless one has special permit for that and it is basically impossible to get (basically only available for security guards, correction officers etc who may need to to carry firearm for their work). On the other hand there is not much need for carrying fiream for self-defence in here either, Finland has relavitely lot of violent crime, but the grand majority of it is between drunks. The change of being randomly targetted for violent crime is pretty close to zero and for example armed robberies very rare.

IMHO one of the major differences in pistols nowadays in steel vs plastic (composite). Pistols with composite frames have become more common than the ones with steel frames. Personally I prefer pistols with steel or aluminium frames, but than again I don't carry them in holster more than few hours at the time every now and then when I am either practicing or competing. Composite frames make sense in being both lighter and from production point of view are also cheaper to make in large numbers.

Jarkko

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: "Top 10 Combat Handguns"

#30

Post by South » 18 Jul 2008, 09:23

Good morning Hauptmann Kloss,

Could anyone wear "light clothing" if the combat zone was, for example, Thule, Greenland, Arctic Canada or Bodo, Norway? The zone dictates the clothing requirements.

My guess is you would change your mind regarding revolvers if you had a combat assignment requiring much air transport either as a passenger or a crew member. If the aircraft crashes, it is reasonable enough to expect injuries. How do you chamber a round in a semi-auto pistol with an injured hand and arm? The revolver precludes this problem.

A crash site isn't a "confined space" but definitely part of the combat zone, even allowing for the aviators' planned alternate routes in their basic navigation plans.

The world's militaries are always evolving. From WWII to today, many "military" operations are "contractor" operated. The contractor air crews usually won't let you enter the aircraft with a chambered round in a semi-auto, even if using the additional safety. The philosophy is that the risk of an inflight firearm discharge is too great to allow a chambered round.

Warm regards,

Bob

Post Reply

Return to “Small Arms”