Best Pistol of WW2

[chitoryu12]

I will not hesitate to point out that if something died out, there's usually a reason for it. Stocked pistols seemed like a good idea at the time, but in practice they were a stopgap response to the non-existence of submachine guns and assault rifles. Carrying a heavy wooden holster/stock on your leg and then trying to get it attached when you suddenly need to switch between having a pistol and having a carbine is impractical and annoying in practice, and if it's WW2 you would just say "Screw it" and carry a submachine gun.

As for the best pistol, I find no question at all that it was the Browning Hi-Power. Handguns in general have moved in the direction Browning went: high capacity double-stack 9mm pistols. While it still has some obsolete features (like a single-action trigger and a magazine safety that only benefits an undisciplined user) and it has the tiny sights that pretty much every non-target pistol of the time had, for the most part it stands up today as a good handgun.

In regards to arguments about .45 ACP vs. 9mm, I highly recommend actually reading the data from the Thompson-LaGarde tests at https://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/TLGR/tlgr.html. Most people have only read the conclusions and summaries of the test, which claimed undeniable proof that heavier and larger bullets are better, but this link actually has the full text and all of the results. It becomes very clear that the tests were not even close to scientific and the data actually shows .45 LC and .476 Eley doing the exact same things as .38 LC and .38 ACP on the animals. The actual data supports modern thinking that goes against what the conclusions claim: shooting non-vital areas with a pistol does very little regardless of whether your bullet is 0.5 inches bigger than another. The only handgun to get a one-shot drop was the 9mm Luger because they accidentally hit the vitals, at which point they threw it out as a "discrepancy" and redid it. As much as I love the 1911 and the .45 ACP because of cool factor, you get no perceivable benefit over a 9mm.

[ChristopherPerrien]

"As much as I love the 1911 and the .45 ACP because of cool factor, you get no perceivable benefit over a 9mm"


Odds are, it is the person who fires(and hits) first. (Biggest perceivable benefit). Don't think the number of rounds or caliber means much there, as long as the pistol works right in the first place. sure there are a zillion studies on this bull, but you get the basically same thing = about a 50/50 chance in one hit to disable a target , and in two hits it is a done deal

[chitoryu12]

"As much as I love the 1911 and the .45 ACP because of cool factor, you get no perceivable benefit over a 9mm"


Odds are, it is the person who fires(and hits) first. (Biggest perceivable benefit). Don't think the number of rounds or caliber means much there, as long as the pistol works right in the first place. sure there are a zillion studies on this bull, but you get the basically same thing = about a 50/50 chance in one hit to disable a target , and in two hits it is a done deal

There's very extensive information about people taking pistol shots and barely reacting. It's not at all unknown for someone to take as many as a dozen bullets and continue fighting (most famously the 1986 FBI Miami shootout). Shot placement is absolutely vital because handguns just aren't that good as weapons compared to anything bigger.

[Skysoldier80]

I have a friend who was SF in Vietnam and he stated he dumped his 1911 for a FN BHP because of magazine capacity. I own both. I love the .45, But I will have to say BHP.

[Poot]

I've seen and stood over bodies with a single .22LR hole (proven by cartridge case recovery), and still-living oxygen thieves with 11 (eleven) .45 holes in them that they weren't born with, and survived. Shot placement is EVERYTHING.

[ChristopherPerrien]

"As much as I love the 1911 and the .45 ACP because of cool factor, you get no perceivable benefit over a 9mm"


Odds are, it is the person who fires(and hits) first. (Biggest perceivable benefit). Don't think the number of rounds or caliber means much there, as long as the pistol works right in the first place. sure there are a zillion studies on this bull, but you get the basically same thing = about a 50/50 chance in one hit to disable a target , and in two hits it is a done deal

There's very extensive information about people taking pistol shots and barely reacting. It's not at all unknown for someone to take as many as a dozen bullets and continue fighting (most famously the 1986 FBI Miami shootout). Shot placement is absolutely vital because handguns just aren't that good as weapons compared to anything bigger.

Your mentions of exceptions and outliers, of people taking mutlpe shots and still functioning over many years) only prove the rule/genrality I made, if you understand statistics. Everyday hundreds of people are shot and about 20% die. (let's add not sucides). The thing is most of these are "one-shot" , multiple shots the odds go up if somebody dies. as in two, past that, is gets pretty certain people end up dead. But even getting hit once usually ends most "street /day to day crimes'", Shot placement? I suggest

https://heyjackass.com/

an excellent site on day to day shooting and gun grimes in Chicago.

Here is one chart, understand this includes, drive by's and stray bullets, still in paints a pretty mean look at what are mostly pistol shots by untrained streetcriminals.
2020 Shot Placement
Placement Killed Wounded
head 78 44
chest 63 62
back 17 104
neck 17 25
abdomen 16 88
side 16 17
face 7 41
ass 2 66
unknown/other 88 771
As of 6/22/20

[chitoryu12]

"As much as I love the 1911 and the .45 ACP because of cool factor, you get no perceivable benefit over a 9mm"


Odds are, it is the person who fires(and hits) first. (Biggest perceivable benefit). Don't think the number of rounds or caliber means much there, as long as the pistol works right in the first place. sure there are a zillion studies on this bull, but you get the basically same thing = about a 50/50 chance in one hit to disable a target , and in two hits it is a done deal

There's very extensive information about people taking pistol shots and barely reacting. It's not at all unknown for someone to take as many as a dozen bullets and continue fighting (most famously the 1986 FBI Miami shootout). Shot placement is absolutely vital because handguns just aren't that good as weapons compared to anything bigger.

Your mentions of exceptions and outliers, of people taking mutlpe shots and still functioning over many years) only prove the rule/genrality I made, if you understand statistics. Everyday hundreds of people are shot and about 20% die. (let's add not sucides). The thing is most of these are "one-shot" , multiple shots the odds go up if somebody dies. as in two, past that, is gets pretty certain people end up dead. But even getting hit once usually ends most "street /day to day crimes'", Shot placement? I suggest

https://heyjackass.com/

an excellent site on day to day shooting and gun grimes in Chicago.

Here is one chart, understand this includes, drive by's and stray bullets, still in paints a pretty mean look at what are mostly pistol shots by untrained streetcriminals.
2020 Shot Placement
Placement Killed Wounded
head 78 44
chest 63 62
back 17 104
neck 17 25
abdomen 16 88
side 16 17
face 7 41
ass 2 66
unknown/other 88 771
As of 6/22/20

The problem is this is a radically different scenario. Criminals who end up under fire are generally untrained civilians who don't expect to be shot and have no motivation to continue pressing forward if they come under fire. Your average WW2 soldier is hardly going to turn and start fleeing all the way to the rear as soon as they take a glancing handgun bullet to the arm in the middle of a firefight.

[ChristopherPerrien]

"As much as I love the 1911 and the .45 ACP because of cool factor, you get no perceivable benefit over a 9mm"


Odds are, it is the person who fires(and hits) first. (Biggest perceivable benefit). Don't think the number of rounds or caliber means much there, as long as the pistol works right in the first place. sure there are a zillion studies on this bull, but you get the basically same thing = about a 50/50 chance in one hit to disable a target , and in two hits it is a done deal

There's very extensive information about people taking pistol shots and barely reacting. It's not at all unknown for someone to take as many as a dozen bullets and continue fighting (most famously the 1986 FBI Miami shootout). Shot placement is absolutely vital because handguns just aren't that good as weapons compared to anything bigger.

Your mentions of exceptions and outliers, of people taking mutlpe shots and still functioning over many years) only prove the rule/genrality I made, if you understand statistics. Everyday hundreds of people are shot and about 20% die. (let's add not sucides). The thing is most of these are "one-shot" , multiple shots the odds go up if somebody dies. as in two, past that, is gets pretty certain people end up dead. But even getting hit once usually ends most "street /day to day crimes'", Shot placement? I suggest

https://heyjackass.com/

an excellent site on day to day shooting and gun grimes in Chicago.

Here is one chart, understand this includes, drive by's and stray bullets, still in paints a pretty mean look at what are mostly pistol shots by untrained streetcriminals.
2020 Shot Placement
Placement Killed Wounded
head 78 44
chest 63 62
back 17 104
neck 17 25
abdomen 16 88
side 16 17
face 7 41
ass 2 66
unknown/other 88 771
As of 6/22/20

The problem is this is a radically different scenario. Criminals who end up under fire are generally untrained civilians who don't expect to be shot and have no motivation to continue pressing forward if they come under fire. Your average WW2 soldier is hardly going to turn and start fleeing all the way to the rear as soon as they take a glancing handgun bullet to the arm in the middle of a firefight.

You forget, your average WWII soldier is hardly armed with a PISTOL. So such scenarios are different. we are talking about the best pistol in WWII , so I brought up revelant info about pistol effectiveness. Pistol were rarely used on the battlefield , and at the times they were , usually in very confused close range scenes , the usage probably gets close to the usage of criminals on the street in their effectiveness.

As to 'getting hit in the arm" , glancing blow, odds are that soldier is going back to the rear for treatment. for a typical bullet, which would be a rifle shot. LOL Most soldiers are not "hereos" , because most hereos are dead hereos. Most soldiers are no different than civilians , because most soldiers in a WORLD WAR , were civilians up until a few months before they were getting shot at. And it would not matter if they(draftee or proffessional soldier ) were hit by a rifle shot or a pistol shot , overall, they still got hit by a bullet and the physical/mental pain trauma that ensues

But let us get back on topic about pistols in WWII. You get hit by a pistol round(rare as that was in WWII) odds are that soldier would be "hors de combat" after such, much less two hits, doesn't really matter where they were hit.

[Hans1906]

Good afternoon,

as a personal pistol I would always prefer the so called "Parabellum-Pistole", the famous Pistole 08, nothing else.

Luger Pistol / Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luger_pistol

Against "Grizzly Bears", I would choose a Mauser C96/"Schnellfeuer", the Model 712.

Video:


German Quality, enough said!


Hans

P.S. I am not into guns anymore, I have stayed away from firearms of any kind for many years, for good reasons.

[Hans1906]

Most of you will remember the Mauser "712" from this photo:

Probably W-SS, but I am not sure, everything was possible, what I know, the full-auto M 712 was not used
after 1939..?

Photo /file size reduced to fit the forum rules.

Hans1906

Perhaps someone using the 712 from a former private posession, mysterious photo..?

[von thoma]

"Waffen-SS soldiers using a Mauser C96", the pic was published in the book 'Infantry Weapons', by John Weeks
Distributed in low quantities to Waffen-SS, and Police units, yes fought in WWII, like the old submachine gun MP 28 Bergmann,
and Erma MP 35.

[Hans1906]

Thoma, I am sorry,

The W-SS(?) soldier in the above photo was not using a Mauser C96, but a Mauser M712, the so called "Reihenfeuer" model.

Mauser M712: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_M712

Is there any other photo with the Mauser M712, Wehrmacht, Police, W-SS, with the M712 in "action", I do not think so..?

Greetings


Hans1906

"Waffen-SS soldiers using a Mauser C96", the pic was published in the book 'Infantry Weapons', by John Weeks"
Paper is patient, as they say in german, what was published in a book proves nothing.

[von thoma]

The W-SS(?) soldier

Still not convinced they are Waffen-SS soldiers ?

A 1932 Mauser M712, it's a model of Mauser C96 Military pistol, M712 was only a name given by Wehrmacht.
Mauser C96 is its generic name, valid for all Mauser models.

[Sheldrake]

I suspect the majority of casualties from pistols in WW2 would have been execution victims of the SS or NKVD. Not the mass executions but casual shootings or prison cell executions.

The vast majority of military casualties were from shell or mortar splinters and the majority of what else would have bene from machine gun or rifle bullets. There were more casualties from mines.

There were probably more casualties from accidents with a pistol than by enemy action using a pistol. Anyone have any statistics

[chitoryu12]

Despite their reputation as "elites", the SS usually went into battle with the same equipment as the Wehrmacht or even outright obsolete equipment. It wouldn't be unusual for them to be seen with an equally obsolete machine pistol.