For those of you who gave serious answers, thanks. I realise that it is pure speculation with no real way of knowing either way. We were discussing the 1911 vs the service size revolvers. I chose the Model 10 and Official Police because they are were arguably the two most common revolvers of that type. The discussion kinda got around to which one is the more proven design and I guess that my personal opinion is that they are probably equally proven. They've both been around for over 100 years and are still alive and well.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Which gun has dropped more bad guys. . .
- Thread starter shafter
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
When I read the question, the little voice in my head said "neither".
I thought the answer would be the Colt Single Action Army since this revolver served for a few decades during several wars as the issued U.S. Calvary revolver.
This was a time when the revolver actually was a main battle firearm because soldiers were mounted and they used the revolver since they had to use one hand to handle their horses and the other hand to shoot. In modern warfare, the main battle weapon is a rifle.
Several veterans in my family from Korea, Vietnam and Iraq told me that they rarely or never used their pistols because if they ever had to use pistols, that would mean they were in deep doo-doo and they probably wouldn't be able to get out of it. Some of them who were not officers, were never even issued pistols and they actually had to buy their own. American combat soldiers would write home from Vietnam to ask family members to purchase handguns and ammo for them and to ship them over there. Some of them were told by veterans to buy their own handgun before being sent over there and they did just that. When I heard this, I was astounded. A U.S. soldier being required to buy his own sidearm? But yes, they told me that's the way it was for some of them. If you wanted to carry a pistol, you had to provide your own. But I digress.
The SAA was used in many, many Indian wars, the Spanish American War and several other wars and battles and I have read cases of it being used in WWI. If you define "bad guys" as whoever the USA was fighting against, then I would guess that the SAA was fired against them as much or more than any other handgun.
Now, whether the "bad guys" were dropped or killed or just taken out of action temporarily, who knows? You can search out cavalry battlefield photos that show dead enemy and I would bet that most of them were killed with the .45 Colt SAA because that's what the soldiers were carrying.
I thought the answer would be the Colt Single Action Army since this revolver served for a few decades during several wars as the issued U.S. Calvary revolver.
This was a time when the revolver actually was a main battle firearm because soldiers were mounted and they used the revolver since they had to use one hand to handle their horses and the other hand to shoot. In modern warfare, the main battle weapon is a rifle.
Several veterans in my family from Korea, Vietnam and Iraq told me that they rarely or never used their pistols because if they ever had to use pistols, that would mean they were in deep doo-doo and they probably wouldn't be able to get out of it. Some of them who were not officers, were never even issued pistols and they actually had to buy their own. American combat soldiers would write home from Vietnam to ask family members to purchase handguns and ammo for them and to ship them over there. Some of them were told by veterans to buy their own handgun before being sent over there and they did just that. When I heard this, I was astounded. A U.S. soldier being required to buy his own sidearm? But yes, they told me that's the way it was for some of them. If you wanted to carry a pistol, you had to provide your own. But I digress.
The SAA was used in many, many Indian wars, the Spanish American War and several other wars and battles and I have read cases of it being used in WWI. If you define "bad guys" as whoever the USA was fighting against, then I would guess that the SAA was fired against them as much or more than any other handgun.
Now, whether the "bad guys" were dropped or killed or just taken out of action temporarily, who knows? You can search out cavalry battlefield photos that show dead enemy and I would bet that most of them were killed with the .45 Colt SAA because that's what the soldiers were carrying.
I'm kinda breaking my own parameters here but I would venture to say that the 1860 Army Colt took out more bad guys. The Civil War was chock full of cavalry skirmishes where pistols were the favored weapon. It too was used in the cavalry during the height of the indian wars.
You're forgetting how many bad guys drop other bad guys and get dropped by other bad guys.
So the answer is Davis !
Good Answer. or maybe bryco, or jennings
Something to remember about police vs. soldiers: they use handguns in different roles. The majority of soldiers are not even issued handguns and, of those that are, a great many are also issued a longarm of some sort as their primary weapon. The soldiers are are issued a handgun and a handgun only are usually not in direct combat roles and thus are less likely to fire their weapon at all. Because of this, I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of shots fired in anger by soldiers come from rifles, submachine guns, or other such longarms.
Police, U.S. police in particular, often rely on a handgun as a primary weapon. While longarms including rifles, shotguns, and submachine guns are widely used by police, they are rarely carried on their person at all times while on duty. As such, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of shots fired in anger from police come from handguns.
The point here is that, while soldiers may be involved in many more gunfights than cops, that does not necessarily mean that soldiers shoot as many or more people with handguns than police do.
Police, U.S. police in particular, often rely on a handgun as a primary weapon. While longarms including rifles, shotguns, and submachine guns are widely used by police, they are rarely carried on their person at all times while on duty. As such, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of shots fired in anger from police come from handguns.
The point here is that, while soldiers may be involved in many more gunfights than cops, that does not necessarily mean that soldiers shoot as many or more people with handguns than police do.
you guys may be overestimating the number of people actually killed by the handgun during the 4 wars fought with the 1911 in use. I'm inclined to think that it was only a tiny fraction of the number of people killed.
You may be also underestimating all of the people killed in the civil war, indian wars, cattle wars, and even WWI and WWII with revolvers. There have been a lot of people killed in both war and peace, all throughout history, with revolvers, and in reality, the 1911 was only used heavily in the world wars, korea, and vietnam. I don't think that police killings are a question. I know that many agencies used 1911s, but I think that revolvers probably were used in more killings than the 1911 would have been.
I don't know. Myself, I am tending to think that the revolver, taken from civil war period forward, would have killed more people than the 1911. If you count all the people taken out by the webley, that would tilt it a little farther.
that really is an interesting question. I don't know.
You may be also underestimating all of the people killed in the civil war, indian wars, cattle wars, and even WWI and WWII with revolvers. There have been a lot of people killed in both war and peace, all throughout history, with revolvers, and in reality, the 1911 was only used heavily in the world wars, korea, and vietnam. I don't think that police killings are a question. I know that many agencies used 1911s, but I think that revolvers probably were used in more killings than the 1911 would have been.
I don't know. Myself, I am tending to think that the revolver, taken from civil war period forward, would have killed more people than the 1911. If you count all the people taken out by the webley, that would tilt it a little farther.
that really is an interesting question. I don't know.
peacefulgary
New member
Also consider that the Browning Hi Power has been used in both large and small wars, all around the world, for over 75 years.
Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas.
Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas.
“…my positition was that the Smith and Wesson Model 10/Colt Official Police has dropped more bad guys since the creation of the original design than the 1911.”
Ahoy Shafter,
Interesting question.
As you know, Sgt Baker shot 8 enemy soldiers dead with a 1911 in the Marianas in 1944. Why didn’t he drop 15 enemy soldiers? Because he only had one pistol and 8 rounds (7+1). And you will recall a certain Sgt York, who back in 1918, dropped 7 enemy soldiers (some sources say 6) in 6.5 seconds whilst charging the enemy and carrying a rifle in his weak hand. And then there’s Korea, and Vietnam, and…
Let’s face it, S&W/Colt revolvers have never come close to those kinds of numbers re rapid one-shot knock-down performance.
BTW the 1911 was a popular carry amongst Texas law enforcement.
Seems the 1911 probably "dropped more."
Check your 6.
Ahoy Shafter,
Interesting question.
As you know, Sgt Baker shot 8 enemy soldiers dead with a 1911 in the Marianas in 1944. Why didn’t he drop 15 enemy soldiers? Because he only had one pistol and 8 rounds (7+1). And you will recall a certain Sgt York, who back in 1918, dropped 7 enemy soldiers (some sources say 6) in 6.5 seconds whilst charging the enemy and carrying a rifle in his weak hand. And then there’s Korea, and Vietnam, and…
Let’s face it, S&W/Colt revolvers have never come close to those kinds of numbers re rapid one-shot knock-down performance.
BTW the 1911 was a popular carry amongst Texas law enforcement.
Seems the 1911 probably "dropped more."
Check your 6.
Mike Irwin
Staff
There's simply no way of ever tallying anything this like this with anything even remotely approaching certainty.
And when we get into silly justifications and defenses such as we're starting to see (and which have absolutely no bearing or basis in any reality whatever) it's a pretty good indication that the thread has truly run its course and is wasting space.
Closed.
And when we get into silly justifications and defenses such as we're starting to see (and which have absolutely no bearing or basis in any reality whatever) it's a pretty good indication that the thread has truly run its course and is wasting space.
Closed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.