WWII sidearm of choice

[Winchester_73]

This idea was spawned by a debate I had with wildalaska on how great the luger truly was. In the end, it was great for its time, enough said.

This poll: Its WWII, you have your main arm, and you must pick a sidearm. You will see combat soon....What do you pick and why?

I decided to create this thread to see what the general opinion is on the different sidearms issued during WWII. I will attempt to thoroughly cover the different types but I cannot include them all. Try to think beyond the caliber of the guns in question. Post support of you answers or post criticisms of other guns you may have. First hand experience with any and all is welcome. Also try to think beyond which side of the war the gun originally belonged to.

**For models that are multi caliber ie Walther PPK, the most powerful round for the model will be understood to be your choice**

**You have your rifle or other main arm of choice already.**

**None of the sidearms have the detachable stock**

**The S&W victory 38/200 is actually that or 38 special**

 

[AK103K]

I'd the the High Power, beings its the only high cap of the time.

 

[RickB]

The Luger was truly great for what? Truly a great souvenir for G.I.s.!
While I am a huge fan of the 1911 design, if I had to carry a handgun along with the rest of what a soldier has to carry, I'd chose something smaller and lighter. Something like a Colt .380, maybe?

 

[Ernest T Bass]

Smith & Wesson Victory Model

Smith & Wesson Victory Model. Because I like the gun, I like the round (.38 Special), and I have shot this gun/cartridge combination so much that it's as natural as breathing for me.

 

[Winchester_73]

Smith & Wesson Victory Model. Because I like the gun, I like the round (.38 Special), and I have shot this gun/cartridge combination so much that it's as natural as breathing for me.

The British lend lease victory models were 38/200 not 38 special. 38 special victory models were issued to the US in low numbers. The 38/200 version was fairly popular with the Brits.

I myself would pic the high power because of the magazine capacity and caliber 9mm. I would feel best with that combination.

 

[SIGSHR]

1911 45 ACP for me. I KNOW what it can do.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I went with the broom handle. If I could add a detachable stock to any of them I might make a different choice. Probably a hi-power

 

[Winchester_73]

To be fair, for the broom handle, you have a leather holster because the wood one was destroyed in combat. I believe that happened a lot and with a stock it would be an easy choice I think. Broom handle has NO stock

 

[Dragon55]

Browning Hi Power 13 rds in combat sounds better

 

[eluu]

I chose the Tokarev TT33 simply due to the fact I just picked up a Zastava M57 chambered in 7.62x25 (a TT33 Yugoslavian copy that holds 9 rounds vs. 8 for the TT33), and this thing rocks! The Russians actually copied some of John Browning's design elements from the 1911, which imo is an excellent firearm, but the projectile is too slow.
I may have chosen the Browning High Power, but have never held or fired one

LW

 

[khegglie]

Ultimately I think Rick is right GI's carrying a lot of gear........But I went with the 1911. Good capacity and reload speed; and I can blow up a tank ala Saving Private Ryan if needed

 

[Mike Irwin]

"The actual victory models were 38/200 not 38 special."

Incorrect.

They are BOTH .380/200 and .38 Special.

What is known as the Victory model came into production in 1942 after the United States entered the War. The V was chosen for "Victory over the Axis Powers" and was not simply a British concept... For example, Victory ships (that designation wasn't officially adopted or widely used until 1943), and on the home front, Victory Gardens. It was, in reality, a term that was also used during World War I, so it was a natural extension to WW II.

Starting with V1 in mid 1942, the .380/200s destined for British service and the .38 Specials destined primarily for US service were concurrently.

 

[Wildalaska]

Glock. Everything else is a club.

WildplusitcanshootforeverAlaska ™

 

[Winchester_73]

Mike

My poll option refers to specifically the lend lease guns since they saw way more combat than the 38 special. I should have been more specific. Thanks for the correction.

 

[45_Shooter]

Wheres the Colt SAA/S&W Registered Magnum combo with Ivory grips?

 

[Mike Irwin]

Plenty of the .38 Specials saw combat in the Pacific, with the Navy and Coast Guard, and also with Air Corps crews.

Personally, I'd say more .38 Specials saw combat than P35 Radoms or Astra 1921s given that production of both was fairly limited as compared to the nearly 300,000 .38 Specials that S&W provided to the Gov't.

 

[johnbt]

I'll take a 1911, but I value my father's perspective.

My 87-y-old father took a look at my FNP-45 USG and the first thing he said was that he wished he'd had it instead of the 1911 he had on all of those little islands between New Guinea and the Philippines. 16 rounds of .45 and no hammer bite.

John

 

[shaunpain]

What a great idea for a thread!

I picked the 1911 because of it's simple design, powerful rounds, and ruggedness. I also really think the further I go along that single stack thin frame is for me. I have small hands and stacked magazines are somewhat uncomfortable to wrap around. I can't believe I've played guitar and piano so many years with these puny hands of mine.

My second pick (I know we don't get to choose... whatever!) would be a Hi-Power because of prettiness and capacity. The only thing that would maybe be a problem is ammo on the field. Not that I profess to know much about sidearms of the period, but I would imagine 9mm was difficult to come by unless you were an officer unlike today. I mean specifically stocking up in the field.

I would have chosen the TT33 because of it's penetration capabilities and ruggedness. The only thing that detracts from it would be the fact that the sights suck and I believe the pistol to be... eh... not-so-accurate. This could be that my Tokarev isn't very accurate (flips to the left or down, and I know I'm not milking it) but this could just be that MINE isn't that accurate. Either way, still a great gun.

I think Nambus are cool... but those rounds suck!

Any gun I take on the field would have to be full size. Compact designs are cool, but not for war in my opinion. This would probably go for carbines, too.

I'll stop now. Promise.

 

[overkill556x45]

I went Hi-Power for the capacity, accuracy, and I first learned to shoot a handgun with a Hi-Power and I did very well with it in the junior division of several matches. As an added bonus, I can pick up extra ammo from the enemy.

 

[Quentin2]

Well of those sidearms in the poll I have the most experience with the 1911A1, P08 and Hi-Power and ended up buying all three. I have very little experience with the others.

Assuming that I'm fighting on our side as I did in Vietnam but that this time we'd have plenty of 9mm ammo in addition to 45ACP the choice becomes interesting. I'd scratch off the Luger right away of course since the Hi-Power is a better pistol and holds an extra five rounds.

Though it's hard to go against the 45 I think I'd take the HP and all the 9mm I could carry.

And for my primary weapon I'd want the M1 Carbine, again because I could carry more ammo. You never know when you'll get cut off from supply channels.