WWII sidearm of choice

[p99guy]

The poll needs altered to S&W Victory...covering any model there of.
I own 2, and as far as sidearms go..a K frame S&W isnt horrible in the time of 7-8 shot autos with tiny sights and often bloodletting ergonomics.(most of which I have owned over the years)

The U.S. did buy a number of .38S&W caliber Victories alongside the .38 special ones...notible users of the .38S&W/.38-200 was the O.S.S.,some domestic police departments supplied though the Defence Supply Corporation, and Some civilian Security Guards at U.S. Military bases.

Federal agencies/State police/Tennesee Valley Authority and others were known to also buy .38 Special Victories through the DSC

While in general the UK favored the 5" barrels, and the U.S. 4"......the U.S. also purchased 5",6", and 2" barreled models, and so did the Brits. There is nothing written in stone when it comes to these.


On the Broom handle Mauser...where do you get that most shoulder stocks were destroyed in combat? Nope, if you seen a German with a RED9 he usually has whole thing....and it would be his primary weapon.(no rifle)

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Well I guess my vote should be changed to a Browning HP since you can't have the stock.

 

[Winchester_73]

On the Broom handle Mauser...where do you get that most shoulder stocks were destroyed in combat? Nope, if you seen a German with a RED9 he usually has whole thing....and it would be his primary weapon.(no rifle)

My statement was based on an assumption but we still can't have that option with the butt stock because of what you said, "primary weapon". This is a sidearm poll

The S&W victory can be 38 special or 38/200. I will fix that in the first post.

 

[hoytinak]

I'd take the Hi-Power, a 1911 would be my second choice but I just prefer the 9mm over the .45acp.

 

[bigghoss]

1911, because evil deserves nothing less than a 45.

that sounds like a tagline for a demotivational poster. somebody make that and post it!

 

[alistaire]

Glock. Everything else is a club.

WildplusitcanshootforeverAlaska ™

There is nothing like pistol whipping with tupperware.

 

[Hank15]

There you go . If you want to make your own posters, here's the site:

http://bighugelabs.com/motivator.php

 

[LouisianaMan]

Assuming my side has the logistics in place to support my free choice of sidearms, then it's M1911A1, hands down.

If I already have an M-1, I'm carrying a pistol solely as an emergency backup. That means up close, eyeball to eyeball, with an immediate & pressing need to incapacitate enemy soldiers. No other ball round has similar effectiveness, and we're not talking JHPs here.

2nd choice: Hi-Power. Caliber not ideal, but all other characteristics top-notch. Foremost is hi capacity & quick reload, both a major plus in combat.

The M1917 revolver would be the 3rd choice, as it's got the right caliber but a woefully inadequate firepower for close-range combat. Unlike modern-day home defense where I'm OK with having only six rounds and a relatively slow reload, that's not the case in WWII combat. So, a revolver is NOT my choice.

 

[armsmaster270]

I go 1911 9mm is pretty ineffective compared to .45 with GI ball ammo in both.

 

[gun nut]

Being a 1911 and hi-power fan, I went with the hi-power. The trigger may not be as good but ya gotta love the capacity!

 

[publius]

1911 b/c it's a great pistol and I'd hate to try to scrounge up ammo for most of the others. Browning Hi-Power would be my current choice and would rather had it in WWII if assured of ammo availability.

 

[denfoote]

Any questions???

 

[bigghoss]

hank you rock!

 

[Ozzieman]

My pick was the 1911 in 45acp, but if you were to ask ONLY those that fought in WW2 you could get a completely different answer.
My father who landed on the first day of D day said that he hated the 1911 and even though he carried one on the beach, to him the M1 Carbine was the best thing to carry.
I had the chance to take him out shooting numerous times before he passed away 10 years ago and he did change his mind on the 1911 and grew to like them. His main reason for not liking the 1911 was his inability to shoot the gun very well at any thing over 10 feet. The reason could have a lot to do with the way they were trained. If you look at most films of solders shooting hand guns during the Second World War, the stood with knees slightly bent and holding the gun with only one hand when shooting the 1911. This was how my father was taught to shoot one and he never gave it much thought how much better the gun would be with proper handling. He said that one training sergeant told them to shoot like the cowboys in the movies, just be fast.

 

[Lashlarue]

I was issued a WWII 1911 and a M2 carbine in Korea. The tolerances on the 1911 were terrible.The pistol rattled! Using the rifle target [small] at 1000 inches, I couldn't put it on paper, but scored sharpshooter with the carbine. I was 20 years old and had been shooting pistols since I was 15.

 

[jmr40]

Having the knowledge available now I would say the Browning Hi-Power is probably the better gun. But at the time the 1911 was the more trusted gun.

 

[B.N.Real]

That 1911 Colt has stood the test of time and that caliber round is still chosen as a go to gun for police departments in the U.S today.

Hard to argue with that.

 

[MLeake]

so are 9mm and .38

Just saying...

 

[armsmaster270]

Ozzieman:
My uncle was issued a M-1 Carbine as a WW2 Glider Pilot and the first chance he got he traded it for a Garand after landing/crashing the three times he flew into combat. He hated the carbine due to lack of power with ball ammo.

 

[BillCA]

I selected the Browning Hi-Power for the capacity mostly, but also for it's good handling characteristics. The 1911 comes in a very close 2nd place for a combat gun.

The only exception to the above would be if my primary issued weapon was either the M1 Thompson or M3 Grease Gun. In that case, I'd take the 1911 to simplify ammo logistics.

Both the Broomhandle and Luger suffered from the same two issues. Both were overly complex in the number of parts and both were precision fitted. Like the Tiger tank, the insistence on precision cost Germany the ability to mass produce the equipment in the needed volumes. Those tight tolerances also had trouble dealing with sloppy battlefield conditions.