PDA

View Full Version : What about a pistol ??? .45 or 9mm



kallinikosdrama1992
02-18-2009, 09:52 AM
Me and my friends had a conversation the other days and used to "fight" about what would be the best caliber for a pistol ??? So today i searched in the database of this forum but i found nothing about this so desided to post this to you and hope you help with this .


Also i dont know if i should post this here in "Off Topic - Militaria"

Major Walter Schmidt
02-18-2009, 10:21 AM
Im sure some other members know about this, but wont it depend on the gun as well?

Dixie Devil
02-18-2009, 10:43 AM
The argument over which round is better dates back to the introduction of the .45 ACP but when it comes down to it is truly personal preference.

The .45 has more stopping power than the 9mm, but handguns tend to hold fewer rounds of .45 so you generally have more shots with a 9mm.

.45 ACP tend to have more muzzle blast and recoil so they can be harder to get accustom to for inexperienced shooters but once you do the .45 is just as accurate as the 9mm.

I personally prefer .45s for personal defense simply because my goal is to stop the first attacker as fast as possible but I am sure you will find just as many people that favor the 9mm because they like having more ammo.

Schmidt is right that the gun tends to be more important than the caliber too.

Nickdfresh
02-18-2009, 01:29 PM
I recall something of an argument breaking out over "stopping power" in the .45ACP vs. the 9X19mm in another thread, but I can't find it at the moment...

In any case, both can be made into fine weapons and I think the consensus is that maybe regular troops are better off with a 9mm pistol while the .45ACP has its niche with specialists...

kallinikosdrama1992
02-18-2009, 01:41 PM
Of course schmidt's right . But should we take the abillity of aiming into acount ???

Dixie Devil
02-18-2009, 03:05 PM
Certainly. The person is the most important piece of the puzzle. The reliability of the firearm would be a close second with caliber actually being the least important factor.

That is pretty much what Nick was stating. The better trained shooter has a better chance of hitting his target with the first shot so it is more beneficial to stop someone with that first round. Someone who is less proficient of a shooter may miss or not make as good of a hit so they are more likely to need follow up rounds, which is where the high capacity of a 9mm is beneficial.

Now the .40 cal was an attempt to get a pistol with more stopping power than a 9mm but have a higher magazine capacity than most .45s so it could be argued that it or a similar round like a 10mm is the ‘best’ pistol cartridge.

Major Walter Schmidt
02-18-2009, 03:55 PM
What about the Tokarev, Mauser and Bordchardt 7.92mm rounds?

kallinikosdrama1992
02-18-2009, 05:18 PM
Well Dixie Devil i was going to ask about the the .40 but for the things you said i couldn't agree more .

And Schmidt from what i know about the tokarev was called the russian .45 , and officers who used to use it sometimes said the that it was a very good pistol with a good stoping power but i think it was in 7,62 mm . And about the mauser i dont know

Dixie Devil
02-18-2009, 05:22 PM
7.62x25mm Tokarev
7.63x25mm Mauser
7.65x25mm Borchardt
All these rounds are bottleneck rounds so despite the smaller bullet diameter they really don’t take up any less space in a magazine than a 9mm. The do have a more penetrating power than a 9x19mm, just as the 9mm has more than the .45, but they have very little stopping power. You either have to make a head or spine shot or use multiple rounds.

kallinikosdrama1992
02-18-2009, 05:29 PM
Well about that i am trying to imagine how someone in combat could "easily" achieve a spine or headshot . I think this was kind of difficult maybe not impossible ...

Uyraell
02-19-2009, 12:34 AM
I'd go 9mm by virtue of ammo accessibility/replace-ability.
Having said that : Radom, or Astra.
Having said that : I'd also make/modify the rounds... load them with mercury behind a thin copper disc. And have them as dum-dum cross-cut cupped heads.
You'd only have to hit your assailant once, with that type of round.

The rest, I leave to your collective imaginations.

Regards, Uyraell.

Dixie Devil
02-19-2009, 10:01 AM
Well no shots are easy to make in combat situations. The general consensus it to shoot until the threat stops. ;)
I am not sure how things are in other nations but in the U.S. military there tend to be two different theories behind the employment of pistols and two different calibers issued. The berretta 9mm that is issued to general troops is commonly viewed as more of a defensive last ditch weapon where the high mag capacity comes in handy. More highly trained formations that train much more in using their pistols in offensive roles such as room clearing and other close quarters combat tend to use .45s such as the H&K and 1911A1 where the first priority is to put someone down as fast as possible and a high capacity isnít viewed as important as stopping power.

Uyraell brought up a good point on availability of ammunition. Here in the States .45 ACP ammo is just as common as 9mm or .40 cal but I didnít think that may not be the case across the pond.

Uyraell
02-19-2009, 07:22 PM
In NZ we don't even have the right to bear arms, let alone pistols.
What few rights a person has are so boxed-in and limited as to be all but non-existent.
As I have said in another thread on this forum:
We are supposed to call the Police for assistance, and hope they actually arrive before we're beaten to death. Yet, at the same time, defending oneself can also get one jailed, even while awaiting the Police to arrive, which they only ever do after consuming their cups of tea, and eating the donuts and creamcakes, and re-polishing their shoes.

Regards, Uyraell.

tankgeezer
02-19-2009, 11:48 PM
When I was sent to Norway, (I'm not writing this, and you're not reading it) I carried a 1911-A1 under my field jacket, in a shoulder holster, but one day, an English colleague noticed it, and said that he hoped we would never go to the 9mm, as it just didnt measure up in his opinion. A number of soldiers from other nations shared this man's opinion, so I thought that would jinx it for the 1911. well, it did I guess, even though the 1911 comes in 9mm, they bought the Barretta. A poor move on the U.S.'s part, but NATO uses it, so for the sake of unity, they dropped the wonderful, always effective .45. Jesus wept.

Iron Yeoman
02-20-2009, 07:49 AM
Of course schmidt's right . But should we take the abillity of aiming into acount ???

Aiming you're joking right? Anything over 40m and with most pistols you're better off throwing them!! Plus if the bad guys have got within 40m of you, then you're pretty much up sh*t creek, best bet is to fit your bayonet switch to full auto and crack on.

Well that's what I was always told anyway.:D

kallinikosdrama1992
02-20-2009, 08:05 AM
yeah man , but if you are going to use the pistol i think the bad guy should in this 40 metres , doesn't he ???

Rising Sun*
02-20-2009, 08:46 AM
Aiming you're joking right? Anything over 40m and with most pistols you're better off throwing them!! Plus if the bad guys have got within 40m of you, then you're pretty much up sh*t creek, best bet is to fit your bayonet switch to full auto and crack on.

Well that's what I was always told anyway.:D

If I was firing at someone 40m away with a pistol, the only risk to him would be the noise.

Major Walter Schmidt
02-20-2009, 08:52 AM
Aiming you're joking right? Anything over 40m and with most pistols you're better off throwing them!! Plus if the bad guys have got within 40m of you, then you're pretty much up sh*t creek, best bet is to fit your bayonet switch to full auto and crack on.

Well that's what I was always told anyway.:D

I heard the mauser C96 can shoot somewhat effectively up to 500? or was it 50...metres. The sights had it up to 1000 metres, but thats ridiculous.

Iron Yeoman
02-20-2009, 09:14 AM
I heard the mauser C96 can shoot somewhat effectively up to 500? or was it 50...metres. The sights had it up to 1000 metres, but thats ridiculous.

Yes that is ridiculous. Pistols are very useful for making noise and firing at someone who is about 10m away, but even then you're better of with an assault rife imho. However, in the case of .45 vs 9mm i'd go for 9mm, you've got more bullets hopefully giving you more chance to hit something!

tankgeezer
02-20-2009, 10:38 AM
Even though it may be outside the "normal parameters" of military pistol use, at 40 yds, /mtrs a decently trained soldier with just a bit of discipline can make hits with a pistol, especially if there are a number of enemy approaching, better to take them on at 40 yds, than 20, This is assuming there is no one else with a more effective weapon along.

Uyraell
02-20-2009, 04:05 PM
Even though it may be outside the "normal parameters" of military pistol use, at 40 yds, /mtrs a decently trained soldier with just a bit of discipline can make hits with a pistol, especially if there are a number of enemy approaching, better to take them on at 40 yds, than 20, This is assuming there is no one else with a more effective weapon along.

And if there isn't a more effective weapon in action nearby, things have gone horribly, horribly awry ....... unless it's the start of a trench raid, or there are Maori or Gurkha troops nearby. Those guys have a significant reputation for hand-to-hand fighting at arms' length or less, which itself is topic for a whole new thread.

As to the mod1911A1: I have held one of those pistols, and found it as easy as a Glock or Beretta as far as weight. Given that, while for ammo availability I'd go 9mm, I do know the .45 is a very damned effective pistol.

Regards, Uyraell.

Major Walter Schmidt
02-20-2009, 06:22 PM
...wait, I think Mauser C96 is good up to 500 metres...

tankgeezer
02-21-2009, 03:31 AM
The U.S. was of the opinion that the 1911 was a personal defense weapon with a useful range of 25 ft. (when used by armor troops,) beyond that the M-3 greasegun was the choice (each tank had 2) The Army qualification required a distance of 75 feet, and though a man sized target would be well done in, the group was not tight.

Nickdfresh
02-21-2009, 07:38 PM
Pistols aren't all that useful on the battlefield as much more than a backup weapon for close quarter's combat. They also make nice "sniper markers" for officers and critical support troops such as communications or intelligence personal, etc...

But yes, I'd still want one to supplement my rifle...

tankgeezer
02-22-2009, 01:10 AM
Always remember to gift your C.O. with a fine shiny pistol....

Major Walter Schmidt
02-22-2009, 12:01 PM
http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/Mauser_C-96
According to this site, the C96 could shoot about 150~200 meters...

pdf27
02-22-2009, 12:20 PM
Pistols are good for two things:
1) Fun
2) People whose military job is to sit on their arse all day and think. For them, a small, lightweight weapon is handy and in any case if they ever fire a shot things have gone very, very wrong indeed.

The only exceptions are some very, very specialised tasks such as tunnel clearance operations in Vietnam...

Dixie Devil
02-23-2009, 08:10 AM
Don't forget the primary role that pistols were developed for, personal protection. Be it for civilians or for military.

Rising Sun*
02-23-2009, 08:42 AM
Don't forget the primary role that pistols were developed for, personal protection. Be it for civilians or for military.

A curious thing is that when civilians of the criminal persuasion here use pistols for personal protection or business persuasion they often malfunction. The pistols, not the criminals, as the latter are constantly malfunctioning.

Unless you're a member of a pistol club here, an average citizen can't get a pistol.

Yet criminals can, but often not reliable pistols. It could be due to having clapped out weapons; poor maintenance; defective ammo; and other matters related to untrained people acquiring illicit weapons and illicit ammo from unreliable sources.



P.S. Be careful in joining a pistol club here.

I joined one once and on the first night all they did was serve me beer. That was back in the days when the grog got turned off at 10 p.m. Not having got my hands on a pistol by 10 p.m. when I was being thrown out of the club, I asked what sort of pistol club was this?

The bouncer said: "Drink till 10 p.m. Piss till 2 a.m." :D

tankgeezer
02-23-2009, 01:59 PM
When I was in the business of selling firearms, many women asked about them saying some friend, or relative had suggested getting a pistol for protection. They wanted to know what I thought, and I would tell them it was their choice, but they should consider their situation before buying. most of the people (both genders) had never fired a pistol, or knew how to operate one. (this was more common in those who already owned one) I would take these people to the range to show them basic use, and handling of firearms. I found most of the folks knew only what they saw in the movies, and tv. they had no idea about recoil, noise, or proper aiming. A couple ladies actually dropped their pistols, startled by the jump, and noise. Even though I had explained the process to them.Some of them also had an idea about bullets being self guiding. One can only smile, and correct....In the future, i'll recommend R.S.' gun club to those folks :)

Nickdfresh
02-23-2009, 04:40 PM
It should be said that as far as pistols being useful and useless in certain situations, the battlefield is not where one wants to have a pistol as a primary weapon. But I do believe that the Germans and their proxies had a certain shortage of pistols and needed them more than just about any army due to the areas under occupation needing policing. I think there were even numbers of the FN High Power 9mm used that were made in occupied Belgium for the Wehrmacht. I've also heard you do not want to fire one of these pistols because some had deficiencies manufactured into them by reticent Belgian workers resentful of their occupiers...:D

tankgeezer
02-23-2009, 09:04 PM
A collector firiend/client of mine had a large number of sabotaged firearms, all sorts. Some were very well done, and cleverly beyond detection, others, well not so clever..

Rising Sun*
02-24-2009, 07:25 AM
When I was in the business of selling forearms
My bold


Was that when you were in the strongarm business? ;) :D

Rising Sun*
02-24-2009, 07:34 AM
A collector firiend/client of mine had a large number of sabotaged firearms, all sorts. Some were very well done, and cleverly beyond detection, others, well not so clever..

http://ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3221&d=1235441073



That's the model with the hairdryer attachment, which naturally requires a mirror.

It didn't sell well because, while the first few users found it to be a blast, it left them with split ends.

tankgeezer
02-24-2009, 09:38 AM
My bold


Was that when you were in the strongarm business? ;) :D
Typing without my glasses again, when will I learn,,, Ha, the strong arm days are behind me, tho I still have my brass knucks, (I might meet a petulant squirrel in the park) :)

tankgeezer
02-24-2009, 09:42 AM
http://ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3221&d=1235441073



That's the model with the hairdryer attachment, which naturally requires a mirror.

It didn't sell well because, while the first few users found it to be a blast, it left them with split ends.
women with a smokey look in their eyes are attractive, but i tend to pass by the ones with smoking hair,,,:shock:

Major Walter Schmidt
02-24-2009, 08:09 PM
Krumlauf XDXDXD
http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/imgs/stg44c.jpg

Uyraell
02-26-2009, 08:10 AM
TankGeezer,
As I recall, smoking hair on a female betokens one of two things, neither one healthy for the average male: Horror A: the Mother-in-Law. Horror B: the missus getting some "bright idea".
In either case, strategic retreat to a Fallout Shelter well stocked with Beer, Food, DVD's, and possibly tobacco (for later trade, if nothing else) is likely a wise course to consider. . . :mrgreen::shock::lol:

Regards, Uyraell.

Rising Sun*
02-26-2009, 08:31 AM
As I recall, smoking hair on a female ...

Only caused by fun friction here, mate.

Well, fun for me, anyway. :D

Unless you're talking about shearing her wool off and then wrapping it in a TallyHo and sucking it into your lungs. Which would be both unpleasant and a bit sick.


betokens one of two things, neither one healthy for the average male: Horror A: the Mother-in-Law. Horror B: the missus getting some "bright idea".

I don't understand why you needed to qualify the missus with "getting some bright idea". Surely she's bad enough just by being married to her? ;) :D


In either case, strategic retreat to a Fallout Shelter well stocked with Beer, Food, DVD's, and possibly tobacco (for later trade, if nothing else) is likely a wise course to consider. . .

I assume that the (for later trade, if nothing else) component refers to the wife or, in desperate circumstances, the mother in law? ;) Or vice versa?

I mean, it's not like you'd be in a well supplied bunker and give up a beer or a *** which could give you momentary pleasure when you could sacrifice your missus or mother in law and get lifetime relief, is it? :mrgreen:

Uyraell
02-27-2009, 06:05 AM
Only caused by fun friction here, mate.

Well, fun for me, anyway. :D

Unless you're talking about shearing her wool off and then wrapping it in a TallyHo and sucking it into your lungs. Which would be both unpleasant and a bit sick.



I don't understand why you needed to qualify the missus with "getting some bright idea". Surely she's bad enough just by being married to her? ;) :D



I assume that the (for later trade, if nothing else) component refers to the wife or, in desperate circumstances, the mother in law? ;) Or vice versa?

I mean, it's not like you'd be in a well supplied bunker and give up a beer or a *** which could give you momentary pleasure when you could sacrifice your missus or mother in law and get lifetime relief, is it? :mrgreen:

The "later trade" component was based on the assumption of likely survivors from other similar bunkers, with whom contact may have been established after the fallout has settled, in which case tobacco may well serve as trade goods. (On the other hand trading the Mother-in-Law away first makes good sense!):D

As to the lifetime of relief : of what purpose IS a Mother-in-Law unless to sacrifice to the incoming wolves/marauding hordes et-al? Surely one would not wish to replace the being?:mrgreen:

Warm Regards, in deep humour, Uyraell. :D