Decided to post a new poll. The last poll didn't have enough room for every model of firearms that people prefered. So I'm doing one poll on pistols, one on infantry rifles, and one on machine guns.
Matt
Matt
-
1,634Walther PP2.39%39Mauser HSc0.80%13Browning Hi-Power19.16%313Radom P355.08%83Walther P3824.42%399Walther PPk2.75%45Colt 1911a128.70%469Sauer 38(H)1.47%24Luger P0814.75%241Star Model B0.49%8 -
I voted M1911a1 for reliability and effective stopping power, but Pllllllllleeeeeeaaaase lets not get off on the .45 vs. 9mm tangent. LOL.
Johnnie
Originally posted by Matt WeberDecided to post a new poll. The last poll didn't have enough room for every model of firearms that people prefered. So I'm doing one poll on pistols, one on infantry rifles, and one on machine guns.
Matt -
P38, the Hand Cannon!
AnttiComment
-
P-38 a hand cannon , not ! Colt 1911 that's a pistol. Carry one at work every day ( It's really a Kimber .45, but same idea)Comment
-
In order to completely avoid any discussion on caliber you could ask: Which is the best looking!
And that is, in my opinion, the P38. Next best is the P08.Comment
-
The best looking?
Comment
-
Hmmm........let me think here. Caliber aside..... Assuming length of active service counts as a "vote of confidence"......
1911's were widely used in Korea, Vietnam, and were even issued in Desert Storm. Special Forces are still armed with modified 1911's in Afghanistan and Iraq. I admit I don't know whether the P-38 was widely issued after WWII (except by police). Hopefully, someone will point that out.
The P-38 was "sexy", but I still consider the 1911 a better combat pistol overall, and apparently, so do many others.Comment
-
It is my understanding that French authorities "assembled" a number of P-38,s after the war ended, and alomg with a large number of other Wehrmacht small arms, issued them to French forces untill sufficient quantities of French weapons were available. The P-38 was manufactured postwar and issued to Bundeswehr forces as the P-1. It differed from P-38 in having an alloy frame.
Johnnie
Originally posted by Doug SeeComment
-
Thanks Johnnie. Good points, but don't you agree that the P-38 did not see widespread use post-war? The key words here are ".....issued them to French forces untill sufficient quantities of French weapons were available..."Originally posted by Johnnie
In defense of the P-38, though, is the fact that many modern pistols in use today are based in part on the PPK and P-38 designs. Still, the 1911 fits my hand much better than the original P-38 and I just feel more confident in being able to put that first shot where I need it.Comment
-
Hi Doug,
Well, if one considers the P-1 a redesignation of P-38, then it's issue (still today I believe) to the Bundeswehr would constitute considerable, if not necessarily widespread use. I think it was also issued to the Austrian Army untill the adoption of the Glock series. But you point is well made, that except for the Bundeswehr, no major sized army seems to have adopted it.
Johnnie
Originally posted by Doug SeeComment
-
Doug,
I'm totally shocked that you picked the 1911!
because of its service length?
Doug, the 1911 is no longer in service! The P38 (re-designated the P1), is still in service with many militaries! Also if you consider the action of the P38, it is in service right now with the US military!, as the Beretta 92!
Matt
Comment
-
But Matt, the 1911 IS still in service with the US Elite troops in Iraq as we speak. Back in the '80's, most of the government's 1911's were so old we simply had to replace them. The politicians then took over the search for a new pistol contract. Colt already had contracts for the M-16 and wasn't in the best of financial shape as I remember. IMO, the reasons for adopting the Beretta over the 1911 were more political and (short-sightedy) financial, and less related to effectiveness and durability. 1) NATO and the UN favored the 9mm (as if the UN would ever have the need to use a pistol for defense or enforcement....). The politicians wanted the 9mm because it was a cheaper round and could be interchanged with UN forces, making supply easier. Again, that's ASSUMING the UN ever DID anything. 2) It is cheaper to train troops to use a double action "spray and pray" high-capacity pistol. Company clerks and computer jockeys are less liable to shoot themselves in the foot with a double action. 3) Beretta did a great job of playing suitor to the committee. They agreed to build a plant in the US (Maryland). Beretta would need that plant in the US because it's pistols simply wear out a lot quicker than the 1911 and they would be building many, many replacements over the next few years. Built-in obsolescence is a good thing if you're the manufacturer. Colt's financial condition and the fact that they had already had contracts worked against them.Originally posted by Matt WeberDoug,
I'm totally shocked that you picked the 1911! because of its service length?
Doug, the 1911 is no longer in service! The P38 (re-designated the P1), is still in service with many militaries! Also if you consider the action of the P38, it is in service right now with the US military!, as the Beretta 92!
Matt
The Beretta is a "disposable" pistol. Right off the bat, the army started having slide failure problems. Oooops! Lots of liability there. I could be wrong, but even after correcting the defective design, the service life of a Beretta is still is only about about 1,500 rounds before you start having potential slide and alloy frame failures. That's not a long life, and we're not talking about simply replacing a worn barrel or disconnector, or tightening a forgedsteel frame like you do to rebuild a worn 1911. So, you won't see many Beretta's in service for the length of time we used the old 1911's.
See, it IS possible to debate all this without even mentioning the word ".45 caliber".
Last edited by Doug See; 12-22-2003, 10:27 AM.Comment
-
I love the 1911 because of it's simplicity, reliability and stopping power. It is still in active use. I have a Kimber, too, and it functions flawlessly. Plus, there is new ammo out there, i.e. gold dot, etc. that is far superior to the 230 grain roundball.
The P-38 uses the "borderline" 9mm cart., of which I have never been a big fan. I thought the military going to Berettas was a huge mistake. Apparently, so does Special forces, which now issues Sigs., and H&K USPs in 45 cal., if I am not mistaken.
About the only advantage of the P-38 is the double action. I owned one a few years ago, and didn't like it's balance or handling. I much prefer the P-08. Feels nicer in my hands, and shoots straighter in my opinion. I got rid of my P-38, but kept my P-08, a 1917 chamber date, refurbished and reissued in WWII."Activity! Activity! Speed! I greet you."
-Napoleon to Massena, advancing on Landshut, April 18, 1809
Comment
-
Your observations about the problems with the Beretta 92 are quite correct. Although we are straying off the subject of the thread a bit, one of the first slide failures occured when Navy Seals began breaking slides. Come to find out, they were evidently using high velocity black tipped rounds designed for the Uzi carbine, ( good body armor penetration I am guesing) The Navy's answer? Stop using the ammo. So now you have a situation where the standard service pistol is limited in the types of available ammo it can use. The 1911a1 would safely launch anything in .45acp. My personal 1911a1 has launched quite a variety of super high velocity 45acp loads without a hitch. Interesting side note:The Italians had a similar problem with their WW1 era Glisenti auto pistol in 9mm Glisenti, which was dimensionally the same as 9mm Para, but loaded a lot lighter. Many were destroyed by unknowing troops using standard 9mm ball.
The P-38 design, per se is a great design, but as you mention, the MANUFACTURING parameters are the problem.
Sorry for straying a bit here Matt,
Johnnie
Originally posted by Doug SeeBut Matt, the 1911 IS still in service with the US Elite troops in Iraq as we speak. Back in the '80's, most of the government's 1911's were so old we simply had to replace them. The politicians then took over the search for a new pistol contract. Colt already had contracts for the M-16 and wasn't in the best of financial shape as I remember. IMO, the reasons for adopting the Beretta over the 1911 were more political and (short-sightedy) financial, and less related to effectiveness and durability. 1) NATO and the UN favored the 9mm (as if the UN would ever have the need to use a pistol for defense or enforcement....). The politicians wanted the 9mm because it was a cheaper round and could be interchanged with UN forces, making supply easier. Again, that's ASSUMING the UN ever DID anything. 2) It is cheaper to train troops to use a double action "spray and pray" high-capacity pistol. Company clerks and computer jockeys are less liable to shoot themselves in the foot with a double action. 3) Beretta did a great job of playing suitor to the committee. They agreed to build a plant in the US (Maryland). Beretta would need that plant in the US because it's pistols simply wear out a lot quicker than the 1911 and they would be building many, many replacements over the next few years. Built-in obsolescence is a good thing if you're the manufacturer. Colt's financial condition and the fact that they had already had contracts worked against them.
The Beretta is a "disposable" pistol. Right off the bat, the army started having slide failure problems. Oooops! Lots of liability there. I could be wrong, but even after correcting the defective design, the service life of a Beretta is still is only about about 1,500 rounds before you start having potential slide and alloy frame failures. That's not a long life, and we're not talking about simply replacing a worn barrel or disconnector, or tightening a forgedsteel frame like you do to rebuild a worn 1911. So, you won't see many Beretta's in service for the length of time we used the old 1911's.
See, it IS possible to debate all this without even mentioning the word ".45 caliber".Comment
-
Hi All,
I am a new member, and this is my first post.
I voted for the P.08.
Purely for esthetic reasons, not performance, sorry, could'nt help myself.
Regards,
Steve.Comment
Comment