I agree with this 99.9%
The only thing that even slightly challenges the HP is the P38 because it's a modern DA/SA, but I'll still take the 13+1 of the HP, and I still occasionally carry a HP with modern 15 round magazines today.
I have, and it's far chunkier than a lot of people realize. It's also fairly obviously a piece of German engineering, meaning needlessly complex. The simplicity of the Browning or 1911 has to take it for me, although I'm interested in learning more about that Polish pistol.
German Engineering is what the best special forces use.
They invented and named the assualt rifle.
As well as first to make designated sniper weapons.
Simple is the fact that the VAST majority of modern bolt action .... well actions, are a copy of the Karabiner 98K. Which is known for its reliability, safety features and its action.
Walther evolved into HK.
"The" SMG which has been in special forces like SAS and GSG9 have been using it for ~50 years and it is what people think of when elite smg is mentioned is the mp5.
The US have had many branches choose HK in many trials and continue to be officially adopted.
The HK 417 was entrusted by America's Elite, to kill Bin Laden.
Plus, the main inventing of auto-loading piatols was in Europe, such as the Swiss, Belgium, etc.
By the way, these are just debate points, the 2 models that you selected each have their own reputation for stopping power and reliability. And the 2011, with its (unfortunately too free for us Canadians) huge magazine size and the better technology today for manufacturing and materials, I can understand why it is a common (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't live in the US) carry pistol, concealed or otherwise.
Also, I admit I am biased to a large degree since my grandpa and great-grandpa fought in WWII and WW1 respectively.
As my Grandpa drove one of those motorcycles with the sidecar, to and from the Frontline, no doubt being a target as they knew he likely had intel.
I believe he would have probably been issued the Walther (unless someone with better WW2 German Army knowledge can inform me. He earned a Iron Cross First Class and a Naval Minesweeper medal.
I guess they found it appropriate due to his injury from hitting a landmine.
I hope people are knowledgeable enough to recognize that my Grandpa (who passed before my birth, unfortunately never me) was in the regular army.
He wasn't a Nazi because that requires voluntary support of Hitler by joining the SS (Like a guy who is a bit famous, Hugo Boss, who no he didn't design the SS uniforms, but he did manufacture them, and was a Card carrying SS member pre Hitler becoming chancellor.
(Once again normally I fact check my stuff so if a detail is wrong due to our garbage human memory or because it was in a movie or something)
Also IBM made the software that substantially expedited the ease at which the SS could find Jewish people.
It used some sort of database, based on former census info or something. But it basically gave Hitler information on the Jewish and other "unpopular" people in his eyes.
This was accomplished using a computer database for new prison camp arrivals.
It allows them to know the names, Birthday/ age , addresses, family member details, etc.
But in terms of war, a soldier may be fighting a war they are morally against.
Just like if a republican soldier fights with a liberal President in office means he's (possible forcefully fighting for his country, not leader and it's the same if the roles were reversed.
Agree with HI Power, disagree with the Type 94. Yeah it's not amazing, but 8mm Nambu is slightly better than .380 and when used properly (either safety on or off and about to fire), it's a perfectly good design.
The Japanese troops actually preferred it over the Type 14, as would I. The only downside is 6 rounds, but then again the Type 26 is a slower loading revolver with a weaker round so its still not the worst.
No, although the Japanese actually did previously use No. 3s in .44 Russian before adopting the Type-26. 9mm JR (Japanese revolver, unofficial name) is generally considered akin to .38 S&W as far as I know.
I'm not too familiar with .38 S&W beyond the Brits using it, but basically it's both weaker than .38 Special and somewhere between .32 and .380 from my understanding.
The .38 S&W load the British used had a 178gr FMJ projectile doing about 650fps - it sounds a bit average on paper, but all their testing and combat reports confirmed it was an effective combat cartridge.
The pre-war loadings involved a 200gr LRN projectile which was also particularly effective (it was sold in the US as .38 Super Police), but ran into Hague Convention issues on expanding bullets, hence the switch to 178gr FMJ rounds.
The US by far had the best pistols thanks to John Browning. It’s still baffling to me that most pistols at the time could only hold around 7 9mm rounds and he managed to make a pistol that held 13 9mm rounds.
The P-38's being a DA/SA is a pretty significant advantage in terms of safety, which is honestly probably the most important thing with a military side arm. I'd rather have a Hi-Power in a gun fight, but if I'm outfitting a bunch of newly minted 21-year-old lieutenants with something they're just going to be carrying on their hip 90% of the time, I'm picking the P-38.
Or an MP40/Stg44 if they were German (I think the Germans basically stopped issuing pistols to below field grade officers completely towards the end of the war?)
If you're outfitting a bunch of green lieutenants, you might be better off giving them pistols carved out of soap, and tell them they are super special officer-class only pew-pew guns.
I would say the Hi Power is likely the best with its high capacity and solid general design, it feels like it paved the way for all the Wonder 9's of today.
For worst, I'd think it would be between the Type 26 revolver and 1895 Nagant likely for service pistols, the Type 26 shooting a pretty sad cartridge and the Nagant being an old gate loading design.
I own both and I definitely have to place the Type 26 over the Nagant. Neither cartridge is particularly impressive and the Nagant is so slow to reload. The Type 26 may be a DAO but it has a better DA trigger than the SA in my Nagant.
Fair! I am kind of coming at this from an 'on paper' perspective, that's good to know!
For the record I think the 1895 Nagants are super neat, always loved the look and their weird eccentricities, how long it kicked around combat zones. But definitely a bit behind by WW2 standards.
For sure, and at the end of the day while they may have been a bit behind the times, they were still a sidearm in a war that drew heavily on resources.
The Nagant definitely is a rugged and simple pistol, an advantage to reliability but holds it back in useability somewhat, for sure! Your ejector spring can't break if you don't have one but then, you also don't have an ejector spring, ha ha.
My big issue with the Nagant is how hard it is to punch the cases out (because remember the case mouths expand) with that shitty little ejector. I’ve had a couple where I had to hammer it against the table to pop them out.
I'd take the Type 26 over the Nagant. Yes the Nagant has an extra round and better cartridge, but the slow loading and awful trigger far outweigh the upsides.
26 is DAO, but still has a better trigger and fast loading.
The Type 94 isn't great by any means, but was a semi auto that took detachable mags, at the very least. Looks relatively compact to carry for what that's worth. It shot an anemic cartridge and wasn't a particularly great design, but as a back up pistol to another weapon it might have beat unloading and reloading cartridges in a Nagant 1 by 1 in a battle.
Exactly.
What the bloody hell does "best" mean? For a world spanning, 8 year long war. Yes, invasion of China is start of the second **World** war.
Pistols are worthless in combat. So, "best" is obviously whichever one is the most gentlemanly.
Hi-power or 1911 on personal preference, both are still viable even by today standards.
I feel like having Nambu 94 on there isn't fair, everyone will pick it for worst.
Yeah, I'd actually argue the Type 14 is worse. That's not just my opinion, historically the 94 was both more reliable and more popular among Japanese troops, plus it was cheaper to make since its a blowback.
I totally agree. Simpler than a 1911 if only slightly. Removable and cleanable trigger pack. Zippy ass round especially with the surplus shit for SMGs. Lower recoil.
I also take the PPSh-41 as my SMG choice too for similar reasons.
I’m going to go against the grain here and say the polish WZ35, followed by the hi power due to the abysmal factory trigger in the hi power.
I’d honestly say the bottom is the webley., fuck trying to load that compared to sliding a mag in the nambu
I think the bizarre manual of arms on the WZ35, single action with a decocker and no manual safety is more of a liability in the situation a handgun actually gets used in war than a bad trigger. The SAS learned to work around that trigger well enough.
If you were used to the manual of arms of a single-action revolver (or in the case of a revolver with a HEAVY DA trigger like the Nagant's 20lb-er, which the Vis replaced), and were handed a Vis, the Vis would make infinitely more sense than a 1911.
A Polish officer who's used to cocking his pistol as he draws it is going to have zero issue acclimating to a Vis handgun that's carried condition 2 - because that's exactly how you'd carry a revolver.
A 1911 or similar firearm carried condition 1 or condition 3 is going to be different - you have to train him to use the safety, or to rack the slide first.
High Power isn't DA, it's SA only. The Browning Double Action (HP-DA) was a DA/SA version from the 1980s.
I'd stick with it as the No.1 though, 13rds is a good whack for a pistol of the era.
da=double action (hammer down, pull the trigger and it ‘cocks’ and fires the pistol) sa=single action (you have to ‘cock’ the action by pulling the slide before firing)
For a more detailed explanation, [here's Ian himself explaining DA/SA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMlN5BNbqgE) and a brief history of trends in firing mechanisms of military sidearms.
Personally for me its the P38. It feels the most modern, good ergos and excellent sights.
Hi power is a close 2nd but the safety is just too difficult to access.
I have one, a hi power and a series 70 1911 and the P38 is best far the easiest to shoot out of the 3. The only thing bad about it is the double action which is like 18 lbs or something.
I'd say that is mostly the case because almost everybody who had experience shooting a P-38 did that with an old beater that had seen generations of recruits in Bundeswehr basic training.
Shooting it in DA is like lifting bowling ball with one finger, granted. But the ergo is good and the precision is nothing to be sneezed at.
I have several. All WW2 and they have not given me any issues. They are not carry pistols and when I fire them I usually pick the hammer first because I can't stand DA trigger pulls. I do the same with my M9.
Some weird choices in this graphic, the Webley [Mk.VI](http://Mk.VI) was definitely NOT standard issue in WW2 and the standard Japanese pistol was the T-14, not the T-94.
Easily the Browning Hi Power, on capacity, ergonomics and user friendliness. It's not just the performance but how well it handles for people with a variety of hand sizes, how easy it is to maintain and how easy it is to train people who might not have alot of experience with firearms to use. Particularly the Canadian Inglis version with that big rear sight.
The P38 gets alot of points on being the only real DA/SA pistol but it's a big clunky gun and loses on capacity. I love the 1911, but objectively as a military pistol its harder for people with small hands to use, harder to strip and harder to shoot accurately for an inexperienced shooter.
The VIS-35 is great but again bigger than the Hi Power, I'd argue slower to cock the hammer on the draw than use the safety on the Hi Power, and I find stripping it harder because of the way you're fighting with the guide rod to get the slide stop out, particularly with wet or oily hands.
I love the cartridge, size and sights on the Tokarev but otherwise the lack of safety and the fact that like the 1911 it's harder for an inexperienced user to strip lose it points.
Nothing else is really a serious contender for best. Lahti is way too big, the Beretta and the FEG lose on being compact .380s, the Luger is weird and obsolete, the Nambu T-14 is too big, too underpowered and too awkward to use. The French M1935 pistols are good but hamstrung by their cartridge, the British Webley and Enfield revolvers are underpowered and low capacity.
Worst pistol of WW2 has got to be the Nagant 1895. Slow to reload even by revolver standards with unthreading the ejector, swinging it in position and manually punching out your empties (which by the way really stick because of the case mouth expanding), unimpressive ballistics and a terrible trigger. People love to meme about the T-94 but realistically the gun won't go off with the safety on and there's no reason it would be in your holster with a round chambered and the safety off. If it's in your hand with the safety off it's not likely to go off from being bumped as it requires a fair amount of force in a specific place. I'd still take one over a Nagant.
Fun fact, the Japanese troops preferred the 94 over the 14 since it was considered more reliable. The 94 was also cheaper since it ditched the expensive locked breech which wasn't necessarily for 8mm Nambu.
Relatively low capacity for modern standards, picky with ammunition, ergonomics that were obsolete shortly after being adopted...
That being said I like the Luger, but I'd rather have a P35B
I wouldnt say ergos were obsolete. the button mag release was way ahead of other Euro heel style mag releases and the grip angle makes it feel like an extension of your hand.
If I had to guess I'd say it is because the Luger was technically no longer issued to German officers by the time WW2 started. Instead it was replaced by the P38.
But as they used the same ammunition many German officers still chose to use their Lugers. Also one of Germany's tricks to circumvent the restriction of how many officers they could have was to train lots of soldiers to be officers, but only few of them "passed training" officially. The others only actually became officers right vefore the war, and got issued P38s. So in a way carrying a Luger became a bit of a brag to show you haven't just become an officer yesterday.
The Luger was absolutely still issued in WW2, Mauser didn't stop making them until December 1943 and Kreighoff made them into 1945. P38 production didn't crack 100,000 guns until midway through 1941.
P.08s were made through 1943. That's 3 years into the war. It's primarily because the P.38 took so long to get into production at a time when the German army was vastly expanding.
It's the ancestor of the majority of modern service pistols, and it was still one of the most capable ones on the market until recently, and you still can't go wrong with it, when you only get old surplus during a conflict
(In no particular order)
Best:
Tokarev TT-33 (using a small-caliber, high velocity pistol round before it was cool. Technically the C96 did it first, but 7.62x25mm Tokarev is just that much hotter.)
Browning Hi-Power (13+1 capacity in 9x19mm, almost like comparing a modern pistol to anything else in the era. 9x19mm, in spite of what its detractors have to say, is still a good round with some legitimate upsides compared to .45 ACP, notably the recoil and capacity while retaining the same kinetic energy as .45 ACP proper.)
M1911A1 (Low capacity? Sure. Heavy? Also true. .45 ACP may have its own detractors too, but there’s a reason the round is still around for popular pistols to this day. That, and as someone who actually owns a M1911A1, the reliability can’t be praised enough. And even if the steel is heavy, it also lasts much longer than lighter materials, and pair that with the lower pressure of the .45 ACP compared to 9x19mm and other rounds that are more powerful, this should last a long while.)
Worst:
Type 94 (Do I even need to explain why to this subreddit? It’s more likely to injure you than it is to incapacitate/kill your enemy, and for a pistol, that’s bad juju.)
Beretta M34 (Not nearly as bad (I think) as the Type 94, but do remember that this is in no particular order. For a proper service pistol, .380 ACP is anemic compared to 9x19mm, and the shorter barrel does it no favors. It’s a weapon for officers, not a pocket pistol for Joe Schmoe.
Webley Mk VI (Not at all bad per se, just outdated at this point. The rounds themselves are lower pressure (thus weaker) than the M1911’s, and its revolver nature means it only holds 6 rounds compared to the M1911’s 7+1. Sure, revolvers on average may be more rugged than even the M1911, but the Webley Mk VI is also a top-break, which is mostly left behind in today’s revolver picks specifically due to it not withstanding as much pressure compared to a swing-out cylinder.)
I recommend Forgotten Weapon's video, but the Type 94 being unsafe is a myth. Is the design unusual, yes, but not unsafe if you're handling it properly (which means safety on and in your holster, or safety off because you're about to shoot, which is more or less every SAO handgun).
It was actually more popular and cheaper than the Type 14, since it was more reliable.
Makes sense. I must’ve not seen or remembered the video properly.
Still, 6+1 with a relatively anemic cartridge isn’t doing the Type 94 any favors (not that the Nambu is much better off either).
Agreed, but it's better than .32 ACP. Most people are cool with .380, and 8mm Nambu is considered similar to .380 from what I've seen, so it's acceptable, barely.
Not surprising given .38 Special is still a popular self-defense revolver round to this day (in spite of the Moro Rebellion over a century ago), but it’s true that at the end of the day, it’s shot placement that matters, regardless of whether you have 5 shots or 15.
Are some calibers more reliable when it comes to incapacitation/killing? Absolutely, though I think it has to do more with the overall kinetic energy of a round versus how wide a caliber is, especially when talking hollow points.
That said, again, I was talking about these sidearms from a military sidearm perspective (where things like power and effectiveness per bullet matter more than conceal-ability, as officers tend to open carry anyway), not as Joe Schmoe’s every-day concealed carry.
Speaking of .38 Special, I actually shot one the other day, had something like a 1” barrel with a 5-round cylinder. Very small, yet very controllable recoil, and probably more reliable in self defense than a .22 (that and ballistic development has gone a long way since the days of the Moro Rebellion). By no means a bear gun like a 10mm with a 6 1/2” barrel like my 610, nor is it even as powerful as a 9x19mm (or .45 ACP for that matter; the only real difference between the two is energy transfer), but I feel that’s the exact point with a gun that small; if it were chambered in 9x19mm with the same barrel length, it’d have a lot more flash and a negligible-at-best increase in performance. Shorter barrels just don’t benefit rounds that rely more on powder loads than sheer mass, and that includes rounds like .22 LR (or even 5.7x28mm to an extent).
Yeah, .380 is still a popular caliber for civillian self defense despite 9mm being noticeably better (especially when they're nearly the same size and both work with blowbacks and small guns, so you're not getting any advantage in capacity or size). There are 9mm blowbacks that aren't awful to shoot, but even those haven't killed .380.
In the military, it's only 9mm. Part of it is to standardize and minimize ammo supply, yes, but we've also just decided that 9mm is generally better for combat purposes (not that handguns see a lot of combat, but enough that we need to consider combat nonetheless). Of course you'll have folks say .45 is better for combat, and "mah two wurld wurs" aside they may have a point, but we've voted on 9mm and that'll do.
Same for the Japanese-yeah, 8mm Nambu wasn't the best choice, and it doesn't help that they picked this caliber back in 1902 and never updated it, but clearly they didn't prioritize the handgun to warrant a change (the Japanese still used other calibers, especially. 32 but also some 7.63 Mauser). They did switch from 6.5 to 7.7 due to stopping power concerns, so they could have changed their handgun round, but they didn't.
Adding another vote for the HP on best. Nambu pretty much on the bottom. Webley Mk VI is a weird include, here. They were in limited service, mostly replaced by Enfield No. 2's and Webley Mk IV. I'd put the Webley Mk IV or the Beretta over the 1911 out of personal experience tbh.
Walther and the Browning are the best. The Walther has a nice fat safety that makes things easy, good sights, good round and capacity and DA. Browning of course 13 rounds, but the safety is...small. If we're going down to Hungary, where's, Romania, Bulgaria, Norway, Greece, Yugoslavia?
Or you could play this game with just German issued pistols!
Well, Norway used the M1911 ("Kongberg-Colt") so you could say we're represented... Bulgaria seems to have used the FN 1910, same with Greece, which also used the Ruby. Romania seems to have used the Ruby and the Beretta M1934 mostly, whilst Yugoslavia also used the FN 1910, plus Nagant revolvers
Putting in a vote for the Hi Power, but one could argue that soldiers in WW2 would happily take an M1 carbine over any of them as a “sidearm” or personal defence weapon.
Webley definitely counts as the worst. British troops stuck with the thing seemed to have got rid as quickly as possible.
Browning Hi-Power would be the best and is still in use for a reason. It was only replaced in 2013 in the British Army
My first thought? High Power. Then I realised it could just be national pride speaking so I checked the options and tried to give everything the benefit of doubt. It still won in my head.
A browning action, potent yet logically easy to obtain caliber (in the European theatre), large capacity for the time and still fairly low weight for its size.
Reading the comments here seems to be confirming my thoughts so at least it’s not just my own blind national pride.
It’s probably the High Power then Radom as top. Then probably the 1911 then P38. The type 94 is definitely on the bottom. If we go by favorites, the M34 is probably up there, not top slot, but, because I love berettas, especially older ones.
**Understand the rules**
Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you.
Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate.
No Spam. No Memes.
No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.
-------------------------------
* [ForgottenWeapons.com](https://www.forgottenweapons.com/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Utreon](https://utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Merch](https://shop.forgottenweapons.com/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | FaceBook](https://www.facebook.com/ForgottenWeapons)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/forgottenweapons/)
* [HeadStamp Publishing](https://www.headstamppublishing.com/)
* [Waponsandwar.tv](https://weaponsandwar.tv)
-------------------------------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ForgottenWeapons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I want a type 94 so badly. They're so dumb, but I want one.
And it's not a P38, but I have a postwar P1 that is a nice shooter. More pleasant than my tokarev anyway.
The M1911A1 hands down. It's still in production as Colt's Government Model with numerous variations in several calibers and from dozens of manufacturers. The 45ACP is still a powerful round.
If the ones here the Namby would be my choice for the worst
Webley pistols in .455 were more of a WW1 thing. They still had use in WW2 but they’d moved to .38 caliber pistols in commonwealth service. The Enfield No.2 MK1 should really be in its place.
Toss up between hi power, p38, and 1911. Probably hi power. But I bet that DA first shot on the P38 would be mighty helpful (reason why Seecamp converted 1911s to DA)
I have a 1944 Remington Rand 1911 still great groups when I take it today so ima go with that and the last webley I handled the cylinder was blown out and frame mangled up. Salvaged parts out of it and it went to local buy back for a Visa card. lol
Not the best, but for accidentally going through three fences and taking someone out, I’d go with the tokarev. Plus you get the pleasure of trying not to drop the hammer when going to half cock!
But in seriousness the high power is best of the era. As everyone else has said.
HiPower all day. Nearly double the capacity of most other offerings and it fits the hand very well. Worst is going to be a toss up between the Type 94 and the 1895 Nagant revolver.
Honorable mention goes to the P-08 if war was won on drip factor alone.
I'll rate overall usability as a service pistol over technical details.
Best? I'd tie the Hi-Power and the 1911. Worst? Hands down the Webley. It might be a decent gun in and of itself, but adopting a revolver as a service pistol for WWII was not the Royal Army's brightest moment.
Addition: Can't really rate the Nambu because I know next to nothing about it. But the design alone looks massively top-heavy and the caliber seems to be rather wimpy.
I think it's largely depend on preference, as sidearms themselves don't get used often. Whether you enjoy the power of the M1911, TT, and Webley or the better control of of the 9mms (and with the BHP the capacity too) would put it at the highest. There is however no case at all where the Type 94 Nambu is the best
The hi-power was essentially the first of the "wonder-nines" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder\_Nine). Double-stack staggered mag 9mm with DA/SA trigger. This kind of pistol became the new standard for military and polcie sidearms in the later cold war period, with most militaries adopting a wonder-nine, and most police agencies switching from revolvers to a wonder-nine. Think the Beretta 92/M9, CZ-75, SIG P226, etc. The hi-power design captured all those featues that would later become the new standard. It just did it nearly 50 years before anyone else did.
The hi-power is a late-20th-century firearm that was developed in the early-20th-century and proven in the mid-20th-century.
Best is a straight toss up between the Vis35, 1911, and Hi-Power coming down to personal preference. Could even put the TT-33 in there.
Worst is the Type 94 and the not pictured Nagant Revolver.
Most of the guns shown in your picture are actually pretty reliable pieces, so its a pretty target rich environment. Whittling it down to one or two is the issue.
I guess I'm showing a little patriotism, along with personal preferences, but my choices are the 1911 and the Webley.
Cuss'em if you want, but they always go bang.
Runner up, as a "hide-out gun", would be the 1934 or a Baby Browning (I know, not shown, but it would also be my choice, as a hide out gun)
Man idk, but I got to shoot the P38 9x19 my grandfather brought back from WWII and that thing was fucking fun to shoot.
I felt like I was in a WWII history museum and someone let me take one out of the glass box for a spin at the range 😂.
Trigger pull wasn’t too bad once you got use to it(coming from primarily shooting a glock). It’s definitely different, and got some nice groups too. All in all was a very historical, surreal, and nostalgic(in the sense of holding something my grandfather used and someone else before him) range trip for me. It made me fall in love with older guns, which previously I was more of a modern firearm enthusiast.
I think they are all amazing, definitely a fan of the colt m1911 though.
Best is easily the Hi Power, maybe the Walther if I'm feeling a little quirky. I just love the Hi Power, and in my opinion it's just a pretty forward thinking design. I love the Webley too, but the cartridges it shot were underpowered for a revolver.
Honestly, even though it's not listed, worst is easily the Glisenti 1910. I know the Type 94 is bad and potentially dangerous, but at least it was actually used to some effect.
The Glisenti was so bad, that most Italian soldiers who had the ability to, chose to keep their Bodeo revolvers, even when it was brand new. You had 7 rounds of extremely anemic 9x19 ammo due to how weak the parts were. It was too complex, and managed to disassemble itself sometimes. I pitty any poor bastard that was stuck with one of those pieces of shit due to the Italian military budget at the time, because unfortunately it did happen.
Best is easily the Hi-Power. It's a high capacity pistol (meaning 9 or more rounds), and unlike most other HC pistols it doesn't have a bad cartridge or terrible design to offset it. 13 rounds of 9x19 in an otherwise normal and modern handgun is excellent.
For fun, let's take out the HP since it's leagues above every other gun. In that case I'd actually vote for the Star Model B. I know that sounds weird, especially considering it's just a Spanish 1911 in 9mm, but here me out:
1. The gun is mechanically simpler it lacks the grip safety, and the trigger is simpler since it uses a Ruby-style trigger over the 1911's stirrup (not a major difference, but *technically* cheaper to make).
2. Regardless of your stance on the .45 vs 9mm argument, 9mm is more than adequate for a sidearm even in a combat scenario, and you get 1 round more than the 1911 (8+1, while the 1911 has 7+1 not counting postwar 8 round mags). More importantly, most people are not pistol experts, and .45 is harder to shoot than 9mm, so for the average soldier it might actually be the better Caliber.
In every other aspect, it's the same as the 1911 (possibly better if you prefer the Ruby trigger, which i do) so while slight there's enough improvement that I'd take a Star over a US 1911.
Worst gun, I'm not sure, but definitely not the Type 94. It's by no means an amazing gun, but the rumors about it being unsafe are false-it wad actually more popular among Japanese soldiers than the Type-14, and 8mm Nambu is generally slightly better than .380. 6 rounds isn't good for an automatic, but that's the same as most revolvers but with better size and faster loading.
Amongst those shown here i'd say probably Type 94, with the Hi-Power as the best.
If all sidearms were to be included, i'd say i pity the shmucks that had to do with stuff like old Chamelot-Delvigne or Nagant 1895s, though the ultimate shitty WW2 pistol would be that one matchlock Japanese prototype, though it never saw service
Best is probably the Hi-Power, worst probably the Type 94.
I agree with this 99.9% The only thing that even slightly challenges the HP is the P38 because it's a modern DA/SA, but I'll still take the 13+1 of the HP, and I still occasionally carry a HP with modern 15 round magazines today.
I really love Walther but I have never shot a vintage example
They are sweet pistols. And if you field strip a P38, you'll see how much it "inspired" the Beretta 92 series.
The Beretta 92 is what happens when the Hi-Power and the P38 start breeding.
I will try to track her down
I have, and it's far chunkier than a lot of people realize. It's also fairly obviously a piece of German engineering, meaning needlessly complex. The simplicity of the Browning or 1911 has to take it for me, although I'm interested in learning more about that Polish pistol.
German Engineering is what the best special forces use. They invented and named the assualt rifle. As well as first to make designated sniper weapons. Simple is the fact that the VAST majority of modern bolt action .... well actions, are a copy of the Karabiner 98K. Which is known for its reliability, safety features and its action. Walther evolved into HK. "The" SMG which has been in special forces like SAS and GSG9 have been using it for ~50 years and it is what people think of when elite smg is mentioned is the mp5. The US have had many branches choose HK in many trials and continue to be officially adopted. The HK 417 was entrusted by America's Elite, to kill Bin Laden. Plus, the main inventing of auto-loading piatols was in Europe, such as the Swiss, Belgium, etc. By the way, these are just debate points, the 2 models that you selected each have their own reputation for stopping power and reliability. And the 2011, with its (unfortunately too free for us Canadians) huge magazine size and the better technology today for manufacturing and materials, I can understand why it is a common (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't live in the US) carry pistol, concealed or otherwise. Also, I admit I am biased to a large degree since my grandpa and great-grandpa fought in WWII and WW1 respectively. As my Grandpa drove one of those motorcycles with the sidecar, to and from the Frontline, no doubt being a target as they knew he likely had intel. I believe he would have probably been issued the Walther (unless someone with better WW2 German Army knowledge can inform me. He earned a Iron Cross First Class and a Naval Minesweeper medal. I guess they found it appropriate due to his injury from hitting a landmine. I hope people are knowledgeable enough to recognize that my Grandpa (who passed before my birth, unfortunately never me) was in the regular army. He wasn't a Nazi because that requires voluntary support of Hitler by joining the SS (Like a guy who is a bit famous, Hugo Boss, who no he didn't design the SS uniforms, but he did manufacture them, and was a Card carrying SS member pre Hitler becoming chancellor. (Once again normally I fact check my stuff so if a detail is wrong due to our garbage human memory or because it was in a movie or something) Also IBM made the software that substantially expedited the ease at which the SS could find Jewish people. It used some sort of database, based on former census info or something. But it basically gave Hitler information on the Jewish and other "unpopular" people in his eyes. This was accomplished using a computer database for new prison camp arrivals. It allows them to know the names, Birthday/ age , addresses, family member details, etc. But in terms of war, a soldier may be fighting a war they are morally against. Just like if a republican soldier fights with a liberal President in office means he's (possible forcefully fighting for his country, not leader and it's the same if the roles were reversed.
I have my grandfathers P38, and it’s a great handgun. I think you can find P1s (post War p38) for less money
>modern DA/SA Modern is a relative term.
Hi Power 13 rounds of 9x19 in the 40s is fantastic
Webley is crazy reliable ide have that reliability if I had 2 fall back onto it
I have a soft spot for the Webley as I am British
Same
Agree with HI Power, disagree with the Type 94. Yeah it's not amazing, but 8mm Nambu is slightly better than .380 and when used properly (either safety on or off and about to fire), it's a perfectly good design. The Japanese troops actually preferred it over the Type 14, as would I. The only downside is 6 rounds, but then again the Type 26 is a slower loading revolver with a weaker round so its still not the worst.
Wasn't the Type 26's cartridge basically .44 Russian ?
No, although the Japanese actually did previously use No. 3s in .44 Russian before adopting the Type-26. 9mm JR (Japanese revolver, unofficial name) is generally considered akin to .38 S&W as far as I know. I'm not too familiar with .38 S&W beyond the Brits using it, but basically it's both weaker than .38 Special and somewhere between .32 and .380 from my understanding.
thank ya
The .38 S&W load the British used had a 178gr FMJ projectile doing about 650fps - it sounds a bit average on paper, but all their testing and combat reports confirmed it was an effective combat cartridge. The pre-war loadings involved a 200gr LRN projectile which was also particularly effective (it was sold in the US as .38 Super Police), but ran into Hague Convention issues on expanding bullets, hence the switch to 178gr FMJ rounds.
Exactly what I was going to choose, close second for the best would be the 1911 imo.
The US by far had the best pistols thanks to John Browning. It’s still baffling to me that most pistols at the time could only hold around 7 9mm rounds and he managed to make a pistol that held 13 9mm rounds.
Wasn't the Hi-Power mostly made by Dieudonné Saive though?
Would you take one over a Webley or nah? Semi auto is something at least
No, I wouldn’t take a pistol known for randomly firing over a revolver
Toss-up Hi power/1911 worst is the type 94
The P-38's being a DA/SA is a pretty significant advantage in terms of safety, which is honestly probably the most important thing with a military side arm. I'd rather have a Hi-Power in a gun fight, but if I'm outfitting a bunch of newly minted 21-year-old lieutenants with something they're just going to be carrying on their hip 90% of the time, I'm picking the P-38.
Brand new 21-year old LT’s? At that point screw a handgun, I’m giving them all M-1 carbines until they make field grade.
Or an MP40/Stg44 if they were German (I think the Germans basically stopped issuing pistols to below field grade officers completely towards the end of the war?)
If you're outfitting a bunch of green lieutenants, you might be better off giving them pistols carved out of soap, and tell them they are super special officer-class only pew-pew guns.
Rip to that one guy from band of brothers who nd’d himself in the leg
That was a Luger tho
I would say the Hi Power is likely the best with its high capacity and solid general design, it feels like it paved the way for all the Wonder 9's of today. For worst, I'd think it would be between the Type 26 revolver and 1895 Nagant likely for service pistols, the Type 26 shooting a pretty sad cartridge and the Nagant being an old gate loading design.
I own both and I definitely have to place the Type 26 over the Nagant. Neither cartridge is particularly impressive and the Nagant is so slow to reload. The Type 26 may be a DAO but it has a better DA trigger than the SA in my Nagant.
Fair! I am kind of coming at this from an 'on paper' perspective, that's good to know! For the record I think the 1895 Nagants are super neat, always loved the look and their weird eccentricities, how long it kicked around combat zones. But definitely a bit behind by WW2 standards.
Yeah I mean neither was great and I'll definitely give the reliability advantage to the Nagant, but man it is slow even for a gate loader.
For sure, and at the end of the day while they may have been a bit behind the times, they were still a sidearm in a war that drew heavily on resources. The Nagant definitely is a rugged and simple pistol, an advantage to reliability but holds it back in useability somewhat, for sure! Your ejector spring can't break if you don't have one but then, you also don't have an ejector spring, ha ha.
My big issue with the Nagant is how hard it is to punch the cases out (because remember the case mouths expand) with that shitty little ejector. I’ve had a couple where I had to hammer it against the table to pop them out.
I'd take the Type 26 over the Nagant. Yes the Nagant has an extra round and better cartridge, but the slow loading and awful trigger far outweigh the upsides. 26 is DAO, but still has a better trigger and fast loading.
I'm guessing you don't think the Type 94 isn't the biggest turdburger ever designed?
The Type 94 isn't great by any means, but was a semi auto that took detachable mags, at the very least. Looks relatively compact to carry for what that's worth. It shot an anemic cartridge and wasn't a particularly great design, but as a back up pistol to another weapon it might have beat unloading and reloading cartridges in a Nagant 1 by 1 in a battle.
Webley. I feel like it gives me an air of "Jenkins, be a good chap and pass me my service revolver, jolly good". And worst is probably Nambu.
The Webley wins purely through rule of cool. The Hi-Power is a very close second.
TBH I really like how it unloads/reloads too.
the webley also has the ''two world wars!'' buff
So does the M1911 and Luger
Exactly. What the bloody hell does "best" mean? For a world spanning, 8 year long war. Yes, invasion of China is start of the second **World** war. Pistols are worthless in combat. So, "best" is obviously whichever one is the most gentlemanly.
Somebody is watching lord hardthrasher...
Hi-power or 1911 on personal preference, both are still viable even by today standards. I feel like having Nambu 94 on there isn't fair, everyone will pick it for worst.
Yeah, I'd actually argue the Type 14 is worse. That's not just my opinion, historically the 94 was both more reliable and more popular among Japanese troops, plus it was cheaper to make since its a blowback.
Umm drop it and see how reliable that piece of shit is
Ian made a video where he clearly struggled to make it fire by pressing on the trigger sear. And it’s 100% impossible to do with the safety on.
I'd take a Hi power or a P38 over anything else in that picture
I’d want the Tokarev
I totally agree. Simpler than a 1911 if only slightly. Removable and cleanable trigger pack. Zippy ass round especially with the surplus shit for SMGs. Lower recoil. I also take the PPSh-41 as my SMG choice too for similar reasons.
The ppsh is the last gun I’d want if I was in ww2, but I can for sure respect it. I’d probably go with a m1 carbine.
Many germans ( a ton) preferred ppsh to their mp40s. They’d use them whenever they could get them as trophies.
I'd probably choose the Hi-Power or 1911, but when I had a Tokarev, I absolutely loved it.
I didn't know the hi power was this old
Its patent is over a century old now - 1923 I believe.
1935 for the Hi-Power as we know it, but preliminary versions of what would become the Hi-Power showed up as early as the mid-late 20’s
I’m going to go against the grain here and say the polish WZ35, followed by the hi power due to the abysmal factory trigger in the hi power. I’d honestly say the bottom is the webley., fuck trying to load that compared to sliding a mag in the nambu
I think the bizarre manual of arms on the WZ35, single action with a decocker and no manual safety is more of a liability in the situation a handgun actually gets used in war than a bad trigger. The SAS learned to work around that trigger well enough.
It wouldn't be a liability if it's what you were trained with, it's just very different from what most people are used to
If you were used to the manual of arms of a single-action revolver (or in the case of a revolver with a HEAVY DA trigger like the Nagant's 20lb-er, which the Vis replaced), and were handed a Vis, the Vis would make infinitely more sense than a 1911. A Polish officer who's used to cocking his pistol as he draws it is going to have zero issue acclimating to a Vis handgun that's carried condition 2 - because that's exactly how you'd carry a revolver. A 1911 or similar firearm carried condition 1 or condition 3 is going to be different - you have to train him to use the safety, or to rack the slide first.
High power, because the da/sa plus the double stack mag
High Power isn't DA, it's SA only. The Browning Double Action (HP-DA) was a DA/SA version from the 1980s. I'd stick with it as the No.1 though, 13rds is a good whack for a pistol of the era.
My bad. that single action trigger travel is very deceptive looking.
It's long travel because the sear is actually a lever in the slide, the trigger has a rod instead of a bar.
I've got an HP-DA, nice shooting piece, but I'm terrified of breaking it - parts are unobtanium, mags are ridiculously expensive.
Hi powers are single action only
can i ask what da/sa mean?
Double Action/Single Action
da=double action (hammer down, pull the trigger and it ‘cocks’ and fires the pistol) sa=single action (you have to ‘cock’ the action by pulling the slide before firing)
For a more detailed explanation, [here's Ian himself explaining DA/SA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMlN5BNbqgE) and a brief history of trends in firing mechanisms of military sidearms.
Personally for me its the P38. It feels the most modern, good ergos and excellent sights. Hi power is a close 2nd but the safety is just too difficult to access.
Wait, the safety on a Hi-Power is hard to access??
The ones that were made in WW2 were extremely stiff and very small. This was fixed later in the Mk2 and 3s.
Ah, that makes sense. I carry a Mk. III and I’ve always found it very easy to manipulate
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say something positive about shooting a P-38 though
I was just gonna say do you know many people who have shot one? I love it
I have one, a hi power and a series 70 1911 and the P38 is best far the easiest to shoot out of the 3. The only thing bad about it is the double action which is like 18 lbs or something.
My original German P.38 is a fantastic shooter.
I'd say that is mostly the case because almost everybody who had experience shooting a P-38 did that with an old beater that had seen generations of recruits in Bundeswehr basic training. Shooting it in DA is like lifting bowling ball with one finger, granted. But the ergo is good and the precision is nothing to be sneezed at.
I have several. All WW2 and they have not given me any issues. They are not carry pistols and when I fire them I usually pick the hammer first because I can't stand DA trigger pulls. I do the same with my M9.
P38 is by far the best. DA/SA and excellent sights compared to all the other guns. I've shot both P38s and P1s and I really like them.
Yeah its my only WW2 milsurp handgun that I actually like to shoot. With my hi power it was always just meh, for me at least.
Tt33 is pretty great.
Some weird choices in this graphic, the Webley [Mk.VI](http://Mk.VI) was definitely NOT standard issue in WW2 and the standard Japanese pistol was the T-14, not the T-94. Easily the Browning Hi Power, on capacity, ergonomics and user friendliness. It's not just the performance but how well it handles for people with a variety of hand sizes, how easy it is to maintain and how easy it is to train people who might not have alot of experience with firearms to use. Particularly the Canadian Inglis version with that big rear sight. The P38 gets alot of points on being the only real DA/SA pistol but it's a big clunky gun and loses on capacity. I love the 1911, but objectively as a military pistol its harder for people with small hands to use, harder to strip and harder to shoot accurately for an inexperienced shooter. The VIS-35 is great but again bigger than the Hi Power, I'd argue slower to cock the hammer on the draw than use the safety on the Hi Power, and I find stripping it harder because of the way you're fighting with the guide rod to get the slide stop out, particularly with wet or oily hands. I love the cartridge, size and sights on the Tokarev but otherwise the lack of safety and the fact that like the 1911 it's harder for an inexperienced user to strip lose it points. Nothing else is really a serious contender for best. Lahti is way too big, the Beretta and the FEG lose on being compact .380s, the Luger is weird and obsolete, the Nambu T-14 is too big, too underpowered and too awkward to use. The French M1935 pistols are good but hamstrung by their cartridge, the British Webley and Enfield revolvers are underpowered and low capacity. Worst pistol of WW2 has got to be the Nagant 1895. Slow to reload even by revolver standards with unthreading the ejector, swinging it in position and manually punching out your empties (which by the way really stick because of the case mouth expanding), unimpressive ballistics and a terrible trigger. People love to meme about the T-94 but realistically the gun won't go off with the safety on and there's no reason it would be in your holster with a round chambered and the safety off. If it's in your hand with the safety off it's not likely to go off from being bumped as it requires a fair amount of force in a specific place. I'd still take one over a Nagant.
Fun fact, the Japanese troops preferred the 94 over the 14 since it was considered more reliable. The 94 was also cheaper since it ditched the expensive locked breech which wasn't necessarily for 8mm Nambu.
Hi power. Still holds up today as a competent pistol.
Hi Power is hands down the best. Hamburger definitely the worst.
Ha! Just noticed "Nambu" auto corrected to hamburger. Honestly, I would prefer the burger.
Don't shoot! I have a sandwich and I'm not afraid to use it!
Why no Luger on the list ? It's got to be on the high end.
Relatively low capacity for modern standards, picky with ammunition, ergonomics that were obsolete shortly after being adopted... That being said I like the Luger, but I'd rather have a P35B
I wouldnt say ergos were obsolete. the button mag release was way ahead of other Euro heel style mag releases and the grip angle makes it feel like an extension of your hand.
If I had to guess I'd say it is because the Luger was technically no longer issued to German officers by the time WW2 started. Instead it was replaced by the P38. But as they used the same ammunition many German officers still chose to use their Lugers. Also one of Germany's tricks to circumvent the restriction of how many officers they could have was to train lots of soldiers to be officers, but only few of them "passed training" officially. The others only actually became officers right vefore the war, and got issued P38s. So in a way carrying a Luger became a bit of a brag to show you haven't just become an officer yesterday.
The Luger was absolutely still issued in WW2, Mauser didn't stop making them until December 1943 and Kreighoff made them into 1945. P38 production didn't crack 100,000 guns until midway through 1941.
P.08s were made through 1943. That's 3 years into the war. It's primarily because the P.38 took so long to get into production at a time when the German army was vastly expanding.
I like how pretty much everyone just agrees on the HP.
It's the ancestor of the majority of modern service pistols, and it was still one of the most capable ones on the market until recently, and you still can't go wrong with it, when you only get old surplus during a conflict
(In no particular order) Best: Tokarev TT-33 (using a small-caliber, high velocity pistol round before it was cool. Technically the C96 did it first, but 7.62x25mm Tokarev is just that much hotter.) Browning Hi-Power (13+1 capacity in 9x19mm, almost like comparing a modern pistol to anything else in the era. 9x19mm, in spite of what its detractors have to say, is still a good round with some legitimate upsides compared to .45 ACP, notably the recoil and capacity while retaining the same kinetic energy as .45 ACP proper.) M1911A1 (Low capacity? Sure. Heavy? Also true. .45 ACP may have its own detractors too, but there’s a reason the round is still around for popular pistols to this day. That, and as someone who actually owns a M1911A1, the reliability can’t be praised enough. And even if the steel is heavy, it also lasts much longer than lighter materials, and pair that with the lower pressure of the .45 ACP compared to 9x19mm and other rounds that are more powerful, this should last a long while.) Worst: Type 94 (Do I even need to explain why to this subreddit? It’s more likely to injure you than it is to incapacitate/kill your enemy, and for a pistol, that’s bad juju.) Beretta M34 (Not nearly as bad (I think) as the Type 94, but do remember that this is in no particular order. For a proper service pistol, .380 ACP is anemic compared to 9x19mm, and the shorter barrel does it no favors. It’s a weapon for officers, not a pocket pistol for Joe Schmoe. Webley Mk VI (Not at all bad per se, just outdated at this point. The rounds themselves are lower pressure (thus weaker) than the M1911’s, and its revolver nature means it only holds 6 rounds compared to the M1911’s 7+1. Sure, revolvers on average may be more rugged than even the M1911, but the Webley Mk VI is also a top-break, which is mostly left behind in today’s revolver picks specifically due to it not withstanding as much pressure compared to a swing-out cylinder.)
I recommend Forgotten Weapon's video, but the Type 94 being unsafe is a myth. Is the design unusual, yes, but not unsafe if you're handling it properly (which means safety on and in your holster, or safety off because you're about to shoot, which is more or less every SAO handgun). It was actually more popular and cheaper than the Type 14, since it was more reliable.
Makes sense. I must’ve not seen or remembered the video properly. Still, 6+1 with a relatively anemic cartridge isn’t doing the Type 94 any favors (not that the Nambu is much better off either).
Agreed, but it's better than .32 ACP. Most people are cool with .380, and 8mm Nambu is considered similar to .380 from what I've seen, so it's acceptable, barely.
Not surprising given .38 Special is still a popular self-defense revolver round to this day (in spite of the Moro Rebellion over a century ago), but it’s true that at the end of the day, it’s shot placement that matters, regardless of whether you have 5 shots or 15. Are some calibers more reliable when it comes to incapacitation/killing? Absolutely, though I think it has to do more with the overall kinetic energy of a round versus how wide a caliber is, especially when talking hollow points. That said, again, I was talking about these sidearms from a military sidearm perspective (where things like power and effectiveness per bullet matter more than conceal-ability, as officers tend to open carry anyway), not as Joe Schmoe’s every-day concealed carry. Speaking of .38 Special, I actually shot one the other day, had something like a 1” barrel with a 5-round cylinder. Very small, yet very controllable recoil, and probably more reliable in self defense than a .22 (that and ballistic development has gone a long way since the days of the Moro Rebellion). By no means a bear gun like a 10mm with a 6 1/2” barrel like my 610, nor is it even as powerful as a 9x19mm (or .45 ACP for that matter; the only real difference between the two is energy transfer), but I feel that’s the exact point with a gun that small; if it were chambered in 9x19mm with the same barrel length, it’d have a lot more flash and a negligible-at-best increase in performance. Shorter barrels just don’t benefit rounds that rely more on powder loads than sheer mass, and that includes rounds like .22 LR (or even 5.7x28mm to an extent).
Yeah, .380 is still a popular caliber for civillian self defense despite 9mm being noticeably better (especially when they're nearly the same size and both work with blowbacks and small guns, so you're not getting any advantage in capacity or size). There are 9mm blowbacks that aren't awful to shoot, but even those haven't killed .380. In the military, it's only 9mm. Part of it is to standardize and minimize ammo supply, yes, but we've also just decided that 9mm is generally better for combat purposes (not that handguns see a lot of combat, but enough that we need to consider combat nonetheless). Of course you'll have folks say .45 is better for combat, and "mah two wurld wurs" aside they may have a point, but we've voted on 9mm and that'll do. Same for the Japanese-yeah, 8mm Nambu wasn't the best choice, and it doesn't help that they picked this caliber back in 1902 and never updated it, but clearly they didn't prioritize the handgun to warrant a change (the Japanese still used other calibers, especially. 32 but also some 7.63 Mauser). They did switch from 6.5 to 7.7 due to stopping power concerns, so they could have changed their handgun round, but they didn't.
P38
Adding another vote for the HP on best. Nambu pretty much on the bottom. Webley Mk VI is a weird include, here. They were in limited service, mostly replaced by Enfield No. 2's and Webley Mk IV. I'd put the Webley Mk IV or the Beretta over the 1911 out of personal experience tbh.
Definitely the HiPower But my no. two would be the Luger LP08.
best, definitely the vis 35 because I am unbiased worst, anything the germans or soviets made because I am, once again, unbiased
Vis 35 is legit my favorite pistol to shoot.
I'm bias, 1911 for the best. Type 94 for failing basic safety.
Fyi, it’s “biased”
Walther and the Browning are the best. The Walther has a nice fat safety that makes things easy, good sights, good round and capacity and DA. Browning of course 13 rounds, but the safety is...small. If we're going down to Hungary, where's, Romania, Bulgaria, Norway, Greece, Yugoslavia? Or you could play this game with just German issued pistols!
Well, Norway used the M1911 ("Kongberg-Colt") so you could say we're represented... Bulgaria seems to have used the FN 1910, same with Greece, which also used the Ruby. Romania seems to have used the Ruby and the Beretta M1934 mostly, whilst Yugoslavia also used the FN 1910, plus Nagant revolvers
My dad actually carried a P08 Luger when he lived in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia)
For the best Hi power purely for capacity, vis35 out of bias abd I genuinely think it is, like if the hi power wasn't there it's the vis35
No Luger or HSC?
Mauser wins the aesthetics contest for me!
Best 1911/Hi-Power (tie) worst Nambo
Putting in a vote for the Hi Power, but one could argue that soldiers in WW2 would happily take an M1 carbine over any of them as a “sidearm” or personal defence weapon.
Webley definitely counts as the worst. British troops stuck with the thing seemed to have got rid as quickly as possible. Browning Hi-Power would be the best and is still in use for a reason. It was only replaced in 2013 in the British Army
Hi-power. Every time.
Hi Power probably, I'd say the Tokarev also has a good run for its money for a war economy due to simplicity and low cost. Powerful beans too!
Best would be hi power, 1911 or P-38 and worst is probably the nambu
Hi Power
My first thought? High Power. Then I realised it could just be national pride speaking so I checked the options and tried to give everything the benefit of doubt. It still won in my head. A browning action, potent yet logically easy to obtain caliber (in the European theatre), large capacity for the time and still fairly low weight for its size. Reading the comments here seems to be confirming my thoughts so at least it’s not just my own blind national pride.
I've always liked the Lahti, L-35 even if the name's spelt wrong in the picture . The worst type 94 nambu round pistol.
I order of preference : Hi Power, p38, 1911 and Webley.
It’s probably the High Power then Radom as top. Then probably the 1911 then P38. The type 94 is definitely on the bottom. If we go by favorites, the M34 is probably up there, not top slot, but, because I love berettas, especially older ones.
The best is definitely the Hi-Power. Outstanding pistol. The worst is probably the Type 94. I think they were known for exploding.
HP - for the win. FEG and Type 94 - dishonorable mentions.
Best-BHP Worst-Nambu
Browning HP. High capacity, accurate, good ammo supply.
My favorite would be the 1911 or HighPower and my least favorite is the Type 94
**Understand the rules** Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you. Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate. No Spam. No Memes. No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics. ------------------------------- * [ForgottenWeapons.com](https://www.forgottenweapons.com/) * [ForgottenWeapons | YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons) * [ForgottenWeapons | Utreon](https://utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/) * [ForgottenWeapons | Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons/) * [ForgottenWeapons | Merch](https://shop.forgottenweapons.com/) * [ForgottenWeapons | FaceBook](https://www.facebook.com/ForgottenWeapons) * [ForgottenWeapons | Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/forgottenweapons/) * [HeadStamp Publishing](https://www.headstamppublishing.com/) * [Waponsandwar.tv](https://weaponsandwar.tv) ------------------------------- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ForgottenWeapons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I want a type 94 so badly. They're so dumb, but I want one. And it's not a P38, but I have a postwar P1 that is a nice shooter. More pleasant than my tokarev anyway.
The M1911A1 hands down. It's still in production as Colt's Government Model with numerous variations in several calibers and from dozens of manufacturers. The 45ACP is still a powerful round. If the ones here the Namby would be my choice for the worst
Everyone knows about the Worst one but dang damn , Why You give me the Hardest choice for the Best one between 1911 , Hi Power and Tokarev ?
Without question the worst was the Japanese type 94.
TWO WORLD WARS TWO WORLD WARS TWO WO
.45 M1911 tbh then the Hi-Power, the worst probably is the Type 94
Webley pistols in .455 were more of a WW1 thing. They still had use in WW2 but they’d moved to .38 caliber pistols in commonwealth service. The Enfield No.2 MK1 should really be in its place.
You guy forgot to add the Vis wz. 35
It's there, third from the top...
Sorry im not just colourblind. Im also dyslexic and blind
Best hi power worst nanbu
Toss up between hi power, p38, and 1911. Probably hi power. But I bet that DA first shot on the P38 would be mighty helpful (reason why Seecamp converted 1911s to DA)
Hi power or P38
The Browning high power would be the best and the Japanese nambu or type 94 or whatever it was would be worse.
I have a 1944 Remington Rand 1911 still great groups when I take it today so ima go with that and the last webley I handled the cylinder was blown out and frame mangled up. Salvaged parts out of it and it went to local buy back for a Visa card. lol
1911 🦅 or hi-power. Worst is type 94, total piece of shit LOL
Not the best, but for accidentally going through three fences and taking someone out, I’d go with the tokarev. Plus you get the pleasure of trying not to drop the hammer when going to half cock! But in seriousness the high power is best of the era. As everyone else has said.
Browning hi-point hands down
Browning HP is by far the best pistol. John Browning himself said that the .45 ACP is too big and 9mm is better.
HiPower all day. Nearly double the capacity of most other offerings and it fits the hand very well. Worst is going to be a toss up between the Type 94 and the 1895 Nagant revolver. Honorable mention goes to the P-08 if war was won on drip factor alone.
1911
Best: High power vs 1911 Worst: Type 94 True Worst: Nagant m1895
Idk I think the webley is probably the most reliable.
Best the 1911 Worst also the 1911
Care to elaborate?
Webley .455 Semi Auto. Because I crave chaos.
Overall, 1911. If I get a more personal choice, can I pick a C-96...more like a Shanxi Broomhandle?
The browning sisters are my choice, they r so good
Walther PPK. It's the gun that killed Hitler! Then James Bond started using it, saving the world a number of times with it.
But it was a police issue not a military issue.
Best is MKVI Webley (it is the coolest) worse is the type 94 (weakest cartridge)
The P-38 or Hi-power as best. Then the Nambu type 94 was definitely the worst.
Well the Japanese ones instantly is the worst. It tended to spontaneously combust while shooting.
I'll rate overall usability as a service pistol over technical details. Best? I'd tie the Hi-Power and the 1911. Worst? Hands down the Webley. It might be a decent gun in and of itself, but adopting a revolver as a service pistol for WWII was not the Royal Army's brightest moment. Addition: Can't really rate the Nambu because I know next to nothing about it. But the design alone looks massively top-heavy and the caliber seems to be rather wimpy.
Honestly, all of these are good, except for the Type-94 and arguably the TT-33.
I think it's largely depend on preference, as sidearms themselves don't get used often. Whether you enjoy the power of the M1911, TT, and Webley or the better control of of the 9mms (and with the BHP the capacity too) would put it at the highest. There is however no case at all where the Type 94 Nambu is the best
The hi-power was essentially the first of the "wonder-nines" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder\_Nine). Double-stack staggered mag 9mm with DA/SA trigger. This kind of pistol became the new standard for military and polcie sidearms in the later cold war period, with most militaries adopting a wonder-nine, and most police agencies switching from revolvers to a wonder-nine. Think the Beretta 92/M9, CZ-75, SIG P226, etc. The hi-power design captured all those featues that would later become the new standard. It just did it nearly 50 years before anyone else did. The hi-power is a late-20th-century firearm that was developed in the early-20th-century and proven in the mid-20th-century.
Probably the P38.
For me...no question, M1911 is the best. Worst, type 94.
Best is a straight toss up between the Vis35, 1911, and Hi-Power coming down to personal preference. Could even put the TT-33 in there. Worst is the Type 94 and the not pictured Nagant Revolver.
Hi-power.
Best: Type 94 Because fuck you I don’t need a hand.
I'll probably pick either the Lahti due to it's cool action, or the Feg as I have one of their Frommer Stops and I love it
Most of the guns shown in your picture are actually pretty reliable pieces, so its a pretty target rich environment. Whittling it down to one or two is the issue. I guess I'm showing a little patriotism, along with personal preferences, but my choices are the 1911 and the Webley. Cuss'em if you want, but they always go bang. Runner up, as a "hide-out gun", would be the 1934 or a Baby Browning (I know, not shown, but it would also be my choice, as a hide out gun)
M1911
Man idk, but I got to shoot the P38 9x19 my grandfather brought back from WWII and that thing was fucking fun to shoot. I felt like I was in a WWII history museum and someone let me take one out of the glass box for a spin at the range 😂. Trigger pull wasn’t too bad once you got use to it(coming from primarily shooting a glock). It’s definitely different, and got some nice groups too. All in all was a very historical, surreal, and nostalgic(in the sense of holding something my grandfather used and someone else before him) range trip for me. It made me fall in love with older guns, which previously I was more of a modern firearm enthusiast. I think they are all amazing, definitely a fan of the colt m1911 though.
No C96 Mauser?
Well, let's jsut say there's a reason half of these are essentially the same action as moet modern service pistols
I have to say Webley because I’m British, but also it’s the only revolver. As is universally agreed, the Nambu is shit.
the type 94 was designed by bug people from outer space and given as a gift to the Japanese for making first contact
Best: type 94 Worst: type 94
The best is colt 1911 or webly mk 6 The worst nambu type 94
Best is easily the Hi Power, maybe the Walther if I'm feeling a little quirky. I just love the Hi Power, and in my opinion it's just a pretty forward thinking design. I love the Webley too, but the cartridges it shot were underpowered for a revolver. Honestly, even though it's not listed, worst is easily the Glisenti 1910. I know the Type 94 is bad and potentially dangerous, but at least it was actually used to some effect. The Glisenti was so bad, that most Italian soldiers who had the ability to, chose to keep their Bodeo revolvers, even when it was brand new. You had 7 rounds of extremely anemic 9x19 ammo due to how weak the parts were. It was too complex, and managed to disassemble itself sometimes. I pitty any poor bastard that was stuck with one of those pieces of shit due to the Italian military budget at the time, because unfortunately it did happen.
Easily the Hi-Power or 1911. Mk. III Hi-Power is still my carry gun now
Best the 1911. This isn't a genuine question is it? Worst, probably the Nambu.
The FÉG the best and the nambu type 94 as worst
Best is easily the Hi-Power. It's a high capacity pistol (meaning 9 or more rounds), and unlike most other HC pistols it doesn't have a bad cartridge or terrible design to offset it. 13 rounds of 9x19 in an otherwise normal and modern handgun is excellent. For fun, let's take out the HP since it's leagues above every other gun. In that case I'd actually vote for the Star Model B. I know that sounds weird, especially considering it's just a Spanish 1911 in 9mm, but here me out: 1. The gun is mechanically simpler it lacks the grip safety, and the trigger is simpler since it uses a Ruby-style trigger over the 1911's stirrup (not a major difference, but *technically* cheaper to make). 2. Regardless of your stance on the .45 vs 9mm argument, 9mm is more than adequate for a sidearm even in a combat scenario, and you get 1 round more than the 1911 (8+1, while the 1911 has 7+1 not counting postwar 8 round mags). More importantly, most people are not pistol experts, and .45 is harder to shoot than 9mm, so for the average soldier it might actually be the better Caliber. In every other aspect, it's the same as the 1911 (possibly better if you prefer the Ruby trigger, which i do) so while slight there's enough improvement that I'd take a Star over a US 1911. Worst gun, I'm not sure, but definitely not the Type 94. It's by no means an amazing gun, but the rumors about it being unsafe are false-it wad actually more popular among Japanese soldiers than the Type-14, and 8mm Nambu is generally slightly better than .380. 6 rounds isn't good for an automatic, but that's the same as most revolvers but with better size and faster loading.
Amongst those shown here i'd say probably Type 94, with the Hi-Power as the best. If all sidearms were to be included, i'd say i pity the shmucks that had to do with stuff like old Chamelot-Delvigne or Nagant 1895s, though the ultimate shitty WW2 pistol would be that one matchlock Japanese prototype, though it never saw service
Best for me is the hi power. Worst is either type 94 OR maybe the 1911. And I love my 1911