The WORST Military Handgun Cartridge of the 20th Century?

Starting a topic which will prove argumentative amongst the owners of such chambered antiques lol.
I've read that such pistols were intended more as mark of rank than as a man stopper. US military wanted pistols that would knock an Indian's pony down...European's desires were wanting to establish rank and privilege by wearing a sidearm.
Who knows, but it's going to have some detractor's of this video...this is certain.
 
My belief is that lack of "stopping power" is directly proportional to improper bullet placement. :)

Just ask old members of the NKVD and KGB.
 
Last edited:
Lots of detractors and experts on the efficacy of various ammunition types .... but I notice that no one ever wants to demonstrate their assertions or theories by standing in front of one of these cartridges when it is being fired at their 'effective' range.
 
tokguy said:
I've read that such pistols were intended more as mark of rank than as a man stopper. US military wanted pistols that would knock an Indian's pony down...European's desires were wanting to establish rank and privilege by wearing a sidearm.
Click to expand...

I like this ^^ thinking. How often did the typical Swiss officer have reason to fire his sidearm? If he did ever fire it, lots of smoke was probably
good drama.
 
.32 ACP or 7.65 Browning used to have dedicated following in the European military. These things weren't just for use against the enemy, but for "encouraging" reluctant soldiers on the friendly side as well.

Grizz
 
Grizzly Adams said:
.32 ACP or 7.65 Browning used to have dedicated following in the European military. These things weren't just for use against the enemy, but for "encouraging" reluctant soldiers on the friendly side as well.

Grizz
Click to expand...

Would definetly want lots of smoke for that kind of thing, as well as a non-lethal wound, hopefully.
 
Likely more .32 ACP rds (7.65mm) were fired by the Nazi death squads (neck geschuss) than were fired in combat.

A .32 ACP vs a Russian soldier in winter garb doesn't sound like a winner to me. These pop guns gave the wearer the illusionary appearance of being armed.
 
Hitzy said:
38S&W was pretty weak sauce for WWII as well.
Click to expand...

Yes but the British 38/200 with its original 200grain led bullet was considered to be very good. Even though they have the same dimensions I've heard it said that the 38/200 could cause some serious issues in handguns chambered for the 38S&W

As for the Russian Nagant revolver cartridge it is on par with the Swiss offering IMHO. It would be hard to tell which is more effective. Still very similar looking firearms which are full of history and a lot of fun to shoot.
 
BEARHUNTER: Thanks for the good words on the 38/200; saved me some typing! The 38/200 developed 160 fpe at the muzzle. The British had already determined that 60fpe was sufficient to cause a seriously-disabling wound, so they had two-and-a-half times-plus the power they NEEDED to cause a casualty...... and thus take the Target out of the fight. On this scale the military load for the 9mm Parabellum brought SIX times the energy to the fray, the 9mm Steyr brought SEVEN...... and both were difficult to manage without training and practice. The 38/200 just may have been the perfect compromise.

Now we go on to take a look at the Mauser WTP and its thundering 6.35mm combat round. At the muzzle it produces barely that 60 fpe. After it goes through a bandolier and an overcoat, you might not even notice that you had been shot. Nevertheless, the guns themselves are quite thin on the ground, much of this owing to the fact that almost every SS man on the Russian Front was carrying a hideout gun, generally a Mauser WTP or an FN 1906 Browning. My old boss carried a tiny S&S in that inside pocket, largely because one of his buddies was one of the "Sohne" from the Sauer family. He used his last rounds in Berlin the day before the shooting stopped, then spent 2 years at slave labour as a convicted War Criminal. He was released in 1947, made a bee-line home to Frankfurt-am-Main and then came to Canada where he could be as far as possible from the NKVD.

I think my vote for the WORST combat round, at least of World War Two, would go to the 6.25mm: the lowly .25 ACP. I think that beats-out even Twosteam's monstrously-powerful Smith and Wesson .32RF!
 
smellie said:
BEARHUNTER: Thanks for the good words on the 38/200; saved me some typing! The 38/200 developed 160 fpe at the muzzle. The British had already determined that 60fpe was sufficient to cause a seriously-disabling wound, so they had two-and-a-half times-plus the power they NEEDED to cause a casualty...... and thus take the Target out of the fight. On this scale the military load for the 9mm Parabellum brought SIX times the energy to the fray, the 9mm Steyr brought SEVEN...... and both were difficult to manage without training and practice. The 38/200 just may have been the perfect compromise.

Now we go on to take a look at the Mauser WTP and its thundering 6.35mm combat round. At the muzzle it produces barely that 60 fpe. After it goes through a bandolier and an overcoat, you might not even notice that you had been shot. Nevertheless, the guns themselves are quite thin on the ground, much of this owing to the fact that almost every SS man on the Russian Front was carrying a hideout gun, generally a Mauser WTP or an FN 1906 Browning. My old boss carried a tiny S&S in that inside pocket, largely because one of his buddies was one of the "Sohne" from the Sauer family. He used his last rounds in Berlin the day before the shooting stopped, then spent 2 years at slave labour as a convicted War Criminal. He was released in 1947, made a bee-line home to Frankfurt-am-Main and then came to Canada where he could be as far as possible from the NKVD.

I think my vote for the WORST combat round, at least of World War Two, would go to the 6.25mm: the lowly .25 ACP. I think that beats-out even Twosteam's monstrously-powerful Smith and Wesson .32RF!
Click to expand...

HOORAY, smellie's back! Maybe I hadn't noticed but great to see you on the forum again.
 
8mm Nambu.

Perhaps not the absolute worse in of itself, but it fed some abominable handgun designs.
 
smellie said:
BEARHUNTER: Thanks for the good words on the 38/200; saved me some typing! The 38/200 developed 160 fpe at the muzzle. The British had already determined that 60fpe was sufficient to cause a seriously-disabling wound, so they had two-and-a-half times-plus the power they NEEDED to cause a casualty...... and thus take the Target out of the fight. On this scale the military load for the 9mm Parabellum brought SIX times the energy to the fray, the 9mm Steyr brought SEVEN...... and both were difficult to manage without training and practice. The 38/200 just may have been the perfect compromise.

Now we go on to take a look at the Mauser WTP and its thundering 6.35mm combat round. At the muzzle it produces barely that 60 fpe. After it goes through a bandolier and an overcoat, you might not even notice that you had been shot. Nevertheless, the guns themselves are quite thin on the ground, much of this owing to the fact that almost every SS man on the Russian Front was carrying a hideout gun, generally a Mauser WTP or an FN 1906 Browning. My old boss carried a tiny S&S in that inside pocket, largely because one of his buddies was one of the "Sohne" from the Sauer family. He used his last rounds in Berlin the day before the shooting stopped, then spent 2 years at slave labour as a convicted War Criminal. He was released in 1947, made a bee-line home to Frankfurt-am-Main and then came to Canada where he could be as far as possible from the NKVD.

I think my vote for the WORST combat round, at least of World War Two, would go to the 6.25mm: the lowly .25 ACP. I think that beats-out even Twosteam's monstrously-powerful Smith and Wesson .32RF!
Click to expand...

I am told that the 7.62x25 was introduced as a round to penetrate winter clothing because the Nagant revolver round did poorly.

I agree the 25ACP was even worse, but I doubt it was ever an official "military" round. The smallest official military round I have seen is the 32ACP. I was shooting some 32ACP the other day and was surprised how well it penetrated.
 
As mentioned, in some armies the handgun was a badge of sorts.... and the guns got smaller as the rank went UP. I think the theory was something like, "Let the Sergeants canny those heavy Mausers, Leutnants can carry the Lugers, the Herr Oberst can have a Sauer & Sohne 7.65, but what to we do for the Herr Generalfeldmarschall? Aha! We also have the Baby!"

That is mostly just for fun, but I DO have a 1906 Browning 6.35mm here, built first year of production...... and it has a STUD for a LANYARD RING.... and it looks to be Factory! Any insights?
 
My father once explained that at the beginning of the war the training for officers was to draw your sidearm .... bring it down carefully in your strong arm - extended - while standing slightly sideways to your target and fire your round..... check the effect and carry on - by 1945 this drill had become one of 'under fire -- immediate action -- draw your pistol rapidly ... fire two quick rounds in the general direction of the source of fire and run for cover' .. it was apparently also permissible to do this while running for cover! The primary purpose of the pistol was to make noise and (hopefully) keep the enemy's head down long enough that you could take cover. By the time the 1st Cdn Division got back into NW Europe from Italy ... the outcome of the war was pretty much a foregone conclusion....and the primary goal for most soldiers (both sides) was to survive the war. Pistols were not serious weapons ... mortar fire was creating most of the casualties.... at least that was the case in my former unit ... and both of the serious injuries my father sustained (other than malaria in Sicily) was from mortar fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom