Are European handguns rubbish?

[waiting4something]

For those of you that have used any of the 1911 type .45s, do you have any thoughts on the Para-Ordnance models for increasing the mag capacity
I have no idea what they cost in comparison to say a Kimber so are the Para-Ordnance models as cost effective

I have to say something here. I used to own a Para Ordanance P-14-45 back in the late 90's to mid 2000's. The idea of a 1911 with a high capacity magazine was great, but the one I bought was a lemon. Half the time when I tried to squeeze the trigger, the trigger wouldn't go. I called the company about it and they where dirt bags about it and didn't want to fix it. So over the years I had two smith's try to fix it and both failed to do so. I ended up giving it to my brother that has one that works fine, so he could use it as spare parts. Later he gave it to a friend that was a gun guru and he replaced the series 80s parts with series 70s and said it worked fine. Good concept, but I will never buy from those jackasses again.
I also bought a Springfield Armory hi capacity GI and it was junk. It jammed alot and the grip felt terrible. I ditched that for a loss. If I ever go with another 1911 45 acp it will be a single stack(Kimber I'm thinking). The only 1911 style I own now is a LAR Grizzly MK1 in 45 winchester magnum. I like that gun a lot....

[dragoon500ly]

The British developed the "double tap" method to ensure quick, clean 9mm kills.

With a .45 you just need one!

[dragoon500ly]

For those of you that have used any of the 1911 type .45s, do you have any thoughts on the Para-Ordnance models for increasing the mag capacity
I have no idea what they cost in comparison to say a Kimber so are the Para-Ordnance models as cost effective

I've tried the 9rd and 12rd mags, the problem is the .45 is a hefty round and there, IMHO, seems to be more jamming problems due to magazine misfeed. I've been firing .45 since I was introduced to the M-1911A1 back in 1977. I currently own three, two Colt Mark IV Series 70 and a Series 80. The Series 70 are the best.

When you purchase a .45, people will tell you that you need to replace the wooden grips, that you have to have the feed ramp smoothed and polished, that you need to have a ambidextrous safety installed, the sights have to be replaced with glow-in-the-dark, the list of mods really is almost a mile long!

Straight out of the box, the Series 70 will shoot a 2-inch group at 50 yards. I have never experienced any feeding problems that were not related to a bad magazine (get US military surplus mags) or poor ammunition (IMHO Winchester .45 is not worth the effort to throw away).

I have fired ball, hollowpoint, Glaser, and tracer out of my pistols and never a problem with feeding, especially when using Federal ammo. The best .45 ammo actually comes out of South Korea, it burns sweet with less residue than anything I've seen stateside.

The Colt Mark IV, Series 80 is not as good as the Series 70, I have broken extractors (3!) and a firing pin and had to get my local gunsmith to tune the piece. According to him, the Series 80 suffered with some pretty bad quality control problems due to Colt farming out production to third parties. No idea if this is true or not, but it could explain the Series 80 problems.

[waiting4something]

As a whole I would say Europe has much more to choose from as far as combat pistols. North America's selection is pretty limited. Thats why until recently the Glock has been the king of law enforcement. Hell they been kicking ass on the U.S. market since the late 80's. Glock is finally getting dethroned by the Swith and Wesson's M&P model. aAside from 1911 variants and the M&P I don't think we really have anything to offer. Thats really puzzling when you think about it. If it wasn't for the 100 year old 1911 design we would look as bad as the some of the eastern bloc countries.

[Sanjuro]

I have only ever fired pistols on firing ranges, under controlled conditions, so I am only qualified to ask questions on this topic:
the SAS are routinely given the freedom to choose their own weapons- why do they seem without exception to choose 9mm (usually SIG226 or 228)
It could be habit (being British, they are accustomed to 9mm) or a wish to stay with the most easily available ammunition, but if .45" was that much better I would have thought it would at least see use on anti-terror ops...

[Legbreaker]

Bullets HURT!!!
Even a .22 LR which is more likely to bounce off a cotton shirt than do any lasting damage.
Perhaps the SAS recognise the fact that you don't necessarily have to kill to take an opponent out of the fight. The higher capacity of 9mm weapons over .45 is definately a bonus and the .45 still isn't a sure kill (although it's certain to mess you up if it hits).

[Panther Al]

Its more a case of what they are used to, and doctrine in my opinion.

9mm gives lots of ammo per pound: And it is adequate for the job. Now in the US it appears that the .45 is still the king: Its a better round, but has less rounds per pound. So... training, doctrine, and what the users are used to.

[Raellus]

Check out any handgun forum and you will find dozens of threads devoted to the debate between the various caliber handgun rounds.

Both 9mm and .45 have their advantages and disadvantages. It's nearly a wash. It really depends on what round the shooter is most comfortable with.

Pro 9mm:
More rounds per mag/more hi-cap options
Greater muzzle velocity with most 9mm loads = better penetration (could be a con in certain scenarios)
JHP ammo has decent stopping power
Slightly less recoil than .45

Anti-9mm:
Not as much stopping power
high velocity ammo = overpenetration concern

Pro .45:
Better stopping power
Doesn't really need JHP ammo for above
not as much concern with overpenetration

Anti-.45:
Fewer rounds per mag/fewer hi-cap options
Slightly slower muzzle velocity = slightly less penetration than 9mm
More recoil

I went 9mm because I wanted my wife to be able to shoot comfortably and accurately. Even 9mm has a bit more kick than she'd like. I can't imagine she'd be comfortable shooting a .45. With modern JHP ammo, the 9mm is a good self defense weapon, comparable, if not superior to, the .45 (IMHO). I think it really comes down to what you shoot best with. Debating 9mm vs. .45 is kind of a waste of time. It's moot.

And, to bring us back to the title thread, who makes the best 9mm handguns in the world The Europeans!

[95th Rifleman]

It's interesting to note that the latest Russian pistol design, the Grach, is in 9x19mm, which is basicly a copy of the NATO standard. Up untill the Grach the Russians had used cartridges that had a reputation for relative lack of stopping power and weakness.
In general the Russians have never respected the use of pistols outside of police work. Being the nation to pioneer asault rifles they have relied on shortened assault rifles or SMGs for PDW work. The AK74U and Bizon2 are examples of this philosophy.

[dragoon500ly]

I'm the first to admit that the .45 is not for everyone. Its a hefty cartridge that requires a hefty pistol to use it correctly. And as we used to joke, with a M1911, after you shot the a**hole 7 times, you can always club him to death!!!

9mm is fun to shoot. I own a Glock and I have a lot of fun on the range, but in a situation where my life depends on it, I will depend on my Mark IV, I simply have no faith in the 9mm as a reliable man-stopper. So I'll guess I will stick with what I like.

At least until the 5MW pulse laser rifle comes out!

[Sanjuro]

When you start shooting double-taps on a firing range it does start to attract attention from other range users...

[HorseSoldier]

I have only ever fired pistols on firing ranges, under controlled conditions, so I am only qualified to ask questions on this topic:
the SAS are routinely given the freedom to choose their own weapons- why do they seem without exception to choose 9mm (usually SIG226 or 228)
It could be habit (being British, they are accustomed to 9mm) or a wish to stay with the most easily available ammunition, but if .45" was that much better I would have thought it would at least see use on anti-terror ops...

The liberty special operations units have to select their own weaponry is generally overstated. For the most part, even in organizations that can select alternatives to their parent organization/nation's standard issue weaponry, there is still (usually) a requirement for standardization within the unit and a tendency to remain within the confines of the existing ammunition logistics system.

That said, 45 ACP isn't really all that much better. All practical combat pistol calibers are rubbish when it comes to actually reliably killing/stopping a bad guy, and it's much more about the ability to make multiple hits fast than it is to deliver one overwhelmingly massive wound (which pistol calibers just can't provide consistently). Even in the SF ODAs I've worked with where they were using 1911s dragged out of retirement and refurbished the main motivation was loathing of the Beretta design, rather than the caliber, and the definitive superiority of the 1911 as a fighting gun in terms of ergonomics and trigger.

[95th Rifleman]

The liberty special operations units have to select their own weaponry is generally overstated. For the most part, even in organizations that can select alternatives to their parent organization/nation's standard issue weaponry, there is still (usually) a requirement for standardization within the unit and a tendency to remain within the confines of the existing ammunition logistics system.

That said, 45 ACP isn't really all that much better. All practical combat pistol calibers are rubbish when it comes to actually reliably killing/stopping a bad guy, and it's much more about the ability to make multiple hits fast than it is to deliver one overwhelmingly massive wound (which pistol calibers just can't provide consistently). Even in the SF ODAs I've worked with where they were using 1911s dragged out of retirement and refurbished the main motivation was loathing of the Beretta design, rather than the caliber, and the definitive superiority of the 1911 as a fighting gun in terms of ergonomics and trigger.

That's a good point, military pistols are last resort, backup weapons. You will always want to be carrying an assault rifle or SMG in combat.

[dragoon500ly]

A lot of the problem with any handgun's knockdown power is in its ammo. FMJ really handicaps a pistol, IMHO. Best choice for pistol ammo would be HP or even Glaser, but the various services don't use either.

As a tanker, you had a choice of defending your tank with a .50-cal, great machine gun, but really sucks when the enemy is crawling over your tank; or a M1911...if you were crewing a M-48/60, then you had a third choice, you could always pull out your M-3A1 and see how many died laughing.

Like a lot of TCs, I put my faith in a privately purchased 12 gauge. Sure it violates the rules of war someplace, but when they are crawling up your rear deck, half a dozen rounds of 00 would help convince them to go bother some one else. And considering the number of privately owned shotguns in the arms room, I was far from alone in my viewpoint.

When the M-1 came out, I was thrilled! For the first time "they" listened to a treadhead and gave us something other than a SMG old enough to draw Social Security! A bright, shiny M-16!

Pistols and SMGs are cute, they are fun to shoot and they impress hell out of the civilians. But face reality, they are both last ditch defensive weapons. I shoot a pistol 3-4 times a month and burn through about 200 rounds. That gives me a lot of advantage over somebody who shoots once a year. And I don't trust hitting with a pistol under a stress situation much beyond a dozen meters or so.

Going into combat, especially dismounted, you would find me either humping along a M-203, a SAW or a M-240.

At least until the development of a man portable tacnuke!

[Griff]

Two and half cents (inflation..)....

Having used my (nearly worthless and most despised) M9 Beretta five times now in combat, I agree it is a weapon of last resort. Every time I've had to use the damn thing I wound up "getting physical" with my opponent. Since the last time I've gone to carrying a cross slung 12 Gauge shotgun. It's a bit unwieldy at times, but I figured since I'm just as likely to engage in hand to hand any way, screw it.

I still carry the required M9 (because it's required), but it's more for show. It's number one aspect and use in Iraq and A-stan.....former regimes used pistols for executions, so whenever I rest my hand on it, all disruptive/argumentative/chaotic behavior by the Locals stops. It's a pretty decent diplomat in that area, but a "combat pistol".....Not no, but HELL NO!

And yes if I had my choice it would be 1911 type (Kimber,but Uncle Sugar ain't paying for that), or as decent compromise .40 (Glock/Sig/S&W).

As far as Europeans making "crap" handguns....No more than any other global arena of arms manufacture, and by and large a hell'uva lot less.

Now to the nods of the US Military going to 9mm over the .45. That was a bow to NATO in the 80's. The reasons (as I was told them back then) were logistics (all our allies used 9x19) and the larger body of female service members entering (and expected to enter in the future). Not a sexist move by the US Army (they had conducted several tests in late 70's and early 80's), but just one of several reasons why they moved to the 9mm. The choice of the Berreta, well I'll just point you toward the very persuasive (and phenomenally rich) lobbyist who I'd dearly like to get my hands on. In the end it was adopted by the "US Military" just like you would adopt your foreign cousins crackheaded underachieving and expensive off spring, by massive weight of pressure from outside sources (and you would loathe every day that decision was made for you). So in that regard, yes it's our pistol of "choice". In the end it's always about money.

And just in case some one didn't pick on the, somewhat ambiguous, clues.......
I HATE the M9 pistol!!! Just in case.

Sua Sponte