What is the best combat handgun in use today?
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
possum
Member
thats a first being called an old timmer. i am 22 yrs old and just bought my first 1911 the other day, i am a late bloomer to most people. i have always liked the 1911, but the money was never there, it is now.
there is a reason i have one they are fine weapons that are the choice of weapons for some of the most highspeed people on the planet.(not why i got mine) i got mine because over the years i have alot of experience with em and i know they work. i know the 1911 is great and i will continue to think so until someone will give me a real reason and not a bunch of fluff to why the are supposedly so bad.
What is the best handgun in use today?
For faithful followers of John Moses Browning in a big bore it would be a .45ACP 1911 platform in 9mm the P-35 Browning High Power comes to mind.
For those who love DA/SA alloy frame semi autos the Sig 220 228/229 is the leader
For those who like the original in combat tupperware the alter of Gaston Glock has its share of devotees.
Those who want polymer pistol just not a Glock usually go with H & K or an XD
In former Warsaw pact or iron curtain countries and those they sold or gave away aid to the Makarov is the main contender.
Many with US military service will want a Beretta 92
Those wanting something different with good ergonomics built on traditional lines often go with CZ pistols
Many old school die hards still say six (or 5) for sure is the way to go and select a revolver for some it is the preferred choice.
Allot depends on who you ask where you live what you have experience with and what is available, thankfully its a big pond with lots of fish so we have many good choices and can freely choose to do so.
Go with what works best for you and what you trust your life to.
For faithful followers of John Moses Browning in a big bore it would be a .45ACP 1911 platform in 9mm the P-35 Browning High Power comes to mind.
For those who love DA/SA alloy frame semi autos the Sig 220 228/229 is the leader
For those who like the original in combat tupperware the alter of Gaston Glock has its share of devotees.
Those who want polymer pistol just not a Glock usually go with H & K or an XD
In former Warsaw pact or iron curtain countries and those they sold or gave away aid to the Makarov is the main contender.
Many with US military service will want a Beretta 92
Those wanting something different with good ergonomics built on traditional lines often go with CZ pistols
Many old school die hards still say six (or 5) for sure is the way to go and select a revolver for some it is the preferred choice.
Allot depends on who you ask where you live what you have experience with and what is available, thankfully its a big pond with lots of fish so we have many good choices and can freely choose to do so.
Go with what works best for you and what you trust your life to.
strangelittleman
Member
The most widely issued sidearm of the 20th century was the S&W M&P K-frame revolver, also the most reliable sidearm of the 20th century. Based on reliability & accuracy, durability, the M&P revolver and the Peacemaker are the most effective sidearms shot for shot....but man, that reload time on the old Peacemaker, does leave a bit to be desired, better make that six count!
SoonerSP101
Member
Kimber ICQBs with Surefire IMPL, Dawson precision rails, Tritium Novak LoMount sights, Gemtech TRL Tactical Retention Lanyards, modified Safariland 6004 holsters, and Wilson '47D' 8 round magazines.
mljdeckard
Member
It is a bit disengenuous to say that a double-stack 9mm has more damage potential than a .45 single stack. Add up the actual weight of the bullets (115 gr vs 230 gr) and actual cm3 of tissue damage potential and see if the difference is really that lopsided?
I also believe the 9mm to be 'good enough' in the man-stopping department when using premuim defensive hollow-points. BUT REMEMBER, we are still pretending to follow the Hague Accords (which we never actually signed) which means that when our soldiers carry a double-stack anything in 9mm, it will be loaded with 115 gr fmj. At least if it were a .45, 230 gr hardball is a well-proven manstopper. And yes, while I prefer 1911s, I would obviously take another good .45, such as a USP, a Glock 21, etc.
I also believe the 9mm to be 'good enough' in the man-stopping department when using premuim defensive hollow-points. BUT REMEMBER, we are still pretending to follow the Hague Accords (which we never actually signed) which means that when our soldiers carry a double-stack anything in 9mm, it will be loaded with 115 gr fmj. At least if it were a .45, 230 gr hardball is a well-proven manstopper. And yes, while I prefer 1911s, I would obviously take another good .45, such as a USP, a Glock 21, etc.
Best handgun in combat 1911.
But in use today in large numbers? Well you wont get "BEST" you will get what is reliable, and cheap (lowest bidder). Glocks,Beretta's,etc.
"Today in large numbers" That is not the 1911 however many special forces still use and choose the 1911 45ACP of any other choice of handgun on the market.
But in use today in large numbers? Well you wont get "BEST" you will get what is reliable, and cheap (lowest bidder). Glocks,Beretta's,etc.
"Today in large numbers" That is not the 1911 however many special forces still use and choose the 1911 45ACP of any other choice of handgun on the market.
You mention combat, and yet speak of discount deals in the same question.
If a major agency or the military adopts a handgun for combat the ammunition it uses will become more widespread and solve any concerns about availability and price.
So price of ammo in terms of combat thinking is relative only to the the amount of metal required per round.
So are you really asking what is best for you, what is best for a civilian, what is best for police, or what is best in actual combat?
As a civilian a light weight polymer pistol that uses widely available ammunition might be a great choice.
For a military where soldiers fall, crawl, roll etc over thier weapon, I certainly wouldn't want a plastic gun. In combat weapons take abuse above and beyond the mere operation of the weapon. Something highly modular is also helpful since it allows both quick adaption of the weapon, and the ability to cheaply and affordably replace a section of the firearm rather than say the entire frame.
In combat you want different things from different weapons. Since a handgun in combat is a secondary weapon you must think of what its uses will be. It will be restricted to FMJ rounds in the military which changes the choice. A larger diameter bullet becomes more important without expansion. Yet if they have body armor a small diameter hole with more energy becomes more effective. If you expect most of the enemy to have body armor rated to stop pistol rounds (and trauma plates in spots for some rifle rounds), then a low capacity high power backup if you ever actualy do need your pistol instead of the rifle you always carry might be worth considering. Loaded with AP rounds of course. IMHO that beats the go smaller and smaller philosophy you see in the ammunition designed for PDW's which have proven to be unreliable manstoppers with or without body armor on the target. That way when your rifle is down you are not left plinking at them ineffectively while they return with rifle fire. (Totaly different from current practice of using a 9mm round and just planning to basicly never use it, or a .45 to only face jihadists without the armor most professional armed forces wear now.)
Now as a civilian or police officer things are totaly different. The handgun is in fact the primary weapon most of the time, and you want medium capacity and medium power. More rounds than you need, and sacrifice power for controllability and followup shots. Lighter weight is more important than absolute durability as well since you shouldn't be rolling over, and falling down on, and generaly abusing the weapon. A assailiant without body armor is more likely than one with. Expanding ammo means the bullet diameter upon firing is less important than the diamter after expansion and total energy. So with both the use and the targets being different, the ideal characteristics are totaly different.
Primary weapon vs secondary weapon, armored vs unarmored, weight vs durability, modular vs streamlined, expansion vs FMJ or AP.
So what is really your question? Best handgun for what? Does combat really have anything to do with the information you seek?
The best "combat" handgun is not the handgun I would want to carry for use in a defensive firefight as a civilian.
The best civilian handgun is not one I would want soldiers on a battlefield to have facing other soldiers in combat.
If a major agency or the military adopts a handgun for combat the ammunition it uses will become more widespread and solve any concerns about availability and price.
So price of ammo in terms of combat thinking is relative only to the the amount of metal required per round.
So are you really asking what is best for you, what is best for a civilian, what is best for police, or what is best in actual combat?
As a civilian a light weight polymer pistol that uses widely available ammunition might be a great choice.
For a military where soldiers fall, crawl, roll etc over thier weapon, I certainly wouldn't want a plastic gun. In combat weapons take abuse above and beyond the mere operation of the weapon. Something highly modular is also helpful since it allows both quick adaption of the weapon, and the ability to cheaply and affordably replace a section of the firearm rather than say the entire frame.
In combat you want different things from different weapons. Since a handgun in combat is a secondary weapon you must think of what its uses will be. It will be restricted to FMJ rounds in the military which changes the choice. A larger diameter bullet becomes more important without expansion. Yet if they have body armor a small diameter hole with more energy becomes more effective. If you expect most of the enemy to have body armor rated to stop pistol rounds (and trauma plates in spots for some rifle rounds), then a low capacity high power backup if you ever actualy do need your pistol instead of the rifle you always carry might be worth considering. Loaded with AP rounds of course. IMHO that beats the go smaller and smaller philosophy you see in the ammunition designed for PDW's which have proven to be unreliable manstoppers with or without body armor on the target. That way when your rifle is down you are not left plinking at them ineffectively while they return with rifle fire. (Totaly different from current practice of using a 9mm round and just planning to basicly never use it, or a .45 to only face jihadists without the armor most professional armed forces wear now.)
Now as a civilian or police officer things are totaly different. The handgun is in fact the primary weapon most of the time, and you want medium capacity and medium power. More rounds than you need, and sacrifice power for controllability and followup shots. Lighter weight is more important than absolute durability as well since you shouldn't be rolling over, and falling down on, and generaly abusing the weapon. A assailiant without body armor is more likely than one with. Expanding ammo means the bullet diameter upon firing is less important than the diamter after expansion and total energy. So with both the use and the targets being different, the ideal characteristics are totaly different.
Primary weapon vs secondary weapon, armored vs unarmored, weight vs durability, modular vs streamlined, expansion vs FMJ or AP.
So what is really your question? Best handgun for what? Does combat really have anything to do with the information you seek?
The best "combat" handgun is not the handgun I would want to carry for use in a defensive firefight as a civilian.
The best civilian handgun is not one I would want soldiers on a battlefield to have facing other soldiers in combat.
Choclabman
Member
IMO- The 1911.
It is a Time and War tested/proven design. (Cap's on purpose)
I know that the ones I own, have been nothing but 100% reliable.
I pick the 1911 over HK
Correia, you reading this?
It is a Time and War tested/proven design. (Cap's on purpose)
I know that the ones I own, have been nothing but 100% reliable.
I pick the 1911 over HK
Correia, you reading this?
AtticusThraxx
Member
Well said Zoogster. By far the most thoughtful answer I've heard on the subject. I'd have written the same cept' for the plate in my head and short attention sp.......................................
gandog56
Member
I would put almost ANY 1911 ahead of a Glock.
Fishman777
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 520
I respectfully disagree...
I'm sure that most of you have a lot more experience than I do, but I really think it is hard to argue against glocks in this thread. I've tried really hard not to like glocks, primarily because of the arrogance of some of their fans, but they really are excellent guns.
The Glock torture tests are pretty impressive, I shoot them well, they are easy to maintain, they are also very durable. If I had to chose a handgun to use in combat, I would probably choose a glock. Are they my favorite handguns? No, but I can't think of another semi automatic gun that I'd rather have out in the field, in a combat situation. My second choice would be a DA/SA HK USP.
About 1911s...
I've got a feeling that I'm about to hijack this thread.
I'm probably going to upset some folks by what I'm about to say. Please don't get pissed off if you like the 1911 platform. I really want to know what I'm missing. I've read dozens of threads on different forums about out of the box 1911 reliability issues. I wanted to buy a 1911 a few months back, but was scared off by the prospects of spending $1500 on a gun that would need an additional financial investment to make it work properly.
I started frequenting several 1911 boards a few months ago. I was doing homework so that I would make a good purchasing decision. After seeing what I would consider to be a large number of posts dealing with reliability issues with the 1911 platform, I quickly discovered that one of these websites had a troubleshooting guide for correcting 1911 reliability issues. I've never seen such a FAQ on any gun website, ever. The very fact that such a FAQ exists tells me that there is a either a weakness in the 1911 design or with the quality of the current manufacturing practises. Maybe modern 1911s aren't made like they used to be, but if I were to spend $1500 on a handgun, it would not be a gun that appears to be hit or miss.
Again, I don't mean to offend any 1911 fans, but I really don't understand how people can argue about how reliable these guns are when there appear to be so many problems with these guns. Pease help me to understand this. I love the guns. I'd still like to own one, but I don't trust them. I certainly wouldn't want to depend on one in a combat situation.
I'm sure that most of you have a lot more experience than I do, but I really think it is hard to argue against glocks in this thread. I've tried really hard not to like glocks, primarily because of the arrogance of some of their fans, but they really are excellent guns.
The Glock torture tests are pretty impressive, I shoot them well, they are easy to maintain, they are also very durable. If I had to chose a handgun to use in combat, I would probably choose a glock. Are they my favorite handguns? No, but I can't think of another semi automatic gun that I'd rather have out in the field, in a combat situation. My second choice would be a DA/SA HK USP.
About 1911s...
I've got a feeling that I'm about to hijack this thread.
I'm probably going to upset some folks by what I'm about to say. Please don't get pissed off if you like the 1911 platform. I really want to know what I'm missing. I've read dozens of threads on different forums about out of the box 1911 reliability issues. I wanted to buy a 1911 a few months back, but was scared off by the prospects of spending $1500 on a gun that would need an additional financial investment to make it work properly.
I started frequenting several 1911 boards a few months ago. I was doing homework so that I would make a good purchasing decision. After seeing what I would consider to be a large number of posts dealing with reliability issues with the 1911 platform, I quickly discovered that one of these websites had a troubleshooting guide for correcting 1911 reliability issues. I've never seen such a FAQ on any gun website, ever. The very fact that such a FAQ exists tells me that there is a either a weakness in the 1911 design or with the quality of the current manufacturing practises. Maybe modern 1911s aren't made like they used to be, but if I were to spend $1500 on a handgun, it would not be a gun that appears to be hit or miss.
Again, I don't mean to offend any 1911 fans, but I really don't understand how people can argue about how reliable these guns are when there appear to be so many problems with these guns. Pease help me to understand this. I love the guns. I'd still like to own one, but I don't trust them. I certainly wouldn't want to depend on one in a combat situation.
VMIRat1995
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 55
If the sh-- REALLY hit the fan and I had only 2 small, hand-held weapons to chose from, I'd have my CZ-75B and my K-Bar. That's it.
Elm Creek Smith
Member
After the early slide separation problems were addressed, of course. I carried an 1911A1 for 16 years in the Army, but it wasn't until I carried an M9 that I asked the armorer to issue me one of the spare M16's, any of the spare M16's, in the racks.
ECS
1911s aren't rocket science but some do need more attention then some other models to run right. The three most important things for a 1911 to run reliably are good ammo, good magazines and proper extractor tension. For some odd reason more than a few 1911 manufacturers get cheap on mags. This is probably the number one reason they have problems. I'm not sure which $1500 you are talking about but for that kind of money you shouldn't have any problems getting a good one.
SX1guy
Member
Military types use Beretta's because that is what they are issued...
Operator's use a mish mash of different guns but HK's are on the top or very near top along with Sigs, SW's, Glocks, Colts, BHP, ...
Operator's use a mish mash of different guns but HK's are on the top or very near top along with Sigs, SW's, Glocks, Colts, BHP, ...
gandog56
Member
Ah, but it's the loose as a goose, mass produced by different manufacturers, all parts fit all 1911's, that made the history.
SX1guy
Member
It's not about accuracy, it's about reliability, shocking power, number of rounds...
JHansenAK47
Member
sphinx 3000
StrikeEagle
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 709
It's my idea of the premier carry piece. And it's what I carry and keep by my bed.
BrokenArrow
Member
Pistols that are the easiest to hit w under stress, and work reliably under severe conditions, are the best combat handguns. SA and striker fired autos, double action revolvers in my experience.
Today, that would be 1911s and Glocks. A few yrs ago it would have been 1911s, BHPs, and CZs. A few more yrs ago it would have been 1911s, BHPs, and Smith/Colt/Ruger wheelguns. A few yrs from now it will be 1911s and maybe Glocks/XDs/M&Ps ...
Today, that would be 1911s and Glocks. A few yrs ago it would have been 1911s, BHPs, and CZs. A few more yrs ago it would have been 1911s, BHPs, and Smith/Colt/Ruger wheelguns. A few yrs from now it will be 1911s and maybe Glocks/XDs/M&Ps ...
WVMountainBoy
Member
I'm going to bite...I'm going to go with the Glock 17, 9mm is a world wide fixture, the gun doesn't break down, is accurate enough, and its economical.
That being said, it was a worldly answer. I work for the WVSP and our current weapon is the S&W 4045, went to it due to not being happy with the 40 for many reasons. The 4045 isn't that good of a combat weapon, its a pain to take down and clean, it doesn't like LOTS of ammo choices from my observations and its really only as accurate as any other combat gun...sorta run of the mill in that area. As far as what I want on my hip in the urban jungle I carry a 5 inch XD45 now a days, it could very well be a mass use gun. Its more accurate than the 4045, carries more rounds, provides the knockdown of the 45 ACP, and is a breeze to clean and care for. Now if we could just get the rest of the world to wake up and prize the 45 like us power hungry americans
That being said, it was a worldly answer. I work for the WVSP and our current weapon is the S&W 4045, went to it due to not being happy with the 40 for many reasons. The 4045 isn't that good of a combat weapon, its a pain to take down and clean, it doesn't like LOTS of ammo choices from my observations and its really only as accurate as any other combat gun...sorta run of the mill in that area. As far as what I want on my hip in the urban jungle I carry a 5 inch XD45 now a days, it could very well be a mass use gun. Its more accurate than the 4045, carries more rounds, provides the knockdown of the 45 ACP, and is a breeze to clean and care for. Now if we could just get the rest of the world to wake up and prize the 45 like us power hungry americans
BrokenArrow
Member
Different ways to look at it...
What do the best "combat" shooters use?
1911s and Glocks rule the "winner's" circles, or guns like them. Delta, FBI/LAPD SWAT, GSG9, Sayeret Matkal, etc. People who are issued something else want guns like them when they have a choice.
They are the best now, and guns like them will be the best later.
Looking at various RFPs for military/LE pistols around the globe (the US always really wants 1911s) they want (after basic reliability/durability/accuracy):
Consistent trigger pull (SA or DAO hammer fired, striker fired auto)
Ambi controls (mag/slide/safety)
Adjustable grip (backstrap/sideplates)
Frame rail
Modular components (ease of maint at lowest level w fewest tools)
Optional sizes(world)/calibers(USA)
Look at the specs for what the German Polizei/Bundeswehr want, or why the RFP for the US Army's FHS that merged w SOCOM's SOF CP into the JCP that went back to CP and was indefinitely postponed looked like it did. Guns aimed at those fandangos were the LEM HKs, SAO/DAK SIGs, G21SF, FNP, OSS, Px4, P99.
What do the best "combat" shooters use?
1911s and Glocks rule the "winner's" circles, or guns like them. Delta, FBI/LAPD SWAT, GSG9, Sayeret Matkal, etc. People who are issued something else want guns like them when they have a choice.
They are the best now, and guns like them will be the best later.
Looking at various RFPs for military/LE pistols around the globe (the US always really wants 1911s) they want (after basic reliability/durability/accuracy):
Consistent trigger pull (SA or DAO hammer fired, striker fired auto)
Ambi controls (mag/slide/safety)
Adjustable grip (backstrap/sideplates)
Frame rail
Modular components (ease of maint at lowest level w fewest tools)
Optional sizes(world)/calibers(USA)
Look at the specs for what the German Polizei/Bundeswehr want, or why the RFP for the US Army's FHS that merged w SOCOM's SOF CP into the JCP that went back to CP and was indefinitely postponed looked like it did. Guns aimed at those fandangos were the LEM HKs, SAO/DAK SIGs, G21SF, FNP, OSS, Px4, P99.
Last edited:
- Status
