Revolvers, 'automatics' and all that.

i have noticed certain threads on the ASB board to be beset by gun aficionados discussing the respective merits of either a particular calibre bullet (or lack thereof) or a particular handgun. Now fascinating as it might be it can tend to end up derailing and sometimes downright frustrate the storyline. So to stop that from occurring again, here is a thread where you can bring gun arguments to. By all means relate the particular thread in question to this discussion, maybe even hotLink it to here and vice versa.

So to kick off, Bristol Group Part 2 discussion about .455 and .45 with reference to Colt 1911. Now I'm not sure how on earth this has anything whatsoever to do with the actual storyline being as the Bristol Group didn't have any weapons of either calibre, nor indeed any Colt 1911s on them. The WW2 British army didn't use either as a handgun ammo (ok maybe some reserve stock of 455, but none in front line use as it was .38) (yes ok the Colt.45 did see some limited UK use but that's later on after 1941). Anyway, would a Colt 1911 have been even better in U.K. .455 than .45, thoughts?


Ok yup, I'm a plank, I got the wrong thread! I'd just finished reading Bristol group when yes the discussions about revolvers etc was on the Hood thread, I do ajopolise!
 
Last edited:

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
i have noticed certain threads on the ASB board to be beset by gun aficionados discussing the respective merits of either a particular calibre bullet (or lack thereof) or a particular handgun. Now fascinating as it might be it can tend to end up derailing and sometimes downright frustrate the storyline. So to stop that from occurring again, here is a thread where you can bring gun arguments to. By all means relate the particular thread in question to this discussion, maybe even hotLink it to here and vice versa.

So to kick off, Bristol Group Part 2 discussion about .455 and .45 with reference to Colt 1911. Now I'm not sure how on earth this has anything whatsoever to do with the actual storyline being as the Bristol Group didn't have any weapons of either calibre, nor indeed any Colt 1911s on them. The WW2 British army didn't use either as a handgun ammo (ok maybe some reserve stock of 455, but none in front line use as it was .38) (yes ok the Colt.45 did see some limited UK use but that's later on after 1941). Anyway, would a Colt 1911 have been even better in U.K. .455 than .45, thoughts?

I though the discussion was in the TL about the Hood going back to WW1????
 
Regardless of whether in "oh god the hood's gone", or "ship shape and Bristol fashion pt 2" the O.P's point is valid.
That 3 pages of niche discussion on the relative merits of .45 acp vs .455 automatic webley that followed the latsts hood update add little to the narrative. The Author has a plan and is blending uptime knowledge with existing technology and doctrine to tell a fascinating tale.
This thread however could result in an informative resource for writers to draw on for their timelines.
 
.44-40 Winchester Centrefire

Designed 1873, bullets on the wiki article go from 200grain to 225grain, muzzle velocity goes from 1100fps-1910fps. The very most powerful of them has an impact energy of nearly 2200joules, nearly five times more powerful than the most powerful .455 Webley on the wiki article, and even kicks aside the .44 Magnum.
Those velocities are for rifle length (20 inch) barrels. Also, the 1900 ft/s cartridge is a modern cartridge using modern smokeless powders and can probably only be used in modern firearms with modern metallurgy.
 
Those velocities are for rifle length (20 inch) barrels. Also, the 1900 ft/s cartridge is a modern cartridge using modern smokeless powders and can probably only be used in modern firearms with modern metallurgy.

I was wondering. The most powerful of them seemed a little... too good to be true. Nonetheless, how much has the basics of gunsmithing for the .44-40 Winchester rifle or Colt revolver changed since 1900ish - that is the proper production, not knock-off Khyber/Tombstone copies.

On the subject of smokeless powder, I just came across this hilarious line on wiki:
"Potassium hydrogen tartarate (a byproduct of wine production formerly used by French artillery)"
 
Using quickload's blackpowder tool, I'm getting about 900ft/s for .44-40 from a 6 inch barrel. So similar to .45ACP except with a much larger case, and messy blackpwoder.
 
Well - if its a WW2 pistol then look no further than the HP 35 aka FNs Browning Hi-Power 9mm pistol - one of the most successful pistols ever made and certainly the best pistol of WW2 IMHO and used by many of the main combatants including the Chinese Nationalists and the Germans (after they had captured the factory in Belgium) and British Airbourne forces / SOE from 1944

Most importantly it was compact, reliable, accurate, only bit the user if they held it incorrectly and most important of all gave the shooter 13 goes before it makes the loudest sound on the battlefield as opposed to 6,7 or 8 on the other common pistols / revolvers of the war.

Now for the Hoods gone story line its not likely to be a option as the British were not using it in 1941 but if they are leveraging 9mm x 19 lanchester smg's then they might consider 9mm parabelum for the service pistol to normalise ammo supply

So for the WW1 pistol - I would leverage the existing Colt 1911 frame chambering for 9mm x 19 - keep the magazine as a single stack of 8 rounds to simplify things as I would expect that ammunition would be supplied in 8 round stripper clips.

That all being said - Pistols are the least important firearm on the Battlefield
 
...
That all being said - Pistols are the least important firearm on the Battlefield

That is it.
Even for ww1, it starts with ships, then aircraft/dirigibles, artillery (including mortars), machine guns, rifles, tanks, other armored vehicles. Pistols are at place 8, or 9 or 10.
 
Top