I’d love to see more of this. I think Ian knows his stuff so well that breaking down what he thinks of various arms, in a top 5-10 format, would be extremely interesting and worthwhile to watch. And I will be there to cry foul the second he picks some other handgun over the 1911 😂
@@jameshealy4594 ya but the conceal carry advantages are just beyond compare. Heck you can just slip it into your jacket or pants pocket and no one would know!
The Colt 1911 and Luger are pretty much the obvious 1 and 2, but I do like seeing the more obscure arms. You almost never see people talk about the Austro-Hungarian arms.
To @johnsanko3146. Nice comment and I think very fair Folk today, (probably most are less than fully captivated by european political history) don't seem to appreciate just HOW BIG a part of pre WW1 europe that sprawling empire was. It often provided monarchs or spouses to many of the other royal houses. Its banking sector was amazingly strong (also ancient - thinking medieval Fugger family whose representative image still feature on euro currency). They also held the Ottoman at bay, which the moderns seem incapable of doing. In short the vanished empire was in its day an absolute powerhouse. Disclaimer, I'm from another jurisdiction
@@wraithwyvern528 Lovely name. However you must agree that they had been there a very long time and i don't think the demise was really much to do with propellants.
@@wraithwyvern528but many of the weapons they build did. The m95 was a serious contender to the mausers, and it's operating system continued to be used way after the empire dissolved
Ditto, I love the Steyr Krinka Manlincher :) such a great gat. But seriously, there's something about those pistols. They're in your face yet subtle in detail.
I agree with you on the Ruby as the "badge of office" pistol for people who are highly unlikely to see combat, and who will probably only fire it once on the range just after it's issued. If they ever do have to use it, the light recoil and general ease of use will be helpful.
@Ni999 700,000 is a lot of pistols but the range they are used at would be under 50 yards. They are an emergency backup weapon and used far less than rifles.
13:21 Sergiusz Piasecki also appreciated it for its ease of shooting, but emphasized that it was difficult to find a well-made one. The guy was actually a professional assassin at one point, so he probably knew something about guns.
@@seriousmaran9414 From the U.S. Army’s Manual of the Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, Model of 1911,” published in Nancy, France during February of 1918 - _"For the average man, 25 yards may be taken as the maximum range at which the pistol should be fired. To fire at longer ranges will usually result in no casualties for the enemy but only an empty pistol at the crucial moment. This does not apply to a very small percentage of expert shots, but a man should be quite sure that he can be classed as such before violating the general rule.”_ Thanks for explaining to me what the entire world has seemed to understand since the invention of the pistol. 👍 And don't forget - _"Too much stress cannot be laid on the fact the pistol is an emergency weapon. The man who wants a stock on his pistol so that he can shoot it at a distance of several hundred yards has no understanding of the function of the arm. It is solely for the personal protection of the bearer when the enemy is within very short range and there is no possibility of accomplishing more with the other weapons with which the soldier may happen to be armed."_ _“The member of an automatic rifle or machine gun squad who stops serving his rifle or machine gun to indulge in pistol practice at the enemy is wholly without a proper sense of his duty to his comrades. At the same time the stupid man who does not use his pistol when the enemy is on top of him and his gun is jammed or it is no longer possible to use it profitably, deserves no better fate than that which he will probably get, that is, immediate death."_
@@seriousmaran9414 World War I also involved fighting in trenches, and a long rifle that you had to manually reload after each shot was not very convenient in these circumstances. So suddenly everyone wanted a lot of one-hand guns. Besides, I suppose that even in a more open area, during an assault, I would prefer such a pistol. Funny, there's a movie on TV right now (it's about 1920, but a close period) where a group of soldiers are running through the forest with long guns in the fog and it looks like they're having a big problem. Such weapons are weak at short range. If an average guy shoots a rifle from that time, it takes a few seconds to get back to normal, such is the shock of the recoil. In the case of the pistol... I have seen that even a teenage girl without training can shoot a 9x19 without any problems, maybe not super accurate, but without any problems, which is important at short distances. So yes, you're right that rifles were used more intensively for shooting... somewhere towards the enemy... But when the threat was close, a pistol like this was cool.
Of all my WWI sidearms, my ruby is my favorite - when I field strip it and see the various file and tool marks, the un-centered-ness of the grip screw slots, and just the overall crudeness of it, I’m shocked that it works at all. Yet, firing PPU .32 acp, it has never failed me. It’s reasonably accurate, soft-shooting, simple to maintain, and, for me at least, surprisingly ergonomic. Possibly my favorite handgun of all time…
A Ruby is one of those pistols you can legitimately claim as one of a kind because they all have a little difference between every single one. The guy assembling it might have been in a good mood or not it shows. The gambit runs from legitimately dodgy to safe to shoot,some are beautifully finished and some look like a monkey beat it into submission 😂
I have two Webley Self-Loading Pistol Mk. 1 both in .455 Webley Automatic. I learned to reload ammunition starting with this cartridge. This made reloading an even bigger challenge, but I eventually made rounds that functioned perfectly in the pistol. Much later I had a mould made to approximate the original bullet once I learned to cast bullets (about 10 years later).
That seems to have a very short answer though. Not enough of their defence budget went to the army, because the sea was their best defensive fortification
If you mean a pistol, then I'd say that was almost certainly seen as an utterly unnecessary luxury we just didn't have the spare budget for and didn't particularly need (To this day primary and support weapons are FAR more important than sidearms, so they weren't entirely wrong). If you mean a semi-auto rifle, then I'd suggest it was probably the lack of spare budget combined with the resistance of the doddering old guard who are always stuck fighting the last war (Who also insisted we stay with rimmed .303), the lack of good options, and far higher priorities. We were still very much in empire mode unfortunately, which meant that the Royal Navy got priority because it was our wall as well as the glue that held it all together, and all the small arms we used HAD to work in almost every unpleasant climate, and given that bolt actions and revolvers struggle to go wrong in that regard, good luck convincing the entrenched, grumbling, interwar old guard of the need to move away from them in a time before certain, more forward thinking armies started using these things against us.
I'd like to see a top 5 for an inexperienced shooter. I think that would favor the smaller cartridges and less complex firearms. As my FLETC firearm instructor said countless times, the first most accurate round wins. In a military application most people evaluating potential service weapons don't have the inexperience to appreciate that. Another evaluation point in that case would be ease of maintenance in the field.
The British actually embraced this line of logic postwar with their adoption of the No.2 in 38/200 as a replacement for revolvers in 455. It turns out the Webley had enough recoil that it made it less effective in the hands of inexperienced shooters.
@@rantanen1Not necessarily true. The average US Army recruit in WWI and WWII was very familiar with firearms and shooting as their was such a high percentage of them came from farms and rural living where firearms usage was commen. Not until the Vietnam war was the average US recruit unfamiliar with firearms.
In watching both videod, I find it odd that neither mention the most singificant action of the Great War period where a pistol was the featured weapon: 26 April 1916- The Battle of Mount Street Bridge. The execution visited upon two battalions of the Sherwood Foresters (27 and 2/8) by Lieut. Michael Malone by his C96 (with and without the holster stock) from his position in 25 Northumberland Road was horrific. His first clip...10 rounds, 10 hits and shattered the column vanguard. The for the house lasted almost 6 hours. Malone's C96 is a permanent exhibit at the National Museum of Ireland at Collins Barracks, Dublin. RTE recreated the Battle of Mount Street Bridge on its 1966 Miniseries "Insurrection"...Episode 4.
Assuming that the list is confined to handguns that were issued by governments to their armed forces, the C96 may be excluded simply in the grounds that it was vanishingly rare. Only a couple hundred thousand of them were issued between the German and Austrian armies--which sounds like a lot, but is little more than a rounding error when you consider that the Germans alone started the war with nearly four million men under arms.
I agree with your comment about the importance of experience with the 1911. I shot competitively (Navy) with an "accurized" 1911 A1, and fairly quickly became quite competent. I had heard all the stories about how hard that pistol was to control, but found that a bit of experience showed the scuttlebutt to be untrue. In 3+ years of competition with ball ammo (required) there were zero malfunctions of my pistol; there is no substitute for reliability in perilous circumstances.
The best part is that they made a LOAD of them too, so it's iconic, exotic, AND you can find shooters easy enough without spending too much money at all. My nephew got into gun shows a few years back and ended up getting a good deal on one(luckily it was either 'original enough' or had the right 'mismatch recipe' to be a good functioning gun lol; shout out to early mass production). Well used, in OK shape, not 'numbers matching', not significant in any way - and she shot great! Lived up to the hype TBH. Everyone needs to go buy a cheap Luger!
Good, I was mildly upset about the ranking of the beretta 1915 and Nambu while the Roth Krnka missed the list with C&Rsenal, at least gun Jesus appreciates my favorite austro hungarian pistol
@@rustycann6887 A couple of points: 1) The Mauser Broomhandle was not officially adopted by any of the countries involved in WWI (I think) and 2) The Mauser has ergonomic problems as a handgun. It's more of a PDW, much like the Artillery Luger. With shoulder stock attached it's a great trench raid weapon, but it's kinda terrible as an everyday carry pistol.
As an owner of a 1911 & Luger, yes they are indeed the kings of WWI handguns. I would put the one of the early model Nambu pistols in my top 5 personally, maybe even in spot #3. They had some issues, but they were mostly minor, and were very reliable compared to other contemporary pistols. Also if we're doing blowback handgun honorable mentions, I nominate the Mauser Model 1914 as mine!
Love the Ruby shout out. Mine has quite easily become one of my favorites of my 32 acp collection, although I appreciate the look and manufacturing quality of the Colt Model M a little more. The Ruby is just so easy and pleasant to shoot. Heavy for caliber but yet still pretty well balanced in the hand, little to no recoil / muzzle flip, 9 rounds, and I've had little to no malfunctions, even shooting from a mix of various original magazines and some later repros.
@@Joshua-fi4jiI suspect that the lower quality ones are long gone, having failed early or with low round counts. Many of the ones I've seen that are still around today seem to be decent quality. And yes, 32 ACP is underpowered by almost any measure today.
Much respect for giving the Ruby some love. I’ve collected a few of them and they may be my favorite ww1 self loader just because of the unique history behind them. Thanks for that Ian
I liked this version...and opinions will vary. As mentioned below. EDC for the common man - the Ruby. Trench fighting for my life - 1911 and a lot of spare mags
Stripper clip loading in combat conditions worries me because lining it up is a more fine-motor task, but I have to think that if the Steyr-Hahn is as good as they think, I tend to agree that, in theory, the Roth-Krnka can't be far behind.
Well, consider how the vast majority of rifles were loaded at the time. It is more of a fine motor skill, but very much a standard practice for the vast majority of people serving.
Sidearms for most were for dealing with immediate threat and then get out of dodge. If an officer is engaged in cqb, something has gone horribly wrong.
I might have missed something here but. If the Steyer hahn was a further development of the Krnka pistol and the Krnka pistol was designed for the cavalry, then perhaps it was not intended to be a backup weapon for infantry or a trench raid weapon but an offensive fighting weapon for the cavalry. As such you could expect to reload it many times during combat and stripper clip reloading might make a bit more sense maybe?
Completely agree on the 'not well trained' aspect. Career sailor, often issued a handgun for specific watch stations, without any serious training. Now, I *am,* and was, well-trained *BUT* that was not in connection with the watch station requirements. Had I NOT been well trained, I'd have still been issued the firearm. Minimum qualification standards were, and I believe still are, shockingly low. I'd LOVE to see a series of videos on the effectiveness of historical military handgun training programs and techniques.
I really enjoyed this Ian, very interesting. After watching c&rsenal and comparing their list. I agree with yours over there's. I will say, I learned about the designation of all three branch Lugers and the Nambu was an interesting choice. The Webley pistol I first saw in a movie about the British in India in 1920 called Rise, Roar, Revolt.
Excellent video, both views! Love both channels, and the reviews. I cannot say either review/choice is wrong on the opinions given, as the subject matter is so vast and the age of the weapons gives ones views the ability to be skewed by so many ways.
I agree on the 1 and 2 but I don't know much about the others so I will defer to your expertise. My personal opinion I think the modern 1911 in 9mm is a much better choice, and also, having too much ammo is like having too much money- impossible!
This is a great, and well reasoned, video (I'm about to watch the C&Rsenal one)! There are a few points regarding the majority of WWI combat that many people don't take into account when formulating opinions on this subject. Important examples among them would be that the person firing their pistol/revolver would almost always be doing so one-handed because they were holding something in their other hand [the lock of their abandoned MG, a marching compass, a roll of signal wire, a flare pistol, etc. or, in an enemy trench, their primary weapon for the task at hand: a grenade or a trench club]; additionally, at pistol engagement range, trench warfare is confined yet almost completely three-dimensional [the enemy can appear from above, below, left, right, to your front or rear in very quick succession and you may not be able to change your stance to engage it]. I'm not going to pretend that I could pick a good pistol to use in WW, however, my criteria would definitely include 'easy to shoot one-handed', 'instinctive to point when used on targets not to my front', 'reliably incapacitates an enemy at 10-12 yards', and 'light and compact enough that it doesn't get in the way of doing my primary job'.
This is a really good video, and I hope you'll go back to this style of content more frequently. Modern stuff is cool and all, but at the end of the day there's other people covering that stuff, and videos like this are why I come to FW.
Great video. Love the boxes hiding the options but in plain sight the whole time so we know what’s coming. The best part about this video by far would have to be your number 1 placement. Much agree
@@ForgottenWeapons And a Mannlicher, except it is a sketchy knock off named Manlicker. A seven times out of ten chance the gun blows up and "Licks" the man using it.
I came into possession of a Ruby around the time this video released, and I agree it is a very easy shooter. It's an incredibly simple firearm, very easy to shoot, and unlike many other .32s it fits my somewhat large hands very well. The weight is nice, the sights are nice, and as a result of it's simplicity keeping it running smoothly after 109 years (Mine was manufactured in 1915) is much easier than expected. When I took it to the range to do some light endurance tests it ate an entire box of Fiocchi 71gr ammo without a single malfunction, no jamming, partial ejections, nothing. I think the reputation of the ruby being a cheap, prone to failure firearm is greatly overexaggerated as a result of some shoddier copies made by smaller firms during the war (The majority manufactured by Gabilondo y Urresti are generally all fine). The exterior is clearly hand made with things like visible filings or inconsistent placement of the grip screws, but the barrel is usually of quite solid make.
Good list. I could only rate the ones I have used IRL; 1. P.08 2. 1911 3. FN 1903 4. Mauser C96 5. It is technically disqualified but it is nice, FN 1900.
As much as I love the C96, it can't really compete. Stripped clip loaded, not very safe, and with older sights. It's not a bad gun, nor unreliable, but there are better options.
This was very well done, as was C&Rsenals, which I loved. And 10 is not too many, would have very much enjoyed seeing your 6-10 choices. But now we need from Jonathon at Royal Armouries, Rob at British Muzzle Loaders and Bloke on the Range to all do their lists please. And maybe 9 Hole Reviews too. And it would be extra cool if Mark Novak would throw his well thought out opinion in too.
Just a side note .......I ordered Ian's book on WW2 U.S. weapons on November 27th and it arrived at my door on December 2nd.......WHY DID IT TAKE SOOOOO LONG? Oh yeah, it's an outstanding read! I'm already looking forward to his next book.....Japanese? German?
Lucky you - I preordered mine months ago and still haven't even received a shipping notice. Edit: while I did indeed preorder my copy back in May, I see I opted for the signed copy. That could explain some further delay, as the books themselves have only recently arrived at the warehouse.
I came here to see anything but the 1911, but I gotta admit that it was far ahead of anything else at the time and the fact that it is still relevant today over 100 years later is insane. The FN 1903, Mk IV revolver and the C96 are way cooler though. If I was fighting in WW1 I would snatch a C96 off a body the first chance I got.
Interesting point about the 1911 and "learning to shoot it'. Sergeant York seemed to have the ides. A point with the Webley: Semi-rimmed cartridges are not much of an issue with a well-designed (and made) magazine. .38 Super packs quite a wallop downrange, but is somewhere between 9mm Para and .45 ACP for "shootability". Hence the popularity of .38 Super on "Race-Guns". Major power factor and more rounds in the mag than .45. This really became obvious when Para Ordnance introduced the double-stack frame a few decades ago. Ergonomically, the 1911 is the best thought-out of the bunch. The Luger wins the "aesthetics" points. If we include revolvers, the Colt and S&W revolvers set up for .45ACP in "half-moon" clips are worth considering.
I enjoyed the video. I agree with your top 2. 14:32 I like to shoot them both. I have shot a ruby as well. I have no experience with 3-5. I was surprised to see the 1896 Mauser, while certainly obsolete it was widely used through WW2.
Cool list! Really like your choices, and 1 and 2 are set in stone. Im curious: what cartridge from the time in the USA should the 1911 have been chambered in?
@WilliamSanderson-zh9dq I wasn't saying 45acp is a bad caliber. I have 1911s in 45acp, both regular and high capacity models. I was asking him for his opinion for his period recommendation since he stated 45acp was too powerful for average shooters to shoot well.
@@stevendebettencourt7651they said at the time in the USA, 9mm isn't an option. Almost every country that designed their own handguns used a proprietary cartridge.
@@kennetic9196 Yes, and I will concede that .45 ACP is still a popular round today. I would say Ian’s thoughts about the 1911 being too much power may be correct in terms of the big Imperial, universal conscription armies at the time, as a lot of them may not be ready to handle .45, especially one-handed (remember, no two-handed pistol ideas at that time). But for a professional army, like the BEF and the U.S. Marines, .45 can make far more sense. It’s all context, but I personally would be in the 9mm/follow-up shots camp.
It was developed about 10 years too late to be "of the time" but 38 super is softer and flatter shooting and you can get two more rounds in the magazine.
Always glad to see the Steyr-Hahn get some love, it's very much top 5 imo (I'd say top 3, but the Webley ain't a bad pick). Also, I kind of wish the Star 1911s (specifically the Model B in 9mm) were around for WWI, because that would solve the issue of the cartridge.
If I couldn't have had a 1911 as a sidearm for WW1 I would have taken a Webley revolver all day every day. I haven't watched the C&R video but presumably they explicitly exluded revolvers?
I have both a WWI Webley revolver and a US Army M1917 WWI Smith & Wesson. The S&W is chambered in .45 ACP using full moon clips, and is little different from modern S&W revolvers. (The Smith will also accept .45 ACP without the full or half moon clips, but the clips amounted to a speed loader) I'd take it all day long over the Webley. It's a much better pistol.
@@vertigo4236 perhaps. Anecdotally it is frequently claimed that the Webley's reliability in the trenches was in fact superior to that of the various "automatic" pistols. I know not what the "real" truth of the matter was but I do know that it was highly regarded by those who carried them for raiding, wiring parties, tunneling etc. I think it's probably the last time the revolver was used in a war where it had not become obsolete.
Great video, I saw their video the other day, very interesting to see another perspective on this idea. I would like to see some other videos along this line. Keep up the good work 👍
I'd say the only things holding it back in terms of modern pistols are it's mag capacity and maybe it's weight. Other than that, it's a super slim gun. Thinner than a lot of modern guns. The grip angle, ergonomics and the way it feels to hold and shoot is still better than many modern guns. The trigger is still unmatched. Unless you step up to a double stack 1911 or a 2011, really the only things that hold the 1911 back are it's mag capacity and heft. Are they better than modern pistols? Nah, not really, but there's a reason so many companies still make them and they still sell like crazy. I agree with Ian. The 1911 isn't perfect, but it's still a really good gun even by modern standards.
I'm a Brit, so there is no American bias here, but I genuinely believe the 1911 is the greatest handgun ever made. Are there better guns now? Absolutely. But only because they're standing on the shoulders of a giant. The 1911 was a game-changer that, even after 100+ years, is still a useful and competitive gun.
Love it! I was sweating until the 1911 finally showed up! Maybe you can do a comparison with the Rubie and the 1903 Pocket Hammerless? My Pocket Hammerless .32, mfr in 1913, is dead nuts on @25 yds!
Thanks for throwing in the "ruby" I love the gun. I personally own maybe 25 or so different ones now. Just clean them up and they are reliable and somewhat accurate it's fun finding the oddball models I have a post war 5rnd engraved gold plated pocket one and a weird 12?rnd one.
A friend of my dad had a Luger made in 1939 that he brought out to the farm once. I got to shoot a mag out of it. I thought the sights sucked. Also, the thumb safety was pushed up to disengage. The one on that gun was kinda loose and after four rounds had drifted down enough to engage. Meaning I had to push it back up. Was that a common problem with the Luger?
Luger sights are on par with most handgun sights of the era. Check out an original 1911's sights; it makes the Luger sights seem excessive. I've shot a Luger in local IDPA matches and the method for quick, practical accuracy is to look for the spike of the front sight ABOVE the rear sight, and only use the rear notch for rough centering. Given the way the gun points, that works quite well at practical distances and is extremely fast. The Army version has less muzzle flip than the Navy, and certainly the Artillery; making a better combat handgun. The safety is awkward, and short of thumbing it down while in the holster (no thank you) I found that to be the chief handicap. Regarding the safety falling during recoil: the safety lever might have been bent and not engaging the detent properly, or the detent pin was exceptionally worn.
Nice video, however I have to take exception with the supposed kick that you get firing a 1911. Frankly I’ve been shooting one since I was 11, and I never really had issues with it. My Dad, who carried one when he was in the Air Corps in WW2, taught me how to properly grip it, and back in those days I was taught to fire the pistol one handed the same way be did. I have always loved shooting it !
Even Ian could not put a French pistol in his top 5. Though a lot of French pistols weren't actually French. . .oh he just mentioned the Ruby, there we go.
I do agree with Ian on the 1911 cartridge. In a time with little training and when .32acp was common, the average recruit would be surprised by .45acp. With no training and at a time of civilians mostly owning long guns, a high caliber pistol is a rough fit.
I am reserve soldier of Hellenic army. One thing people have to realise is that, for ground forces, pistols are extremely rare and you don 't even think of it as a soldier. It 's more considered as a finisher, when you capture a particular area and wanna clean up or take hostage whoever remains. It 's good to have one, because G-3 is pretty heavy (if you carry it for hours you will fill it heavy), for the case of engaging in a city. So I have to agree that a pistol, shouldn 't kick that much as the M1911, because they are not intended to be used for long distances rather some meters. If you have to fight in a building you want stand to a normal shooting position to control it with all your body. Nice video generally, I am watching this channel a lot of years, probably because in Hellas guns are not allowed for citizens unfortunately. Your videos get me into the spirit though, so thank you.
you are one typical hellenic tempeli malaka ! I had the G-3 as a service weapon too and it´s not heavy and even after carrying it for hours, it still is not heavy and no, it does not feel heavy. but i know, I know, as everything is about siga, siga with you lot, everything is/feels heavy. if you would be required to carry a wooden stick, you would still go on about complaining how heavy it is ! what you want is : roll call, breakfast, siesta until end of service hours, than leave the barracks for your favourite kafenion and rant on about how heavy your stuff is !!! another topic : how do you shoot IPSC matches in greece, when you can´t have a gun ?
I am so pleased to see the Webley getting some love. Going off my zero experience but having watched what there is to watch about it I got the feeling it was better than most of its competitors as these rankings show.
When my son was about ten, he had been shooting 22 caliber handguns for a while and wanted to shoot my ww2 1911. He was shooting at an 8” disc at about 15 yards. Hits the first 3 shots. Looks at me and says I just simply can’t miss. Then shoots the rest of the mag without missing. I believe that a 1911 is a great gun to put in the hands of someone with less experience and they will shoot it good.
Well, that’s because the 1911 IS the pistol. You ask someone to think of a handgun, whatever they think of now, it will be very close to the 1911. The amazing thing is to realize of all the arms ever issued in WW1, a war fought over 100 years ago, all of them would now be considered dreadfully obsolete … save one. The 1911. The 1911 set the course of pistol design for a century plus. The 1911 never went obsolete. It simply got replaced by other pistols that fit the thinking of the time (and I have to say I would prefer the Beretta’s 17 9mm rounds than 7 .45 ACP, I am definitely in the follow up shots camp). Yes, if you have big hands, the hammer will take a bite out of your hand if you let it. Yes, 7 rounds is, nowadays, a rather small amount for a modern pistol. But, the 1911 is the grandfather of every successful modern pistol. The 1911 has watched all its original compatriots, and even many of its children, buried while it goes on.
@@georgewhitworth9742 The M2 first went into production in 1933. Browning's M1917 saw limited service at the very end of WW1, but AEF mostly used the Hotchkiss M1914.
Hello,I really appreciate your passion and unbiased opinions. BUT. Sometimes hearing about the 1911 gets a little tiring. I realise that almost everything that JMB touched is something special to America. Maybe you can tell I'm English. I'm really pleased that you like the Webley. Also many guns from different countries. Even if they have a bad reputation. Keep doing what you're doing. It's really good stuff. Regards John Atkins Living in France.
The 7,63mm Mauser is very powerful. With adding the stock holster, you get a very accurate mini-carbine. This gun was loved by the Russians and by Winston Churchill…
@@methodeetrigueur1164 Russians loving something isn't a high praise... It's solid in the carbine form, but not a good pistol. And even in the carbine job a Navy or artillery luger is just as good and much better as a pistol.
@@petrimakela5978 « Russians loving something isn’t a high praise » : value judgment… Yes, the Lugers could do the job. But there were not enough. That’s why the Mauser C96 was issued to the German military…
Old cop opinion on the M1911A1 and the .45 ACP - When I began my police career, my Department had just changed over from the .38 Special to the .357 Magnum revolvers, both by Smith and Wesson. We were issued the Model 19 Smith and carried it with full .357 magnum rounds semi-jacketed hollow point rounds. We had the option of furnishing our own handguns but the Department would only issue .38 special wadcutters for practice and .357 Mag ammo for carry. After 6 months, I made enough to afford a M1911A1, and ordered a Interarms Silver Cup out of Shotgun News (buddy had an FFL) It was a parts kit from Interarms built on their own lower, mine had a Remington marked slide if memory serves. I carried the M1911A1 for years, and with various trades had several different guns but all the same model. I always shot better, I always trained with full power ammo and always outshot most of the other officers on the PD. When I retired, I had moved to an Astra A100 in .45 ACP, and still have that pistol. I always believed in the .45 and compared to a full blown .357 Mag the recoil is much lighter, the advantage to all single action added to my ability to shoot well, the fact that I was a handloader gave me a nearly unlimited supply of practice ammo, and as a gun collector I had many other firearms that I could and did practice with. While I owned many 9mm and did carry a few for some time in my career, I always went back to the 45 because, well the power and, after all this is America.
The best pistol from world war I was probably the 1911 because it's the only one that's still in mass production. But there are so many problems with that system especially at that time in terms of complexity. There's a hundred ways to judge what was the best. At the time, in retrospective, or judged by modern standards.
1911 was made 113 years ago, and are still seen and carried everyday. Considering nothing us on the table is in production (to my knowledge) you can see why it's #1.
Good presentation ..i agree totaly with the choice of those pistols ...but maybe a place toghether with the french ruby..had could mentioned for the first automatic beretta that was introduced during WW1in Italy
@@Armored_Muskrat Yeah, ok, guess that is fair. I wasn't really role playing so to speak. But yeah, if you are talking about actually using it in a trench, sure, i can go with that. And, have to say, I don't disagree at all, i would probably pick the Luger, even without the mud tests. I just like it a hell of a lot more. But my point was that mud tests are not the be all and end all. (but yeah, if we are strictly talking about trenches, it probably is a good indication)
The Best Pistol of WWI was the New Century Smith and Wesson, with the 1911 a bit behind it. Then the Smith and Wesson 1917. The only 2 WWI guns in production to this day are the 1911 and the Smith Revolver. They stood the test of time. I put the revolver first because it has no failure drill, a bad primer will stop it for less than 1/3 of a second. The widespread adoption of sub 45 pistols requires the mag capacities of our day, because FMJ 9mm is not going to solve your problems soon enough to help you out. One shot recoil is not bad with a 45, and putting it back on target is not nearly as important as with the underperforming rounds.
There really isn't that much of a difference between the damage of a .45 and a 9mm fired from a pistol. Unless you're shooting at a drug addict or someone with body armour, if you hit your enemy in the chest or head, they're going down either way. 0.45cal also takes more time for follow up shots and is less accurate. It's a great cartridge for SMGs, but imo people severly overestimate it's usefulness in pistols. The only reason the 1911 is still in production is because it's severly romanticised by americans. As far as actual usefulness goes, it was overtaken by the browning high power in 1935, and then made fully obselete by the new generation of "wonder nines". I would also definitely not put a revolver above any of the good and reliable semi-auto pistols of ww1. 6 rounds just isn't enough, and loading it takes way too long, especially if you don't have speedloaders. Follow up shots also take much longer, unless you use it in double-action, at which point the heavy trigger really messes with accuracy. There's a reason no millitary in the world uses revolvers anymore outside of ceremonies.
Interesting video. I attended a collectors shoot once and I noted not one P08 emptied a magazine without a jam. Every 1911 fired without a jam. Maybe I'm not entirely normal because I don't have an issue with the recoil at all and frankly find 9mmP pistols a bit whippy...
The 1911 is the only firearm on the list that is still serving in a combat role today. The 1911 is also the only pistol on the list which competitive shooters are still choosing to use today.
Ian mentioning the Ruby and not mentioning the C96 cause they would rofl-stomp the competition. Tthe Mars automatic would be quite the lopsided winner if it ever was produced more than a handful of. Great video, Ian :)
My personal opinion is most modern shooters, dont fully appreciate how new semiautomatic firearms were in WW1. From a generation perspective a soldier in the great war dad would have had an 1873 single action army. Smikless powder was invented after some of the higer ranking officers and NCOs were born. To put another way we tend to think technology advances very quickly, but fail to realize the cell phone was invented 50 years ago. Just my opinion when someone says 45 dont recoil that bad.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I would love to see some more content like this on occasion. Even if it's a little less academic than what the channel usually is.
Absolutely. WW1 was wild.
I like when he mirrors or works with c&r. it really blends well with a near contrary perspective to mae, and a more practical view than othias
Agreed. Sometimes, you want academic history lessons, and sometimes you want friend simulator casual funtime content.
I’d love to see more of this. I think Ian knows his stuff so well that breaking down what he thinks of various arms, in a top 5-10 format, would be extremely interesting and worthwhile to watch. And I will be there to cry foul the second he picks some other handgun over the 1911 😂
@@Shadow962775
I like the way you put it :)
6:45 Man that Webley pistol sure had some flex to it. I'm sure it was a very practical and useful firearm. Heck it looks like it was light as paper.
fully modular too , you cann add what ever you want to it with sccisors and transparent tape
@@NikoMoraKamu man those manufacturing costs must be low also. Surprised more people didn’t invest into this thing!
I think the poor showing in the overheating & saltwater immersion tests really hampered it.
@@jameshealy4594 ya but the conceal carry advantages are just beyond compare. Heck you can just slip it into your jacket or pants pocket and no one would know!
@@robosoldier11 the metal mafia mate , they control the gun bussines
The Colt 1911 and Luger are pretty much the obvious 1 and 2, but I do like seeing the more obscure arms. You almost never see people talk about the Austro-Hungarian arms.
To @johnsanko3146. Nice comment and I think very fair
Folk today, (probably most are less than fully captivated by european political history) don't seem to appreciate just HOW BIG a part of pre WW1 europe that sprawling empire was. It often provided monarchs or spouses to many of the other royal houses. Its banking sector was amazingly strong (also ancient - thinking medieval Fugger family whose representative image still feature on euro currency). They also held the Ottoman at bay, which the moderns seem incapable of doing. In short the vanished empire was in its day an absolute powerhouse.
Disclaimer, I'm from another jurisdiction
Well to be fair, Austro-Hungary didn't last particularly long after the invention of smokeless powder.
@@wraithwyvern528 Lovely name.
However you must agree that they had been there a very long time and i don't think the demise was really much to do with propellants.
@@wraithwyvern528but many of the weapons they build did. The m95 was a serious contender to the mausers, and it's operating system continued to be used way after the empire dissolved
Ditto, I love the Steyr Krinka Manlincher :) such a great gat.
But seriously, there's something about those pistols. They're in your face yet subtle in detail.
I agree with you on the Ruby as the "badge of office" pistol for people who are highly unlikely to see combat, and who will probably only fire it once on the range just after it's issued. If they ever do have to use it, the light recoil and general ease of use will be helpful.
Didn't the French buy over 700,000 of them? I suspect they were used more often than you said. 🤷🏻♂️
@Ni999 700,000 is a lot of pistols but the range they are used at would be under 50 yards. They are an emergency backup weapon and used far less than rifles.
13:21 Sergiusz Piasecki also appreciated it for its ease of shooting, but emphasized that it was difficult to find a well-made one. The guy was actually a professional assassin at one point, so he probably knew something about guns.
@@seriousmaran9414 From the U.S. Army’s Manual of the Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, Model of 1911,” published in Nancy, France during February of 1918 -
_"For the average man, 25 yards may be taken as the maximum range at which the pistol should be fired. To fire at longer ranges will usually result in no casualties for the enemy but only an empty pistol at the crucial moment. This does not apply to a very small percentage of expert shots, but a man should be quite sure that he can be classed as such before violating the general rule.”_
Thanks for explaining to me what the entire world has seemed to understand since the invention of the pistol. 👍
And don't forget -
_"Too much stress cannot be laid on the fact the pistol is an emergency weapon. The man who wants a stock on his pistol so that he can shoot it at a distance of several hundred yards has no understanding of the function of the arm. It is solely for the personal protection of the bearer when the enemy is within very short range and there is no possibility of accomplishing more with the other weapons with which the soldier may happen to be armed."_
_“The member of an automatic rifle or machine gun squad who stops serving his rifle or machine gun to indulge in pistol practice at the enemy is wholly without a proper sense of his duty to his comrades. At the same time the stupid man who does not use his pistol when the enemy is on top of him and his gun is jammed or it is no longer possible to use it profitably, deserves no better fate than that which he will probably get, that is, immediate death."_
@@seriousmaran9414 World War I also involved fighting in trenches, and a long rifle that you had to manually reload after each shot was not very convenient in these circumstances. So suddenly everyone wanted a lot of one-hand guns. Besides, I suppose that even in a more open area, during an assault, I would prefer such a pistol. Funny, there's a movie on TV right now (it's about 1920, but a close period) where a group of soldiers are running through the forest with long guns in the fog and it looks like they're having a big problem. Such weapons are weak at short range. If an average guy shoots a rifle from that time, it takes a few seconds to get back to normal, such is the shock of the recoil. In the case of the pistol... I have seen that even a teenage girl without training can shoot a 9x19 without any problems, maybe not super accurate, but without any problems, which is important at short distances. So yes, you're right that rifles were used more intensively for shooting... somewhere towards the enemy... But when the threat was close, a pistol like this was cool.
Of all my WWI sidearms, my ruby is my favorite - when I field strip it and see the various file and tool marks, the un-centered-ness of the grip screw slots, and just the overall crudeness of it, I’m shocked that it works at all. Yet, firing PPU .32 acp, it has never failed me. It’s reasonably accurate, soft-shooting, simple to maintain, and, for me at least, surprisingly ergonomic. Possibly my favorite handgun of all time…
A Ruby is one of those pistols you can legitimately claim as one of a kind because they all have a little difference between every single one. The guy assembling it might have been in a good mood or not it shows. The gambit runs from legitimately dodgy to safe to shoot,some are beautifully finished and some look like a monkey beat it into submission 😂
I have two Webley Self-Loading Pistol Mk. 1 both in .455 Webley Automatic. I learned to reload ammunition starting with this cartridge. This made reloading an even bigger challenge, but I eventually made rounds that functioned perfectly in the pistol. Much later I had a mould made to approximate the original bullet once I learned to cast bullets (about 10 years later).
I still own the Webley mk VI my grandfather carried in WW1. 25th Batt. CEF.
What an heirloom, I hope Trudeau lets you keep it.
Cool
Was he an Officer, or a gunner or something?
Glad to see the shout out to my other favorite channel. C&RSENAL is criminally underrated imo.
It would be good to have you and Bloke on the range talk about the UK's failure to move to an automatic before WWII.
That seems to have a very short answer though. Not enough of their defence budget went to the army, because the sea was their best defensive fortification
@thorodinson3597 and the Army was happy with SMLE/No.4 and felt the LMGs were where the changes needed to be. (Rightly or wrongly)
And besides, the old service revolver with a tether cord around your neck….so iconic!
revolvers in ww2 weren't that bad though and they had a bazillion ww1 revolvers kicking around
If you mean a pistol, then I'd say that was almost certainly seen as an utterly unnecessary luxury we just didn't have the spare budget for and didn't particularly need (To this day primary and support weapons are FAR more important than sidearms, so they weren't entirely wrong). If you mean a semi-auto rifle, then I'd suggest it was probably the lack of spare budget combined with the resistance of the doddering old guard who are always stuck fighting the last war (Who also insisted we stay with rimmed .303), the lack of good options, and far higher priorities.
We were still very much in empire mode unfortunately, which meant that the Royal Navy got priority because it was our wall as well as the glue that held it all together, and all the small arms we used HAD to work in almost every unpleasant climate, and given that bolt actions and revolvers struggle to go wrong in that regard, good luck convincing the entrenched, grumbling, interwar old guard of the need to move away from them in a time before certain, more forward thinking armies started using these things against us.
I'd like to see a top 5 for an inexperienced shooter. I think that would favor the smaller cartridges and less complex firearms. As my FLETC firearm instructor said countless times, the first most accurate round wins. In a military application most people evaluating potential service weapons don't have the inexperience to appreciate that. Another evaluation point in that case would be ease of maintenance in the field.
top5 for „average recruit“ would be interesting.
@@AgiHammerthief I think 'inexperienced shooter' and 'average recruit' is pretty much the same thing in this context
The British actually embraced this line of logic postwar with their adoption of the No.2 in 38/200 as a replacement for revolvers in 455. It turns out the Webley had enough recoil that it made it less effective in the hands of inexperienced shooters.
Excellent suggestion that I really haven't considered. I would enjoy a video on this topic.
@@rantanen1Not necessarily true. The average US Army recruit in WWI and WWII was very familiar with firearms and shooting as their was such a high percentage of them came from farms and rural living where firearms usage was commen. Not until the Vietnam war was the average US recruit unfamiliar with firearms.
I think the c96 mauser should go on this list. Great gun for the time.
In watching both videod, I find it odd that neither mention the most singificant action of the Great War period where a pistol was the featured weapon: 26 April 1916- The Battle of Mount Street Bridge. The execution visited upon two battalions of the Sherwood Foresters (27 and 2/8) by Lieut. Michael Malone by his C96 (with and without the holster stock) from his position in 25 Northumberland Road was horrific. His first clip...10 rounds, 10 hits and shattered the column vanguard. The for the house lasted almost 6 hours. Malone's C96 is a permanent exhibit at the National Museum of Ireland at Collins Barracks, Dublin. RTE recreated the Battle of Mount Street Bridge on its 1966 Miniseries "Insurrection"...Episode 4.
Assuming that the list is confined to handguns that were issued by governments to their armed forces, the C96 may be excluded simply in the grounds that it was vanishingly rare. Only a couple hundred thousand of them were issued between the German and Austrian armies--which sounds like a lot, but is little more than a rounding error when you consider that the Germans alone started the war with nearly four million men under arms.
I agree with your comment about the importance of experience with the 1911. I shot competitively (Navy) with an "accurized" 1911 A1, and fairly quickly became quite competent. I had heard all the stories about how hard that pistol was to control, but found that a bit of experience showed the scuttlebutt to be untrue. In 3+ years of competition with ball ammo (required) there were zero malfunctions of my pistol; there is no substitute for reliability in perilous circumstances.
The Luger is iconic even people who know squat about handguns recognize the Luger
My PPK/S gets the same level of recognition though - "Oh, a James Bond gun!" 🤣
The best part is that they made a LOAD of them too, so it's iconic, exotic, AND you can find shooters easy enough without spending too much money at all. My nephew got into gun shows a few years back and ended up getting a good deal on one(luckily it was either 'original enough' or had the right 'mismatch recipe' to be a good functioning gun lol; shout out to early mass production). Well used, in OK shape, not 'numbers matching', not significant in any way - and she shot great! Lived up to the hype TBH.
Everyone needs to go buy a cheap Luger!
That's more from its WWII usage and subsequent appearance in WWII movies than WWI, though.
In Germany also known as "Zimmerflak".
@@thomashoppe893
'Room flak" ?
Guns from this era are pure art!
Good, I was mildly upset about the ranking of the beretta 1915 and Nambu while the Roth Krnka missed the list with C&Rsenal, at least gun Jesus appreciates my favorite austro hungarian pistol
I left out the Beretta because it's blowback, but that's the one or their picks that I haven't had a chance to fire...
@@ForgottenWeaponsdo you think it would be substantially different from a modern Beretta? At least outwardly they resemble eachother.
The 1915 is really a pretty handy .380. So I guess Luger owb, 1915 iwb is my choice lol
where is the mauser
@@rustycann6887 A couple of points: 1) The Mauser Broomhandle was not officially adopted by any of the countries involved in WWI (I think) and 2) The Mauser has ergonomic problems as a handgun. It's more of a PDW, much like the Artillery Luger. With shoulder stock attached it's a great trench raid weapon, but it's kinda terrible as an everyday carry pistol.
As an owner of a 1911 & Luger, yes they are indeed the kings of WWI handguns. I would put the one of the early model Nambu pistols in my top 5 personally, maybe even in spot #3. They had some issues, but they were mostly minor, and were very reliable compared to other contemporary pistols.
Also if we're doing blowback handgun honorable mentions, I nominate the Mauser Model 1914 as mine!
Love the Ruby shout out. Mine has quite easily become one of my favorites of my 32 acp collection, although I appreciate the look and manufacturing quality of the Colt Model M a little more. The Ruby is just so easy and pleasant to shoot. Heavy for caliber but yet still pretty well balanced in the hand, little to no recoil / muzzle flip, 9 rounds, and I've had little to no malfunctions, even shooting from a mix of various original magazines and some later repros.
I might be wrong, but weren't a lot of the Spanish manufactured Ruby's of relatively poorly quality, as well as the gun being a bit underpowered.
@@Joshua-fi4jiI suspect that the lower quality ones are long gone, having failed early or with low round counts. Many of the ones I've seen that are still around today seem to be decent quality. And yes, 32 ACP is underpowered by almost any measure today.
Much respect for giving the Ruby some love. I’ve collected a few of them and they may be my favorite ww1 self loader just because of the unique history behind them. Thanks for that Ian
FW and C&Rsenal have done the back & forth before and I love it every time it happens.
I'd love to see a followup with the pocket pistols of WW1, there are some very fun little pieces there.
Then Ian can run a WW1 Bug match.
Yes! A top 5 small pistol list.
I liked this version...and opinions will vary. As mentioned below. EDC for the common man - the Ruby. Trench fighting for my life - 1911 and a lot of spare mags
Stripper clip loading in combat conditions worries me because lining it up is a more fine-motor task, but I have to think that if the Steyr-Hahn is as good as they think, I tend to agree that, in theory, the Roth-Krnka can't be far behind.
Well, consider how the vast majority of rifles were loaded at the time. It is more of a fine motor skill, but very much a standard practice for the vast majority of people serving.
Sidearms for most were for dealing with immediate threat and then get out of dodge. If an officer is engaged in cqb, something has gone horribly wrong.
@@JD-tn5lz Exactly. If you were up against a dozen guys with any of those pistols you were probably done for anyway.
I might have missed something here but.
If the Steyer hahn was a further development of the Krnka pistol and the Krnka pistol was designed for the cavalry, then perhaps it was not intended to be a backup weapon for infantry or a trench raid weapon but an offensive fighting weapon for the cavalry.
As such you could expect to reload it many times during combat and stripper clip reloading might make a bit more sense maybe?
Chap from Bloke on the Range has some Ruby based content that is interesting and worth a look at for further background to Ian’s point.
Completely agree on the 'not well trained' aspect.
Career sailor, often issued a handgun for specific watch stations, without any serious training. Now, I *am,* and was, well-trained *BUT* that was not in connection with the watch station requirements. Had I NOT been well trained, I'd have still been issued the firearm. Minimum qualification standards were, and I believe still are, shockingly low.
I'd LOVE to see a series of videos on the effectiveness of historical military handgun training programs and techniques.
That sounds like an excellent idea
This was an awesome video! And could be a great series, like top 5 rifles, machines guns and so on, and even with WW2.
I really enjoyed this Ian, very interesting. After watching c&rsenal and comparing their list. I agree with yours over there's. I will say, I learned about the designation of all three branch Lugers and the Nambu was an interesting choice.
The Webley pistol I first saw in a movie about the British in India in 1920 called Rise, Roar, Revolt.
Excellent video, both views! Love both channels, and the reviews. I cannot say either review/choice is wrong on the opinions given, as the subject matter is so vast and the age of the weapons gives ones views the ability to be skewed by so many ways.
Solid choices and good reasoning behind all of your decisions for a top 5 pistols in WW1
I like it when you and C&Rsenal collaborate. How about a revolvers of WW1 top 5?
13:11 Me: “Ian, want some bread?” Ian: “Nah, I’m full.” Me: “It’s French bread.” Ian: “Sure, two please!”
I agree on the 1 and 2 but I don't know much about the others so I will defer to your expertise. My personal opinion I think the modern 1911 in 9mm is a much better choice, and also, having too much ammo is like having too much money- impossible!
This is a great, and well reasoned, video (I'm about to watch the C&Rsenal one)! There are a few points regarding the majority of WWI combat that many people don't take into account when formulating opinions on this subject. Important examples among them would be that the person firing their pistol/revolver would almost always be doing so one-handed because they were holding something in their other hand [the lock of their abandoned MG, a marching compass, a roll of signal wire, a flare pistol, etc. or, in an enemy trench, their primary weapon for the task at hand: a grenade or a trench club]; additionally, at pistol engagement range, trench warfare is confined yet almost completely three-dimensional [the enemy can appear from above, below, left, right, to your front or rear in very quick succession and you may not be able to change your stance to engage it].
I'm not going to pretend that I could pick a good pistol to use in WW, however, my criteria would definitely include 'easy to shoot one-handed', 'instinctive to point when used on targets not to my front', 'reliably incapacitates an enemy at 10-12 yards', and 'light and compact enough that it doesn't get in the way of doing my primary job'.
This is a really good video, and I hope you'll go back to this style of content more frequently. Modern stuff is cool and all, but at the end of the day there's other people covering that stuff, and videos like this are why I come to FW.
I love that you've explicitly said what assumptions you are making in terms of criteria. Thanks Ian.
Absolutely love this format, more please 👍👍👍
Great video. Love the boxes hiding the options but in plain sight the whole time so we know what’s coming. The best part about this video by far would have to be your number 1 placement. Much agree
Next vid: top five pistols of elbonia
Just every Schwarzlose ever made, in chronological order.
@@ForgottenWeapons Ahem. Model 1950, a copy of the Dreyse 9x19 blowback, still in use with National Territorial Guard.
@@ForgottenWeapons And a Mannlicher, except it is a sketchy knock off named Manlicker.
A seven times out of ten chance the gun blows up and "Licks" the man using it.
@@ForgottenWeaponsNo Borchardt?
@@ForgottenWeapons I heard they intended to use the Webley Mars, but noone would sell it to them, and no ammo is available for it
One of my favorite videos of yours. Well done.
Glad to see Steyr and Steyr Hahn on the list. I always thought them decent but sadly overlooked.
It's my personal favourite pistol of the era. :D
@@BleedingUraniumtokyo marui better make an airsoft version
@@danlomanalo4161 I wish we had more older/interesting airsoft designs out there, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
@@BleedingUranium same here bud
@@BleedingUranium howdy, which airsoft company has the highest chance of making vintage guns? (like the airsoft hahn and other interesting guns)
I came into possession of a Ruby around the time this video released, and I agree it is a very easy shooter. It's an incredibly simple firearm, very easy to shoot, and unlike many other .32s it fits my somewhat large hands very well. The weight is nice, the sights are nice, and as a result of it's simplicity keeping it running smoothly after 109 years (Mine was manufactured in 1915) is much easier than expected. When I took it to the range to do some light endurance tests it ate an entire box of Fiocchi 71gr ammo without a single malfunction, no jamming, partial ejections, nothing. I think the reputation of the ruby being a cheap, prone to failure firearm is greatly overexaggerated as a result of some shoddier copies made by smaller firms during the war (The majority manufactured by Gabilondo y Urresti are generally all fine). The exterior is clearly hand made with things like visible filings or inconsistent placement of the grip screws, but the barrel is usually of quite solid make.
Good list. I could only rate the ones I have used IRL;
1. P.08
2. 1911
3. FN 1903
4. Mauser C96
5. It is technically disqualified but it is nice, FN 1900.
As much as I love the C96, it can't really compete.
Stripped clip loaded, not very safe, and with older sights.
It's not a bad gun, nor unreliable, but there are better options.
I agree with your list, i dont know why the FN 1900 would be disqualified though
@@sinclair1392 no it's just that it has an unlocked breech and a weak caliber, thus not fulfilling Ian's criteria.
Interesting.. good explanations regarding the few differences between your picks and C@Rsenal’s picks..
This was very well done, as was C&Rsenals, which I loved. And 10 is not too many, would have very much enjoyed seeing your 6-10 choices. But now we need from Jonathon at Royal Armouries, Rob at British Muzzle Loaders and Bloke on the Range to all do their lists please. And maybe 9 Hole Reviews too. And it would be extra cool if Mark Novak would throw his well thought out opinion in too.
Didn't Johnathon leave that channel?
@@jagx234 as of 4 days ago he was still putting out content on their site.
@ForgottenWeapons very kind of you to not spoil the list and refer to C&R for their video 👍👍
I was wondering just how Ian would shoehorn Ruby in the list - and Ian did not disappoint
Canada did issue about 5000 1911s in .455 Webley auto. They used to showed up at auctions before the freeze with the original barrel and all.
All physical effects? No CGI! *About time!*
My First Sergeant was expert with the 1911 and talked of regularly of the quality of the flat trajectory of the 45ACP cartridge at pistol ranges...
Just a side note .......I ordered Ian's book on WW2 U.S. weapons on November 27th and it arrived at my door on December 2nd.......WHY DID IT TAKE SOOOOO LONG? Oh yeah, it's an outstanding read! I'm already looking forward to his next book.....Japanese? German?
I hope he does the book on German small arms next in the series.
Lucky you - I preordered mine months ago and still haven't even received a shipping notice. Edit: while I did indeed preorder my copy back in May, I see I opted for the signed copy. That could explain some further delay, as the books themselves have only recently arrived at the warehouse.
5 day shipping isnt long at all
Oh no, 5 days! I'm still waiting on some shoes to *ship* to me for over a month now.
I was waiting for the Ruby. I'm glad you mentioned it
I came here to see anything but the 1911, but I gotta admit that it was far ahead of anything else at the time and the fact that it is still relevant today over 100 years later is insane.
The FN 1903, Mk IV revolver and the C96 are way cooler though. If I was fighting in WW1 I would snatch a C96 off a body the first chance I got.
Yeah, as a being back It'd be sweet
"relevant" The 1911 was a good pistol, but it's been overtaken by so many different pistols by now that it hasn't been relevant in over 40 years.
@@jojomaster7675Tell that to USPSA and IDPA competitors.
Interesting point about the 1911 and "learning to shoot it'. Sergeant York seemed to have the ides.
A point with the Webley: Semi-rimmed cartridges are not much of an issue with a well-designed (and made) magazine.
.38 Super packs quite a wallop downrange, but is somewhere between 9mm Para and .45 ACP for "shootability". Hence the popularity of .38 Super on "Race-Guns". Major power factor and more rounds in the mag than .45. This really became obvious when Para Ordnance introduced the double-stack frame a few decades ago.
Ergonomically, the 1911 is the best thought-out of the bunch. The Luger wins the "aesthetics" points.
If we include revolvers, the Colt and S&W revolvers set up for .45ACP in "half-moon" clips are worth considering.
I do miss the Mauser C96 on the list. Think its more important then the Webley and the Austrian ones.
I enjoyed the video. I agree with your top 2. 14:32 I like to shoot them both. I have shot a ruby as well. I have no experience with 3-5. I was surprised to see the 1896 Mauser, while certainly obsolete it was widely used through WW2.
Cool list! Really like your choices, and 1 and 2 are set in stone. Im curious: what cartridge from the time in the USA should the 1911 have been chambered in?
How about 9mm Parabellum? Still used today, widely.
@WilliamSanderson-zh9dq I wasn't saying 45acp is a bad caliber. I have 1911s in 45acp, both regular and high capacity models. I was asking him for his opinion for his period recommendation since he stated 45acp was too powerful for average shooters to shoot well.
@@stevendebettencourt7651they said at the time in the USA, 9mm isn't an option. Almost every country that designed their own handguns used a proprietary cartridge.
@@kennetic9196 Yes, and I will concede that .45 ACP is still a popular round today. I would say Ian’s thoughts about the 1911 being too much power may be correct in terms of the big Imperial, universal conscription armies at the time, as a lot of them may not be ready to handle .45, especially one-handed (remember, no two-handed pistol ideas at that time). But for a professional army, like the BEF and the U.S. Marines, .45 can make far more sense. It’s all context, but I personally would be in the 9mm/follow-up shots camp.
It was developed about 10 years too late to be "of the time" but 38 super is softer and flatter shooting and you can get two more rounds in the magazine.
Always glad to see the Steyr-Hahn get some love, it's very much top 5 imo (I'd say top 3, but the Webley ain't a bad pick). Also, I kind of wish the Star 1911s (specifically the Model B in 9mm) were around for WWI, because that would solve the issue of the cartridge.
1911,Luger and Mauser C 96 …top 3 for me
I think you got it right, except for the Webley Mark VI, I think that deserved a spot. Other than that, pretty much spot on! Thanks for the video!
The lists are automatic pistols only. Revolver list will come later.
@@ES90344 ah yes, I forgot, get it haha, thanks for the correction
If I couldn't have had a 1911 as a sidearm for WW1 I would have taken a Webley revolver all day every day. I haven't watched the C&R video but presumably they explicitly exluded revolvers?
Revolver are bad in mud. Too many ingress places.
They did exclude revolvers. They’ll make a to 10 wheel guns video some day, I’m sure.
I have both a WWI Webley revolver and a US Army M1917 WWI Smith & Wesson. The S&W is chambered in .45 ACP using full moon clips, and is little different from modern S&W revolvers. (The Smith will also accept .45 ACP without the full or half moon clips, but the clips amounted to a speed loader) I'd take it all day long over the Webley. It's a much better pistol.
@@vertigo4236 perhaps. Anecdotally it is frequently claimed that the Webley's reliability in the trenches was in fact superior to that of the various "automatic" pistols. I know not what the "real" truth of the matter was but I do know that it was highly regarded by those who carried them for raiding, wiring parties, tunneling etc. I think it's probably the last time the revolver was used in a war where it had not become obsolete.
Love your Video as always Ian. I like your choices. The only thing I would change would be the honorable mention. I would chose the Walther Model 4.
I’d love to see a similar list incorporating 32s, given how common they were.
Give them long enough, and I’m sure C&Rsenal will make one. I’ll be waiting….
@@Lomi311same, see you in 2-3 years when it comes out lol
Great video, I saw their video the other day, very interesting to see another perspective on this idea. I would like to see some other videos along this line.
Keep up the good work 👍
The 1911 was definitely the king of it's era. Not even close to perfect, especially by today's standards, but absolutely awesome when it was adopted.
I'd say the only things holding it back in terms of modern pistols are it's mag capacity and maybe it's weight. Other than that, it's a super slim gun. Thinner than a lot of modern guns. The grip angle, ergonomics and the way it feels to hold and shoot is still better than many modern guns. The trigger is still unmatched. Unless you step up to a double stack 1911 or a 2011, really the only things that hold the 1911 back are it's mag capacity and heft. Are they better than modern pistols? Nah, not really, but there's a reason so many companies still make them and they still sell like crazy. I agree with Ian. The 1911 isn't perfect, but it's still a really good gun even by modern standards.
I'm a Brit, so there is no American bias here, but I genuinely believe the 1911 is the greatest handgun ever made.
Are there better guns now? Absolutely. But only because they're standing on the shoulders of a giant.
The 1911 was a game-changer that, even after 100+ years, is still a useful and competitive gun.
Love it! I was sweating until the 1911 finally showed up! Maybe you can do a comparison with the Rubie and the 1903 Pocket Hammerless?
My Pocket Hammerless .32, mfr in 1913, is dead nuts on @25 yds!
Nobody needs to see parents argue 🥺
0:15 forgotten Weapons, the Christopher Nolan of gunchannels
"Top 5 artillery pieces of WW1" but you reveal them by firing them.
Same thing but "Top 2 nuclear weapons of WW2."
Thanks for throwing in the "ruby" I love the gun. I personally own maybe 25 or so different ones now. Just clean them up and they are reliable and somewhat accurate it's fun finding the oddball models I have a post war 5rnd engraved gold plated pocket one and a weird 12?rnd one.
A friend of my dad had a Luger made in 1939 that he brought out to the farm once. I got to shoot a mag out of it. I thought the sights sucked. Also, the thumb safety was pushed up to disengage. The one on that gun was kinda loose and after four rounds had drifted down enough to engage. Meaning I had to push it back up. Was that a common problem with the Luger?
Well it is if it's 60 yrs old and poorly maintained
@@Theanimeisforme Must’ve been before he got it then.
Luger sights do suck, and the ergos aren't that good.
Luger sights are on par with most handgun sights of the era. Check out an original 1911's sights; it makes the Luger sights seem excessive. I've shot a Luger in local IDPA matches and the method for quick, practical accuracy is to look for the spike of the front sight ABOVE the rear sight, and only use the rear notch for rough centering. Given the way the gun points, that works quite well at practical distances and is extremely fast. The Army version has less muzzle flip than the Navy, and certainly the Artillery; making a better combat handgun. The safety is awkward, and short of thumbing it down while in the holster (no thank you) I found that to be the chief handicap.
Regarding the safety falling during recoil: the safety lever might have been bent and not engaging the detent properly, or the detent pin was exceptionally worn.
Nice video, however I have to take exception with the supposed kick that you get firing a 1911. Frankly I’ve been shooting one since I was 11, and I never really had issues with it. My Dad, who carried one when he was in the Air Corps in WW2, taught me how to properly grip it, and back in those days I was taught to fire the pistol one handed the same way be did. I have always loved shooting it !
Even Ian could not put a French pistol in his top 5. Though a lot of French pistols weren't actually French. . .oh he just mentioned the Ruby, there we go.
His head couldn't let it in, but his heart had to say *something*...
I really like this style of video. A bit more casual! Love it.
Ian has not done a mach with a Luger, because it is a too sensible choice!
I do agree with Ian on the 1911 cartridge. In a time with little training and when .32acp was common, the average recruit would be surprised by .45acp. With no training and at a time of civilians mostly owning long guns, a high caliber pistol is a rough fit.
I am reserve soldier of Hellenic army. One thing people have to realise is that, for ground forces, pistols are extremely rare and you don 't even think of it as a soldier. It 's more considered as a finisher, when you capture a particular area and wanna clean up or take hostage whoever remains. It 's good to have one, because G-3 is pretty heavy (if you carry it for hours you will fill it heavy), for the case of engaging in a city. So I have to agree that a pistol, shouldn 't kick that much as the M1911, because they are not intended to be used for long distances rather some meters. If you have to fight in a building you want stand to a normal shooting position to control it with all your body. Nice video generally, I am watching this channel a lot of years, probably because in Hellas guns are not allowed for citizens unfortunately. Your videos get me into the spirit though, so thank you.
you are one typical hellenic tempeli malaka !
I had the G-3 as a service weapon too and it´s not heavy and even after carrying it for hours, it still is not heavy and no, it does not feel heavy.
but i know, I know, as everything is about siga, siga with you lot, everything is/feels heavy.
if you would be required to carry a wooden stick, you would still go on about complaining how heavy it is !
what you want is : roll call, breakfast, siesta until end of service hours, than leave the barracks for your favourite kafenion and rant on about how heavy your stuff is !!!
another topic : how do you shoot IPSC matches in greece, when you can´t have a gun ?
I am so pleased to see the Webley getting some love.
Going off my zero experience but having watched what there is to watch about it I got the feeling it was better than most of its competitors as these rankings show.
The Luger's magazine release sticks out a bit there, spoiling its spot.
When my son was about ten, he had been shooting 22 caliber handguns for a while and wanted to shoot my ww2 1911. He was shooting at an 8” disc at about 15 yards. Hits the first 3 shots. Looks at me and says I just simply can’t miss. Then shoots the rest of the mag without missing. I believe that a 1911 is a great gun to put in the hands of someone with less experience and they will shoot it good.
Well, that’s because the 1911 IS the pistol. You ask someone to think of a handgun, whatever they think of now, it will be very close to the 1911.
The amazing thing is to realize of all the arms ever issued in WW1, a war fought over 100 years ago, all of them would now be considered dreadfully obsolete … save one. The 1911. The 1911 set the course of pistol design for a century plus.
The 1911 never went obsolete. It simply got replaced by other pistols that fit the thinking of the time (and I have to say I would prefer the Beretta’s 17 9mm rounds than 7 .45 ACP, I am definitely in the follow up shots camp). Yes, if you have big hands, the hammer will take a bite out of your hand if you let it. Yes, 7 rounds is, nowadays, a rather small amount for a modern pistol. But, the 1911 is the grandfather of every successful modern pistol. The 1911 has watched all its original compatriots, and even many of its children, buried while it goes on.
@@stevendebettencourt7651*looks at the M2 Browning*....
@@georgewhitworth9742 The M2 first went into production in 1933. Browning's M1917 saw limited service at the very end of WW1, but AEF mostly used the Hotchkiss M1914.
Hello,I really appreciate your passion and unbiased opinions. BUT. Sometimes hearing about the 1911 gets a little tiring. I realise that almost everything that JMB touched is something special to America. Maybe you can tell I'm English. I'm really pleased that you like the Webley. Also many guns from different countries. Even if they have a bad reputation. Keep doing what you're
doing. It's really good stuff.
Regards John Atkins Living in France.
Why no Mauser C96 ?
Roth Steyr M1907 is a very underrated pistol ! Thanks for joining the Ruby (Spanish pistol but used by the French).
C96 is heavy, bulky, ultra high boreaxis and in general a pain in the ass t
The 7,63mm Mauser is very powerful. With adding the stock holster, you get a very accurate mini-carbine. This gun was loved by the Russians and by Winston Churchill…
@@methodeetrigueur1164 Russians loving something isn't a high praise... It's solid in the carbine form, but not a good pistol. And even in the carbine job a Navy or artillery luger is just as good and much better as a pistol.
@@petrimakela5978 « Russians loving something isn’t a high praise » : value judgment…
Yes, the Lugers could do the job. But there were not enough. That’s why the Mauser C96 was issued to the German military…
@@methodeetrigueur1164very powerful compared to what? 9mm? Not really, they're damn near identical.
Old cop opinion on the M1911A1 and the .45 ACP - When I began my police career, my Department had just changed over from the .38 Special to the .357 Magnum revolvers, both by Smith and Wesson. We were issued the Model 19 Smith and carried it with full .357 magnum rounds semi-jacketed hollow point rounds. We had the option of furnishing our own handguns but the Department would only issue .38 special wadcutters for practice and .357 Mag ammo for carry. After 6 months, I made enough to afford a M1911A1, and ordered a Interarms Silver Cup out of Shotgun News (buddy had an FFL) It was a parts kit from Interarms built on their own lower, mine had a Remington marked slide if memory serves. I carried the M1911A1 for years, and with various trades had several different guns but all the same model. I always shot better, I always trained with full power ammo and always outshot most of the other officers on the PD. When I retired, I had moved to an Astra A100 in .45 ACP, and still have that pistol. I always believed in the .45 and compared to a full blown .357 Mag the recoil is much lighter, the advantage to all single action added to my ability to shoot well, the fact that I was a handloader gave me a nearly unlimited supply of practice ammo, and as a gun collector I had many other firearms that I could and did practice with. While I owned many 9mm and did carry a few for some time in my career, I always went back to the 45 because, well the power and, after all this is America.
The best pistol from world war I was probably the 1911 because it's the only one that's still in mass production. But there are so many problems with that system especially at that time in terms of complexity. There's a hundred ways to judge what was the best. At the time, in retrospective, or judged by modern standards.
Nice to see another expert's opinion, which I value greatly.
No type A Nambu?
Probably because the were never adopted by a major combatant. I think I’m right in saying that the type b was adopted in the mid 1920s
The World Wars and the Interbellum are some of my favorite periods for studying arms.
Very, very happy to see a World War One video on this channel.
1911 was made 113 years ago, and are still seen and carried everyday.
Considering nothing us on the table is in production (to my knowledge) you can see why it's #1.
Definitely a fun video! I know you're doing a lot of stuff away from RUclips, but I hope you'll keep bringing content to us here as well.
I probably would have fit the Mauser c 96 in there somewhere
C96's are just so goofy and unergonomic, though.
of course you would !
Good presentation ..i agree totaly with the choice of those pistols ...but maybe a place toghether with the french ruby..had could mentioned for the first automatic beretta that was introduced during WW1in Italy
From your mud testing I would go with the Luger instead of the 1911.
Saint Browning would revoke his library card :D
The mud testing is a fun experiment, but not something you should base your purchase/choice on. They have said this themselves.
@@ErwinHolland. Until you fall down in your muddy trench and have a mud coated gun!!
@@ErwinHolland. Follow up shots are quicker also.
@@Armored_Muskrat Yeah, ok, guess that is fair. I wasn't really role playing so to speak. But yeah, if you are talking about actually using it in a trench, sure, i can go with that.
And, have to say, I don't disagree at all, i would probably pick the Luger, even without the mud tests. I just like it a hell of a lot more. But my point was that mud tests are not the be all and end all. (but yeah, if we are strictly talking about trenches, it probably is a good indication)
Ian I have to agree with you. Good choices!
Obrez?
Google translates your comment to, Circumcision?
Obrez is a sawed-off mosin.@@showtime2629
@@showtime2629considering what an Obrez is it kind of makes sense
@@showtime2629 I mean I guess you could describe an obrez pistol as a circumcised bolt action rifle.
Another great video, Ian. Would you ever consider doing a video on uniforms and the materials they were made out of ? or have you already made one?
The Best Pistol of WWI was the New Century Smith and Wesson, with the 1911 a bit behind it. Then the Smith and Wesson 1917. The only 2 WWI guns in production to this day are the 1911 and the Smith Revolver. They stood the test of time. I put the revolver first because it has no failure drill, a bad primer will stop it for less than 1/3 of a second. The widespread adoption of sub 45 pistols requires the mag capacities of our day, because FMJ 9mm is not going to solve your problems soon enough to help you out. One shot recoil is not bad with a 45, and putting it back on target is not nearly as important as with the underperforming rounds.
There really isn't that much of a difference between the damage of a .45 and a 9mm fired from a pistol. Unless you're shooting at a drug addict or someone with body armour, if you hit your enemy in the chest or head, they're going down either way. 0.45cal also takes more time for follow up shots and is less accurate. It's a great cartridge for SMGs, but imo people severly overestimate it's usefulness in pistols. The only reason the 1911 is still in production is because it's severly romanticised by americans. As far as actual usefulness goes, it was overtaken by the browning high power in 1935, and then made fully obselete by the new generation of "wonder nines".
I would also definitely not put a revolver above any of the good and reliable semi-auto pistols of ww1. 6 rounds just isn't enough, and loading it takes way too long, especially if you don't have speedloaders. Follow up shots also take much longer, unless you use it in double-action, at which point the heavy trigger really messes with accuracy. There's a reason no millitary in the world uses revolvers anymore outside of ceremonies.
Interesting video. I attended a collectors shoot once and I noted not one P08 emptied a magazine without a jam. Every 1911 fired without a jam. Maybe I'm not entirely normal because I don't have an issue with the recoil at all and frankly find 9mmP pistols a bit whippy...
The 1911 is the only firearm on the list that is still serving in a combat role today. The 1911 is also the only pistol on the list which competitive shooters are still choosing to use today.
Ian mentioning the Ruby and not mentioning the C96 cause they would rofl-stomp the competition.
Tthe Mars automatic would be quite the lopsided winner if it ever was produced more than a handful of.
Great video, Ian :)
My personal opinion is most modern shooters, dont fully appreciate how new semiautomatic firearms were in WW1. From a generation perspective a soldier in the great war dad would have had an 1873 single action army. Smikless powder was invented after some of the higer ranking officers and NCOs were born. To put another way we tend to think technology advances very quickly, but fail to realize the cell phone was invented 50 years ago. Just my opinion when someone says 45 dont recoil that bad.
4:35 9mm Steyr and 9mm Largo are not interchangable!
The 1911 was the most modern pistol at the time during ww1
The Americans got a big win with that one! 👍