Wartime evaluation of Colt 1911 by the Japanese

Factual Questions
1

I was reading a magazine article on the Nambu Type 94 pistol earlier. The article said the ‘strangely shaped’ grip was designed to fit generally smaller-than-Western hands; so while Western collectors think it feels funny, it suited the intended user.

The P.08 Luger was evaluated for use by the U.S. Army in official trials. Lugers were prized trophies. But I’ve never heard anything about Axis powers evaluating American weapons, and I was wondering: Are there any period reports available online that have information about what the Japanese thought of the Colt 1911 pistol? Did they find the grip ‘strange’? Any comments on the recoil of the .45 ACP vs. their 8mm round?

2

Interesting question!

I know the Japanese did try and reverse-engineer the M1 Garand to develop the Type 5 Rifle, which didn’t work very well (They only got around to making around 250 rifles).

Most Japanese weapons were based on designs from other countries- the Type 26 Revolver is based on the Smith & Wesson No. 3 and the Enfield/Webley break-top revolvers, the Arisaka Type 38 rifle (and the later Type 99 rifle) were basically Mauser K98s with a different safety catch and a dust-cover, while most of their MGs were copies of the Hotchkiss, Lewis, or Bren Guns. Incidentally, their MG ammunition was interchangeable with the .303 British cartridge for the most part, and they never really got around to developing effective SMGs, with the exception of the Type 100 Sub-Machine Gun, which shares similarities with the German MP18.

In short, the Japanese Military was not adverse to appropriating designs from elsewhere and adapting them for Japanese use; so one can only assume they had their reasons for not adopting the M1911A1 or a variant thereof; I’m going to make an educated guess and say that the .45ACP cartridge was probably too big and powerful (and the gun too heavy) for most Japanese soldiers to effectively use, and since they already had a relatively adequate service pistol (The Nambu Type 14) , and figured it wasn’t worth the hassle of adopting a newer round, especially since they had enough trouble keeping their troops supplied without adding yet another calibre to the quartermaster’s checklist…

3

Pistols are not war winning-weapons and, as such, are generally a pretty low priority item in the greater scheme of military planning and purchasing. By WWII, they were regarded in most military circles as primarily a badge of authority for officers and a security blanket for armor crews and others who could not practically carry a long gun.
The sword as a symbol of authority had largely died out among other militaries by WWII; how many Western officers have you ever scene wearing a saber outside of ceremonial occasions? In the Japanese military, the sword still had currency. Leaving the issue of utility as a weapon aside, the sword was a better symbol of authority than the pistol due to its association with the samurai and the bushido code. The Nambu, when carried by officers, was in fact a private purchase item and never officially adopted/issued by the Japanese military. That, right there, shows you how much importance the Japanese military establishment placed on handguns.
WRT our own 1911 and the .45 acp cartridge, at the time it was standard issue for the US and Norway. The Brits also had a few 1911’s in inventory (belonging to their navy IIRC) but chambered in some .455 round or another; they were issued along with other odds n’ ends when things were looking particularly bleak for the Brits. The Germans actually issued a few 1911’s in .45 acp after they captured Norway. They went to the Luftwaffe who gave it their own designation which I can’t remember. Norwegian 1911’s with Nazi acceptance marks are among the prized collector’s guns. The piece was popular in Central and South America too, but not necessarily in .45 acp. Since the nations of that region weren’t direct combatants, we can ignore them in this discussion.
So, at the outbreak of the war, the US and Norway were pretty much the only nations to prize a large caliber automatic enough to actually issue one. The Brits issued their .38/200 revolvers, supplemented by some 9mm High Powers and a staggering array of small lots of other guns. The French had their M1935 variants in their anemic 7.65 Long cartridge. The Italians had a .380 Beretta and a crap load of other obsolete stuff. The Soviets had their 7.62 Tokarev and lackluster Mosin-Nagant revolver. The Germans standard issued the 9mm P-38 and also used EVERY LAST captured handgun they could grab. The other European nations issued a crazy-quilt of guns, with .380’s and .32’s well represented.
So, you can see that the US and Norway are actually more the oddballs than Japan. The Nambu isn’t a great design, but fits in with the general scheme of low-powered small bores favored by most westernized militaries at the time. If the Japanese didn’t have a particularly high opinion of our handgun at the time, it’s no surprise. Basically nobody did.

4

The British (And Empire thereof) were still issuing the .455 Webley Mk VI revolver as well, which has the same stopping power (more or less) as the .45 ACP. The .455 Webley Automatic cartridge was used by the Royal Navy (and, in a few cases, the Royal Air Force), who issued both a .455 calibre Colt M1911A1 and semi-autos made by Webley & Scott. Ballistically, both .45ACP and .455 Webley Automatic were very similar to each other; but .455 Webley Automatic was never an especially common calibre at the best of times. (I have a 1942 Military Small Arms Manual that mentions that you can fire .455 Webley Automatic out of a .45 ACP calibre gun, but not the other way around).

The British didn’t actually get the Browning Hi-Power until a design team from FN escaped to Canada with the schematics in 1940/1941, and the Browning HP was never really issued to anyone except commando units, paratroopers, and elite units during WWII. It was, however, the only handgun made and used by both sides concurrently during the war (The Allies made them in Canada, the Germans kept making them in Belgium).

No argument about the lacklustreness of the revolver the Soviets issued, but it was the Nagant M1895 - the Mosin-Nagant was the main Russian service rifle, and the most numerous bolt-action rifle ever produced (the British SMLE Mk III is second, incidentally).

This is all very true and I agree completely. The British had moved away from the .455 round to the smaller .38/200 round because (and I know this from experience) the .455 Webley revolvers require a lot of practice to use effectively, and with much of their trained army decimated by WWI, it was deemed prudent to switch to a more manageable round for the “average” recruit. We won’t get into the uselessness of the Enfield No 2 Mk I* at any range exceeding about 10ft, though. :wink:

As Scumpup says, sidearms were basically a status symbol or a last-ditch self-defence weapon for tank crews and pilots; the world’s militaries had found out what happens when you try and charge machine-gun nests armed with handguns in WWI. Bear in mind that the .455 Webley and .45 ACP cartiridges were developed for Colonial wars against determined Native opponents like the Zulu or the Mahdists or the Moro. That era was over by the time WWI wound up, and The Japanese saw no need to have a powerful cartridge for their sidearm, as it was only ever intended to be used either at close range and in limited situations that didn’t involve Zulu warriors with spears charging them en masse. You’ve also got to bear in mind that the Japanese issued swords to officers and NCOs, who quite often took them into combat- a Katana is going to be almost as effective in close-quarters fighting than a Nambu pistol, I’d wager, especially when you factor in the cultural aspect for the Japanese.

5

The Nagant revolver, whether correctly or not, is referred to here in the US as the Mosin-Nagant. I regularly receive catalogs from surplus dealers where it is referred to as such. Quite likely it isn’t the correct nomenclature, but we have a long history here of referring to furrin’ guns by the wrong name.

6

Has his really changed? I know that, for instance, the Israeli military doesn’t have a standard-issue pistol - in fact, it doesn’t really issue pistols at all, except to certain special ops units.

7

What makes you call the Nagant revolver lackluster? Just curious, as I own one, and I find it to be relatively accurate and very well built. The action is interesting - for those who don’t know, the bullet is completely inside the shell, and the cylinder moves forward to insert the shell into the barrel before firing. This seals the barrel on firing, so you don’t lose gas between the cylinder + barrel.

8

The 1911 is, I think, peculiar in the amount of emotional investment a subset of the shooting community has in it here in the US. AFAIK, no other nation has any equivalent love affair with a handgun (edged weapons are a different story). Back in the 80’s, when the Beretta M-92 was selected to replace stocks of aging 1911’s_none had been purchased since WWII_and a hodgepodge of revolvers, the enraged squealing started. It hasn’t let up since. The 1911 fanboys can give you 9000 reasons why WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE SWITCHED.
Every once in a while, they get themselves worked into a froth that the militree has seen the light and is going back to the 1911. This is usually caused when the militree makes a limited purchase of special purpose pistols that happen to be .45’s. There’s a big, honking H&K that is truly a special purpose pistol, and the USMC also purchased a small number of 1911’s a few years back for their spec-ops. There is no reason to believe that the Beretta is going to be replaced as the general issue pistol at all, much less with a 1911…but the fanboys wank on. If/When the Beretta is replaced, it may well be with a .45, but the chances are that it’ll be some polymer-framed DA/SA piece, not with a 1911.
Mind you, I don’t hate the 1911. I own two and regularly carry one. It is, however, a piece that has its quirks and requires that the operator be well-trained in its use and have constant presence of mind. Back when it was the issue piece, negligent discharges and wounds from same were common enough that chamber empty-hammer down carry was mandated. It took two hands to bring the pistol into action. Unless it is carried Condition 1, the piece loses a great deal of what does recomend it. Hence, the move to DA/SA lockwork as seen in the Beretta.
I was under the impression that Israel has a standard pistol caliber, 9mm, if not a standard pistol.

9

Horrendous trigger pull and a cartridge that is comfortably within the .32/.380 power range (and closer to the .32) just for starters.

10

True, it is low powered. I wouldn’t call the trigger pull on mine horrendous, but I’ve only fired the one I have, so I don’t know if it’s typical.

11

So basically the actual use of an officer’s sidearm is to shoot his own men if needed? If you’ll follow that, an army’s choice of sidearms reflects its tendency to that purpose - USA & Brits using heavy man-stoppers from the colonial era where the intended target was the enemy, Russians & Italians small caliber sufficient to encourage stragglers.

I have read that the practical use of the pistol was on horseback, with the saber in the right hand and the pistol in the left, so that when infantrymen were issued colts in WWI, which may have been handy in trench raids, they were encumbered with left-hand cavalry holsters. First you’d have to unsnap the holster flap, draw the pistol with your left hand, then transfer it to your right hand. Or you could wear it on your right hip, but you’d still have to reverse the pistol once you’d drawn it.

12

I’ve heard this before, but I don’t buy it. The straggler that an officer would be trying to “encourage” would be armed with a far superior weapon,a high powered rifle w/ bayonet or a submachinegun, as well as possibly a grenade or three. Pointing one of those pipsqueak Badges o’ Authority at somebody thusly equipped sounds like a good way for an officer to get hisself kilt.

13

point well-taken, but then Soviet and WWI Italian did routinely exercise their option to summarily shoot enlisted men, without individual or mass mutiny It was just my WAG as to whether this matters as to choice of sidearm, but I do believe it is linked to an army’s development of a solid NCO cadre. (Oh - the OP wasn’t a invitation for me to be an armchair general? How did that happen?)

14

Is that the SOCOM pistol? My dad has one of those; it costs a mint, but is pretty darn neat.

15

Yeah, that’s the one. The gun itself, like all H&K products is spendy, but it’ the accessories that really run the price into the “ARE YOU ON DRUGS?!” range. You need the accessories, too, if you really want to claim to have the SOCOM pistol. It’s a system, not just a .45 bullet launcher. AFAIK, the electronic aiming module the government uses hasn’t ever been available for sale to civilians. Don’t know whether it’s the government or H&K or both, but infrared lasers are something that seems pretty tightly controlled. Similar enough modules are freely available though. In most states, the suppressor is relatively easy to own. Some forms and a fee, basically. Alas, the silencer itself costs more than a lot of guns.

Due to the prices of stuff involved, I’ve seen a fairish number of faux SOCOMs cobbled up from a USP 45 and aftermarket parts. Without a real, working suppressor and visible laser/flashlight aiming module though, it always struck me as mere wankery to make one.

16

Interesting replies. They don’t really answer my question (i.e., are there any period reports by the Japanese on captured 1911s), but very interesting reading.

I’d forgotten about the Norwegian 1911s and their capture by German forces.

Martini Enfield: A lot of what you’ve said is very familiar from the book you recommended me. :wink:

17

Sorry, Johnny L.A., I didn’t realise we’d completely managed to miss your original question… :smack:

I’ve done a web search and gone through my own reference library, and have come up with absolutely nothing wrt to Japanese use or evaluation of the M1911 in WWII. There’s plenty of references to Japanese officers/NCOs/aircrews using captured Browning/Colt M1903s and other similar .32ACP calibre small-frame handguns, but nothing about M1911s, Lugers (the Dutch East Indies military were equipped with Lugers), S&W Victory revolvers, Webley/Enfield revolvers, Browning Hi-Powers (I don’t think these ever saw service in the Pacific Theatre, though) etc.

I have seen pictures of Japanese troops in Manchuria with Mauser C96 Broomhandles, which were in 7.63x25 Mauser, and from that I’m going to assume that the Japanese simply preferred the 7.62 and 7.65mm handgun cartridges to the larger centrefire handgun cartridges used by the Allies.

Also bear in mind that the Allies had a very low opinion of Japanese firearms- Arisakas were widely regarded as being complete shit, which is certainly true of the Type 99 rifles made after the end of 1942 or so, but the 6.5mm Ariska calibre Type 38 rifles were just as good as anything the Europeans were fielding, quality wise. The Type 94 Nambu is frequently regarded (and with good reason) as Worst. Service Pistol. Ever with, the Type 26 revolver a close second - but there was nothing wrong with the Nambu Type 1 and 14 handguns except the underpowered cartridge.

No doubt the Japanese had similar views of European weapons being “Inferior” to the Emperor’s weapons (Remember, all the equipment in the Japanese Army was the property of the Emperor, who was the greatest and most awesome person in the universe as far as the Japanese were concerned), and while Japanese officers were known to have Western handguns, they appear to be exclusively 7.62 or 7.65mm handguns like the Colt/Browning M1903. I can’t even begin to imagine where they’d get .32ACP ammunition in Burma or New Guinea, though.

And that point is, I think, related to the Japanese lack of interest in the larger European handguns- where would you get ammo? Sure, you might capture some from time to time, but I’m going to make an educated guess here and say that the Japanese probably saw the .45ACP Colt M1911A1 as being very much like WWII equivalent of the modern-day .50AE Desert Eagle- ie, big, heavy, awkward to use (for them), and stupidly overpowered for general use.

The Japanese did employ captured SMLE rifles because they already had ammunition for them (remember, some of their MG ammo was interchangeable with the .303 British cartridge the SMLE used), and the Indian National Army who fought with the Japanese used British weapons (including S&W, Webley, and Enfield revolvers, along with SMLE rifles, Vickers-Berthier MGs, and so on), but for the most part the Japanese didn’t seem especially interested in employing anyone’s weapons except their own (Which carried the Emperor’s Seal Of Quality*, remember).

Incidentally, The Germans had a very low opinion of the Nagant M1895, which they called the “Ivan Revolver”. There’s nothing wrong with the gun at all- they’re very well made, accurate, and reliable, but the 7.62x38R cartridge has very little stopping power (IME they’re not greatly more effective than a .22LR at knocking over bowling pins at 10m). The 7.62x25 Tokarev is a more effective cartridge (ballistically similar to 7.63x25 Mauser- the Tokarev cartridge was developed from the Mauser one) and the Germans found they could rechamber captured 7.62x25 Tokarev guns to 9mm Parabellum, enabling them to use their own pistol and SMG ammo in them. And the double-action trigger pull on the Nagant M1895 ranges from “A bit on the heavy side” to “very difficult”, which is why they were generally used in single-action mode for the most part. (Pre-Russian Revolution models were made in two types: Single-Action for NCOs and enlisted men, and Double-Action for officers.)

*In the form of a Chrysanthemum, stamped on all Japanese military firearms to denote they were the Emperor’s property. After the War, these were generally ground off before the guns were surrendered to the Allies, as it was dishonourable to surrender something which belonged to the Emperor.

18

Ok, this bit has got me quizzical. Were the Officers too stupid to handle SA or the ranks too weak to work DA? :stuck_out_tongue: Fun aside, there’s got to be an answer, right?

19

My understanding is that the Single Action model had a slower rate of fire, which would encourage the NCOs and enlisted men to take their time with shots and not waste their ammo; Officers could (presumably) be relied upon to demonstrate more self-control with their ammunition and could therefore have a Double Action model.

20

The M1911 had been around for a long time by then, and had been commercially available for anyone to buy around the world. The Japanese military had had plenty of opportunities to obtain one for evaluation - perhaps they already had done it.