New standard issue pistol for British troops

Best I recall there was some way they knew witch round was for, been too long to remember, but the MP-40 round was supposed to be a lot hotter & too hot for the P-08. Haven't seen any comparisons to the Mk2Z. Along the same lines of not using PPSH ammo in your Broomhandle.

The Germans made two types of 9mm Parabellum ammunition?

If you ever see British Mk2Z on the market, give it a wide berth, its evil stuff. Exactly like using 7.62X17 in the Broomhqandle.
 
I recall reading that during the later stages of WW2, the Germans were keen to conserve their lead stockpiles and so produced a few different projectiles from iron. One was an iron core with a lead jacket, a later variant was an iron core with I believe a copper jacket and the last one was made from iron powder compressed under high temp to produce a solid core.
I don't think they had any loads that were intentionally more powerful than earlier 9x19mm rounds, just that the performance differed due to the different projectiles in use.

As for the British Mk 2Z 9mm ammo, it went on to become the standard 9x19mm ammo for British forces (it was listed as still in use in Jane's Infantry Weapons 1986-87). I believe there's a mention of it in Leroy Thompson's book on the Sten Gun being a little hard to handle in the L9A1 Browning due to heavier recoil compared to the earlier British 9mm (due to the 2Z having a heavier projectile and higher muzzle velocity than the 1Z ammo).
I'll have to drag my books out of their boxes and see if I can find some better info!
 
OK, if I was going to spend weeks and months on the shooting range punching tight groups in the targets, I'd go for the Sig anytime!

If however I was supposed to be lugging the the damn thing around every single day for years, and only use it to pot some occational bad-guys popping up in the field, I'd rather have the Glock.

Weight is not the only issue here, the shape of the Glock is less likely to snag, and it's not prone to dig itself into my ribs or hip the way a Sig can.
Plus the Glock is actually quite easy to operate, round in chamber, point it in right direction and pull the trigger, no need to check any safety catch.

Much like the Mk.I. Webley, and that was a quite functional piece for it's aera.
 
OK, if I was going to spend weeks and months on the shooting range punching tight groups in the targets, I'd go for the Sig anytime!

If however I was supposed to be lugging the the damn thing around every single day for years, and only use it to pot some occational bad-guys popping up in the field, I'd rather have the Glock.

Weight is not the only issue here, the shape of the Glock is less likely to snag, and it's not prone to dig itself into my ribs or hip the way a Sig can.
Plus the Glock is actually quite easy to operate, round in chamber, point it in right direction and pull the trigger, no need to check any safety catch.

Much like the Mk.I. Webley, and that was a quite functional piece for it's aera.

There's quite a few things about the Glock I don't like, for a start the front and rear sights are made of plastic and have a habit of shearing off, sights which can only be replaced by using a Glock special tool. I could have bought a Glock for my own use at trade prices, to be honest I don't trust it as a carry piece.
 
I'm in total agreement on the Glock. I had a Glock 19, darned thing would shoot like a house afire. Seemed pretty tough and very accurate and low recoil. She loved CorBon +P fodder. Sold it in a weak moment.
 
I shoot target periodically and read an awful lot on the subject of pistols, mainly auto-loaders. I have often wondered why the 10MM was never considered for a military side arm. With a great muzzle velocity and a real stopping power size of round, why hasn't it been considered. I also believe it would be a great round for submachine guns.
 
As I vaguely recall, when the FBI tried the 10mm round they found that for many people it was too much to handle in a pistol. This apparently lead to the .40 S&W round as a more controllable 10mm.
I think the military probably agreed that the 10mm was too powerful for the majority of personnel who'd be issued a pistol (and only get to practice with it three, maybe four, times a year).

In regards to the 10mm for submachine guns, H&K developed two variants of their MP5 in 10mm for the FBI. Both variants are known as MP5/10, one has a fixed buttstock while the other has the typical MP5 retractable stock. They can be recognized by the straight translucent magazines (although H&K also developed .40 S&W variants that also use straight magazines - the .40 cal version is known as MP5/40). Production of the 10mm MP5 has been discontinued, essentially replaced by the H&K UMP submachine gun.

For more info have a look here http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?Item...0-a-40-series&option=com_content&view=article

I shoot target periodically and read an awful lot on the subject of pistols, mainly auto-loaders. I have often wondered why the 10MM was never considered for a military side arm. With a great muzzle velocity and a real stopping power size of round, why hasn't it been considered. I also believe it would be a great round for submachine guns.
 
The Glock is a tried and tested weapon basically it is fail proof, it has been around for years and has earn t its respect. The MOD as we no will always go for the cheapest weapon and the cheapest bit of equipment. They should ask those on the ground what weapons we should have not the money men in suits. www.steveosbornebritisharmy.com
 
As I vaguely recall, when the FBI tried the 10mm round they found that for many people it was too much to handle in a pistol. This apparently lead to the .40 S&W round as a more controllable 10mm.
I think the military probably agreed that the 10mm was too powerful for the majority of personnel who'd be issued a pistol (and only get to practice with it three, maybe four, times a year).
That's the general story. The .40 S&W replicated in an auto loader the ballistics of the 38-40 revolver round.
 
Back
Top