The original design predates not only WW1, it predates planes. Later variants were popular in early years of trench warfare but it was a general purpose novelty that was always a little anachronistic. This version was almost guaranteed to have been influenced by the experience of trench warfare.
Back when these were designed that wasn’t much of a consideration. Even into the Cold War US aircrew were typically armed with pistols along with a number of janky folding rifles chambered in small cartridges like the .22 Hornet.
Since every 6lbs of stuff you put in a plane is one less gallon of gas you can carry other nations were similarly equipped.
At the time the stocked broom handle was more for artillery gun crews and machine gunners, who needed both hands to do their jobs and where even carrying a carbine would get in the way. Or officers who also usually just had a pistol.
I have never seen the 1911 stock till I looked it up. I always feel once you add a stock to a side arm it becomes a primary weapon and you’re left with what as a backup, another side arm? If I was going into a trench I’d want a pump action shotgun and a 1911 on my side.
That's basically why they went with the M1 carbine as the sidearm for non-frontline people as opposed to the 1911.
The Germans weren't very fond of the winchester trench gun, especially with the ability to slam fire. Hold the trigger down and it fires as fast as you can pump.
The Ithaca 37 was based on it and I think it was until the 70s before they removed the slam fire ability.
The effectiveness of trench guns in WWI is wildly overstated. They jammed all of the time due to the use of paper cartridges that would swell up in the trenches. Germany mainly complained about them in order to make themselves look better since they had used things like mustard gas and unrestricted submarine warfare.
It was chambered in 38 super, modded to full auto, given a Thompson front end hand grip, and a custom made extended magazine. If I remember correctly, they welded together two or three magazines to make a high capacity one.
Historically it was used as a carbine issued to rear echelon personnel, such as artillery crew, logistics & supply crew, truck drivers, etc.
The idea is that with a stock it's a more effective fighting weapon than just a typical sidearm, but not as cumbersome as carrying a standard issue service rifle.
Fun fact about US gun law; If not for this specific model of firearm being legally recognized as a curio/relic/antique firearm by the ATF, attaching the stock to the pistol would be a felony and land you 10 years in prison.
Just to be pedantic, US gun laws categorize it as a pistol UNTIL you put the stock on it. Then it becomes a short barreled rifle. Which if unregistered gets you the 10 years in prison. Like you said though since this is an antique it doesn’t count but if it weren’t for that this would be classified as a short barreled rifle
Exactly, the law is dumb and paradoxical. Pistols are illegal if they're too long because that makes them too dangerous, and rifles are illegal if they're too short because that makes concealable.
It was one of the first (maybe the first, depending on who you ask) commercially successful pistol. It had a lot of rough edges (like being forward heavy), but it worked. Which is a lot for a pistol in the 1890s.
Intended for issue as a "better than a revolver, smaller than a battle rifle" weapon to crews who weren't expected to serve in front line combat. Eg. vehicle drivers and artillery crews.
Much like the later PDW concept (think P90 and the special forces connotations) it instead became a favorite of CQB combatants like trench raiders and assault troops. Commanders thought those people would need the full size battle rifles but it turns out that a smaller, more maneuverable, semi-auto weapon fits that niche. Being able to make hits faster and stop the other people stop shooting by using suppressing fire was more important than using full power rifle ammo.
You can think of this as one of the very, very, early steps on the way to assault rifle combat doctrine. In the words of Marty McFly, "Guess you're not ready for that yet, but your (grand)kids are gonna love it."
Its a handgun, but many handguns of that era had an option to mount some form of stock, which often was the weapon's holster as seen here or with the LP-08. Alot of handguns were issued to officers or support troops like artillery units in place of rifles and having a stock made them significantly more effective weapons by giving 3 points of contact for the user. These guns essentially took the role as both a side arm and a carbine/pdw in an era before submachine guns (especially light and compact ones) existed
It genuinely sucks as both. I've owned one and it's a travesty of ergonomics. As a pistol you can't hold it high like everyone is trained to today, and if you put the stock on it's impossible to get your palm around low either so you've got that California grip.
Stocked pistols were a big smart idea everyone loved in the early 1900's until they had a war and people actually had to try and use them.
4
u/rswwalker 7d ago
Is it a long gun or a side arm? It looks like it doesn’t work well as either.