Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Handgun's Role in Military Combat

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Shake, Apr 9, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Shake

    Shake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    204
    Location:
    Utah
    There was a thread running sometime back about a handgun's usefulness in military combat. While I agree that a rifle is usually best, I think a handgun definitely has a place in combat. If given the choice, I'd always opt to have one.

    Obviously our soldiers find them useful as I've seen many pictures coming back from the war in Iraq showing our soldiers using their Berettas in various situations.

    Shake

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. mattk

    mattk Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    547
    Location:
    Florida
    maybe. maybe not. Its also possible that the soldiers with the handguns out have no other weapon issued to them and find a gun in hand a bit comforting at the time.
    In all but one of the pictures I have seen the Safety has been in the on position.
     
  3. Andrew Wyatt

    Andrew Wyatt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    4,468
    Location:
    Bakersfield, California
    I think a handgun definitely has a place in combat. If i were going into harms way, i'd have something besides my m16 withwich to defend myself, even if it wasn't kosher.
     
  4. Frohickey

    Frohickey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,018
    Location:
    People's Republic of **********
    What did the soldiers in Vietnam that went into the tunnels use? A 1911.
     
  5. sjtalon

    sjtalon Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    Upper Peninsula of Michigan
    mattk is on track, the issue is, what you are issued.

    Soldiers that are in the "Carrier Team" of a Mech unit (drivers and the TC (track commander)) of Bradleys, M113 APC's) and Tank crewman, are often only issued the M9 Beretta, as well as Officers.

    Go USA !!

    Steve
     
  6. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,622
    There are many service members who are, for one reason or another, issued only pistols. Unlike other wars where casualties have allowed soldiers to "upgrade" their arms, the Iraq war has not (thankfully) resulted in a lot of U.S. weapons lying about the battle field. So, most soldiers have gone into combat with their issue weapons, having no other choice.

    But show me someone who chooses to go into combat with only a pistol and I'll show you an idiot.

    Jim
     
  7. foghornl

    foghornl Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,403
    Looks like in the first pic, that the guy with the 2 rocket launchers doesn't have too much spare space for a rifle. And if a handgun makes the soldier's job easier and safer, let him have whatever he can use.
     
  8. DMK

    DMK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,797
    Location:
    Over the hills and far, far away
    There sure are a lot of pistols being shown in the pictures from the Gulf. Seems to be even more this time around than in Gulf War I.

    It's odd, because it seemed to me that the military was leaning towards M-4 carbines over pistols for the average grunts and using pistols mainly for Rangers, Special Forces, Anti-terrorist teams and the like and usually as a secondary weapon at that.
     
  9. Destructo6

    Destructo6 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,998
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    The first guy appears to be an AT4 gunner, with the M9 for backup.

    The second guy is a Hospital Corpsman. The Caduceus is pretty clearly visible on his chest. He's not allowed to carry a rifle by the Geneva Convention. Technically, it shouldn't be out of its holster.
     
  10. voilsb

    voilsb Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    633
    Location:
    Ft. Lewis, WA
    the first picture definately shows an AT gunner, but it doesn't look like he's carrying an AT-4. since I've never seen an actual javelin, I'm guessing that might be it. but I have seen (and fired) live AT-4s, and those are not them. they're too short, and the ends don't look quite right.

    as for the corpsman thing, I doubt it's a geneva convention thing, and more a navy thing. I've seen pictures of army medics carrying M4s, and in my NG unit the medics carry M4s and maneuver as a rifleman until someone needs medical attention.
     
  11. zpo

    zpo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    203
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Javalins got a larger diameter, but I'm not an expert.
     
  12. zpo

    zpo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    203
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    A-ha! How 'bout a morter and launcher?
     
  13. Onslaught

    Onslaught Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,006
    Location:
    Georgia
    Not exactly... As I posted in the "Rifle" forum, a few of the members of our local range e-mail the rangemaster from Iraq. One of them told of having to fire at the enemy from their Bradley in the middle of a blinding sandstorm with their M9's... So now a lot of the guys are "liberating" the folding stock AK's for such situations. :)

    In response to this, "Jim" added 2 new categories to the CQB matches... AK Iron and AK Optic for when these guys get back.
     
  14. voilsb

    voilsb Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    633
    Location:
    Ft. Lewis, WA
    you tell me. I'm NG 11B, not 11C, and have never seen a mortar tube before. is that one?
     
  15. Al Thompson

    Al Thompson Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    8,847
    Location:
    South Carolina
    My take is that it's a Marine carrying a SMAW. It's not a 60mm mortar, nor an AT-4. Hard to tell with my monitor.
     
  16. Destructo6

    Destructo6 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,998
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    It's definately a Geneva convention stipulation. That's the way it was when I was a HM with the FMF and was given a "Geneva Convention Card" with the relevant section citations on it.

    If you carry a rifle as a medic/corpsman, you toss away those Geneva convention protections. In the context of war with Iraq, the Doc wouldn't be giving up much and I'd carry a rifle too (unless my OIC forbade it).
     
  17. CWL

    CWL Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    6,505
    Notice how every "pistolero" has backup? Notice riflemen nearby?

    I am one of those once caught in "indian country" with only a pistol when everyone else had rifles, MGs and artillery. You armchair generals can postulate all you want, but a handgun is not the thing to be armed with in combat.
     
  18. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    I think that handguns have their uses, but no matter what, you should get some kind of a long gun or sub-gun.
    How much more would a Mini-Uzi cost the military over an M-9?
    I don't think it would be enough to override the benefits of having a shoulder fired weapon with more firepower, and about double or so the range. Any gun with a stock should reach to at least 100 yds.
    They may even be cheaper.
    A pistol would be OK for back-up, but mostly psychological. If your rifle fails, you will most likely be dead before you can get that handgun into action anyway.
    Handguns are quicker handling, but I would still take the AK over a pistol. I would have the first one that I came across if I only had a pistol.

    BTW, I have never seen a Mortar tube either, so don't feel bad.
     
  19. voilsb

    voilsb Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    633
    Location:
    Ft. Lewis, WA
    found it:
    so it's a Navy thing that Corpsmen carry pistols instead of rifles. the geneva convention says "defensive arms" and it's up to the individual service to define what a "defensive arm" is.
     
  20. denfoote

    denfoote Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    4,622
    Location:
    Near the border of occupied Azlan and Mexico.
    The purpose of a handgun in combat is to shoot your way back to the rifle that you should not have set down in the first place!!! :neener:
     
  21. Rawlings

    Rawlings Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY
    We should buy up as many production HK MP7s as possible, or better yet, acquire a license to produce them locally. Let's give the non-rifle-toting troops some REAL firepower!
     
  22. Shake

    Shake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    204
    Location:
    Utah
    Just to make it clear. . .

    I am not arguing that it is better to have a handgun than a rifle in combat, nor do I think any sane person would. My position is that I think they have uses in combat (as illustrated by many pictures coming back from the front lines) and I'd prefer to have one as a back-up if I were in combat.

    Just because a rifle is the ideal weapon for combat doesn't mean all of our troops will always be armed with functional rifles at all times. A contingency in a bad situation is a good thing. I look at the handgun as a contingency in combat. We can all say we'd take a rifle anyday, but saying it and actually having one available and functional at all times and in all situations in combat is another story. . .

    Shake
     
  23. Destructo6

    Destructo6 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,998
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    voilsb, looks like that's right for the Army (FM 8-10-3 A3). I'm having trouble finding the specific Geneva convention protocol(s) that make the stipulation at all.
     
  24. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,633
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    frohickey, the guns the tunnel rats used in Vietnam were NOT just 1911s. They used whatever handguns they thought best and that they had access to at the time. Some felt that revolvers were a better choice since they were less apt to malfunction with all the dirt and crud that sometimes got impacted into the guns while crawling around.

    Great pictures, Shake. Notice the guys with the handguns do NOT have rifles. A handgun is great if you don't have a rifle. Most of the guys who have rifles don't have handguns. The only ones I have seen on the news that seem to have both tend to be officers, but obviously some of the grunts have both as well. I have not seen any special forces MEUSOC folks that I recognized as such on TV and certainly haven't seen any identified that way.
     
  25. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    I remember reading somewhere that tunnel rats were fond of using captured Makarovs, because their report wasn't as deafening in the confines of a tunnel. I also read about a silenced .22LR that was used. The silencer was of the field expedient variety.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page