leadcounsel
member
Most folks were issued the M4. Some the M14, or the SAW. Our partner forces would have their own weapons, typically an AK variant. Based on job or assigned weapon, a pistol would be a secondary issue for a US person, or our partners may turn up with pistols as secondaries.
I don't recall seeing anyone issued only a pistol as a primary weapon.
As you may guess, a pistol serves a purpose where the primary can't. For instance one handed shooting, defending in close quarters (vehicles, etc.), Military Police, drivers, gunners who needed immediate close range (say someone gets onto or in the vehicle inside the swing of the mounted weapon system or the weapon jams), secondary weapons when a mag change is not possible (if the primary runs dry you drop it and let it hang on the sling and draw the secondary until you can reload the primary during a break in contact or you take cover).
As for the noise difference - such as dispatching a dog in the example asked - it's negligible or at least not even a point of consideration.
I second the understanding that Iraqis feared the pistol greatly over a rifle or machine gun. It is because, as I understand, that they were accustomed to see the AK and RPKs and such on a routine basis and were never harmed by those weapons. But if anyone produced a pistol, it meant that someone was going to be executed with a shot to the head, typically by a Baathist or other Saddam party loyalist member. I'd venture that every adult Iraqi knew of someone personally that Saddam's regime brutalized or killed. The pistol was very much feared because it was so close and personal and used to with great brutality.
Like most kids wouldn't be very bothered by a belt, except the kid who has been beaten with a belt many times... dad comes home and takes off that belt and that kid will be struck with fear.
I don't recall seeing anyone issued only a pistol as a primary weapon.
As you may guess, a pistol serves a purpose where the primary can't. For instance one handed shooting, defending in close quarters (vehicles, etc.), Military Police, drivers, gunners who needed immediate close range (say someone gets onto or in the vehicle inside the swing of the mounted weapon system or the weapon jams), secondary weapons when a mag change is not possible (if the primary runs dry you drop it and let it hang on the sling and draw the secondary until you can reload the primary during a break in contact or you take cover).
As for the noise difference - such as dispatching a dog in the example asked - it's negligible or at least not even a point of consideration.
I second the understanding that Iraqis feared the pistol greatly over a rifle or machine gun. It is because, as I understand, that they were accustomed to see the AK and RPKs and such on a routine basis and were never harmed by those weapons. But if anyone produced a pistol, it meant that someone was going to be executed with a shot to the head, typically by a Baathist or other Saddam party loyalist member. I'd venture that every adult Iraqi knew of someone personally that Saddam's regime brutalized or killed. The pistol was very much feared because it was so close and personal and used to with great brutality.
Like most kids wouldn't be very bothered by a belt, except the kid who has been beaten with a belt many times... dad comes home and takes off that belt and that kid will be struck with fear.