Importance of Pistols role in todays millitary?

[leadcounsel]

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.

 

[tarosean]

Y'all can argue 'til the cows come home about what a better handgun there is for the military, but truly, given the common NATO ball ammo, is there really anything that would perform significantly better than the M-9 in terms of reliability and accuracy (not talking weight, frame composition or control lever/safety type)? Be honest ...

Thats the problem they cannot be honest.. everyone has to interject their favorite choice..

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I figure the side-arm argument parallels a couple others.

In the case of discussing side-arms in general (not ballistics or particular guns) and their relevance, one can draw very direct parallels to the oft popped-up arguments against a modern fighter's need's for; dedicated sniper weapons/training, bayonets and personal knives where their lines do not cross.

Lessons we keep re-learning.


Side arms, bayonets, sniper weapons or even battleships, there's always some constituency looking to prematurely dis-arm or at least degrade the firepower of the military in general or the single soldier/Marine in particular.

Or, in the words of Monty Python... "I'm not dead (yet)".

Todd.

 

[Kabal]

What percentage of American troops are issued a sidearm?

Last time I trained with American (as well as some French and Czech) soldiers, I oversaw a pistol shooting lane. After shooting our HK P8, one of the GIs told me it had been his first time shooting a pistol.
I mentioned this to the next GI, who didn't seem to find this unusual and told me he had only fired a pistol once before in his life.

It didn't sound like they were joking. I can't remember their ranks or which unit they were from, though.

 

[leadcounsel]

What percentage of American troops are issued a sidearm?

Last time I trained with American (as well as some French and Czech) soldiers, I oversaw a pistol shooting lane. After shooting our HK P8, one of the GIs told me it had been his first time shooting a pistol.
I mentioned this to the next GI, who didn't seem to find this unusual and told me he had only fired a pistol once before in his life.

It didn't sound like they were joking. I can't remember their ranks or which unit they were from, though.

I don't think that's unusual. It's sad, but not unusual. I'd say perhaps in your average unit, maybe 20% of Soldiers are issued and trained on pistols. Leadership, drivers, gunners, pilots, medics, etc.

Keep in mind that infantry Soldiers are a small minority of the total service. Most service members are not infantry. Most are some form of support or logistics.

Unless you show an interest in going to the range, or are in an infantry role, you'll rarely go to the range and when you do you'll fire perhaps less than 100 rounds in an afternoon.

To my total shock the military as an organization is terrified of guns, and in my unscientific polling experience about 30% of the individuals I discussed guns with were anti-gun for civilians, another 30% gun neutral, and 40% pro gun. Weird, I know. Many of the officers in my peer group had never held or fired a gun before our training.

Kind of a shame in my view that folks don't bother exercising or supporting the 2nd Amendment, even when sworn to defend and protect it!

 

[herrwalther]

Are pistols so desired instead of a rifle due to weight/size

Most bases overseas require carrying a weapon, usually with an empty chamber. Carrying an M9 is much easier than carrying an M4, M249, or M240 when you are going to the chow hall or the latrines. So if you have an M9 that is what most prefer to carry vs something larger.

Muslim cultures fear the pistol. In Iraq and Afghanistan both. Saddam's regime and Taliban would execute detractors with pistols and rarely with rifles or crew served weapons. Once I learned this fact from my interpreter, I carried my pistol everywhere. My interactions with locals improved greatly because they associate the pistol with authority, so I was able to get much more done.

 

[barnbwt]

So you're saying the pistol is exactly like Patton's beloved sabre?

 

[Johnny_B_Goode]

It has been a long time since I was enlisted. We were still using the 1911. The only reason anyone wanted a pistol is to prove they qualified with a pistol. Once we got the pistol it was just something else to carry and clean. The 1911's we got were WWII issue. I still hate the 1911 until this day.

Glock would never get approved. But Glock would be the best pistol to issue. Glocks are durable and the few that did break could be repaired with a Leatherman and a nail.

Really we have get the Army definition of modular before anyone could make a decent selection. My idea of modular is you can mount a light on the gun. I am sure the Army has a different idea of modular.

 

[savanahsdad]

Glock would never get approved. But Glock would be the best pistol to issue. Glocks are durable and the few that did break could be repaired with a Leatherman and a nail.

My son is a MP. as much as he dislikes his M-9 I asked him if he would rather have a glock , and with this being the High Road I can't tell you what he said

 

[Johnny_B_Goode]

My son is a MP. as much as hi dislikes his M-9 I asked him if he would rather have a glock , and with this being the High Road I can't tell you what he said

Most people form there opinions about Glocks by word of mouth without shooting one. I am guilty of listening to the naysayers myself. I got a G19 in April. Without a doubt it is the best pistol I have ever owned. My wife is still in the crowd of naysayers. She bought an M&P9. There is nothing wrong with the M&P. But there is this little thing she cannot get around. Shooting multiple targets rapid fire none of her "professional instructor" friends have ever beat me in a match. I am old, fat, arthritic and have suffered sever spinal injuries. The Glock must be pretty easy to shoot.

My father is a retired LA county sheriff. He loves his M&P 40. I put up B34 targets for him to shoot. I hang a 6" steel under the target. I love my Dad but he keeps on insisting we wager $5 a shot. But then again I might be getting suckered. After I clean his clock he insists I pick up the tab for supper.

One thing about a Glock that makes a lot of shooters hate the Glock is if you have any faults in your form the Glock is unforgiving. When I got my Glock I did not like it. I hauled it over to my gunsmith to see what could be done. He wanted to see me shoot the gun. He said I was handling the glock like a hammer. I called an old friend who is a patient fellow and a champion pistol shot. After $150 worth of lesson I was shooting the Glock like a champ. Not only was I shooting the Glock much better but I was shooting all pistols much better. When I sold my Kel Tec P3AT the buyer couldn't shoot the gun. At 7 yards I shot a tiny group rapid fire in the dark. He bough the pistol.

 

[TestPilot]

Originally Posted by Johnny_B_Goode:
Most people form there opinions about Glocks by word of mouth without shooting one.

I learned to hate it AFTER shooting one. Being formally trained using Glock exclusively did not change that.

"Look how wonderful I shoot with my favorite..." is just an anecdote. It means nothing in terms of something objectively being better or worse.

I do think either Glock or M&P types would make a better choice because training and maintenance is objectively easier. Way easier. And, the cost would be lower.

I'd feel better if I was issued a Glock than Beretta, even when I don't even like Glock.

Originally Posted by Old Dog:
Y'all can argue 'til the cows come home about what a better handgun there is for the military, but truly, given the common NATO ball ammo, is there really anything that would perform significantly better than the M-9 in terms of reliability and accuracy (not talking weight, frame composition or control lever/safety type)? Be honest ...

You deliberately exclude a bunch of important consideration criterias of a service pistol to justify your preference, then urge others to be "honest"?

 

[Zerodefect]

Most of the intermediate skill level shooters I've taught were the ones that had trouble with Glocks. They were using whatever techniques they were used to, with their antiques, and applying them to the Glock. Yeah, that don't don't work too swell. They were shooting as they had thought they should shoot. As if everything in the world should work exactly the way they want it to. "Should be" and "reality" are steep mountains for these shooters to cross.

But all of the new shooters I've taught could move from pistol to pistol quickly. Because they still had an adaptable open mind. After getting a proper combat grip down, some of the older guns (M9's, 1911's, revolvers) felt weird to them. But they were still able to transition from Glock to M&P to XD to 1911 easily. If I started them with a good uncomfortable advanced combat grip instead of babying them with easy Weaver stuff, by the end of the day they were spanking the intermediate shooters BADLY on timed drills.

I think it's mostly in our heads. Grip angle is complete BS. How a gun "feels" is worthless information. 99% of the haters, whether it's 1911 haters, or Glock haters, can be shown the true virtues of the pistol in about 10 minutes of proper training. It's interesting when their faces light up that they finally get exactly why these pistols exist and sell as well as they do. Then at least they can give it a fair chance and go back to their old pistol if they want to. It's staggering how many intermediate shooters have never held a well tuned pistol with proper sights and safeties.

I think the Glock stands a good chance here. The military has improved their technique quite a bit in the past few years.

But at the end of the day: The pistol you shot best, is the one you should continue carrying. No explanation or reason needed. Shoot what works best for you, but continue to try other equipment and techniques.

 

[Old Dog]

You deliberately exclude a bunch of important consideration criterias of a service pistol to justify your preference, then urge others to be "honest"?

Yep. Yes, I did. And it's not a bunch. Frame composition and weight (when the difference is only ounces, not pounds, means little. Safety/de-cocker operation and location is pretty subjective, and almost solely a training issue. My point, which you ignore is, given the ammunition handicap, any difference between the M-9 and any other service pistol in terms of qualitative PERFORMANCE is negligible at best.

Probably best not to quote someone unless you at least attempt to understand their message.

 

[Zerodefect]

M9= 2.1 pounds empty.
Glock 17= 1.6 pounds

So a Glock 19/17/23/32/22, likely is half a pound lighter than an M9. That's significant. And I shoot a G19 way better than an M9. ( about everyone seems to lately)

 

[leadcounsel]

Yep. Yes, I did. And it's not a bunch. Frame composition and weight (when the difference is only ounces, not pounds, means little. Safety/de-cocker operation and location is pretty subjective, and almost solely a training issue. My point, which you ignore is, given the ammunition handicap, any difference between the M-9 and any other service pistol in terms of qualitative PERFORMANCE is negligible at best.

Probably best not to quote someone unless you at least attempt to understand their message.

It's unusual to hear a former GI and LEO discount the value in weight savings. Most GIs and LEOs are keenly in tune with even dropping a few ounces here and there, because it does add up quickly.

Backpackers, designers, auto manufacturers, etc. and such are keenly aware of this.

Hence the explosion of lightweight materials which are stronger or as strong as their replacements. Aluminum, plastics, alloys, etc.

Ounces equal pounds. Let's say that you are carrying 80 pounds of standard gear, and through design savings you can drop 10% with lighter materials without suffering any performance decline in equipment. 80 pounds then becomes 72, which is a dramatic difference when you have to carry that on your back. Or in vehicles in the aggregate.

Say the Government is shipping crates of pistols across the world, totally 100,000 pistols. The Beretta weights 33 ounces x 100,000 is 206,250 pounds. Conversely, that 8 ounces of savings for a lighter Glock at 25 ounces x 100,000 is 156,250 pounds. The difference in weight is 50 THOUSAND pounds or about 23 METRIC TONS! That translates into a lot of fuel across the world. Multiply that solo trip by many round trips, over decades, and it is an obvious cost savings to reduce weight everywhere possible without sacrificing performance.

The lesson is that weight savings is a very important factor to the individual and in the aggregate.

As for grip angle I strongly believe that it's in the shooters head. While there are ergonomic differences between the "fits like a glove" CZ or Sig, the Glock is perfectly fine to any adult. Grip angle and hold are marginally different and with minimal range time it becomes quite natural. I actually have shot the Glock enough that I am very comfortable with the grip and angle and pointability.

 

[savanahsdad]

Most people form there opinions about Glocks by word of mouth without shooting one. .

By attaching this to my post it looks as though you may feel I am one of those guys or My son has never shot a glock well if that's the case , then you would be wrong , there is a gen2 G19 in my safe , along with S&W1911 Ruger P-89, a small pile of 22lr's a few revolvers , and some pocket autos. Glad to hear some training got you in good with your glock , but my Daughters brother-inlaw is a Glock armor and trainer , and told me the same thing , but we put his glock in my hand , and I showed him how the back of the gun beats up my big thumb knuckle , he said "if you don't shoot it a lot , you should be just fine!" got to hand it to him he tried , my son hate the trigger , my wife hates the brass bouncing off her head , so as great as they are, there not for everyone , I just got a Taurus 454 and it too don't fit right , going to try some other grips , but I think that one will be sold soon ,


back on task, I say the hand gun is a tool that will always have a place with are armed forces

 

[TestPilot]

Posted by Old Dog:
... and almost solely a training issue.

Training issue STILL IS an issue.

If both pistols performs the same, as you assert, then pistol that is harder to train with because it has more levers to consider, is at a disadvantage.

 

[herrwalther]

Most people form there opinions about Glocks by word of mouth without shooting one. I am guilty of listening to the naysayers myself.

I am in the anti-Glock camp after shooting one. Going through about 5000 rounds a month did not magically make me love them either. Glocks are very utility, bland, and nothing to write home about. When I was allowed to train with a personal firearm for my college shooting team I never picked up a Glock again.

 

[fanchisimo]

Another thing I think the Glock has going for it in the modular category is that all of it's 9mm pistols can use the Glock 17 magazines so even the 19 and 26 could have increased capacity should the DoD choose it.

 

[GLOOB]

My son is a MP. as much as he dislikes his M-9 I asked him if he would rather have a glock , and with this being the High Road I can't tell you what he said

All this means is that individuals have preferences. If you are in charge us choosing a sidearm for the Unites States Armed Forces, are you going to go with whatever your son prefers?

There are real reasons why a Glock-like pistol would be better, in general, even if some people don't like 'em. By Glock-like, I mean light, durable, corrosion-resistant, and cheap and easy to maintain.

The reason an actual Glock is probably not going to happen could be because Glock is reluctant to give up control of production.

 

[fanchisimo]

Glock is reluctant to give up control of production.

Do you mean that they don't want to be tied down to having to make pistols for the DoD? Or do you mean that they would have to let someone else make the pistols? Sorry I'm just confused about what you mean.

No matter what, I think any manufacture would be thrilled to have a Gov contract. That's why there is such fierce competition for them since there is a lot of money to be made.

 

[Zerodefect]

Same role they've always had. Sometimes you have to improvise when you have a rough job to do. Options are nice.

 

[GLOOB]

Do you mean that they don't want to be tied down to having to make pistols for the DoD? Or do you mean that they would have to let someone else make the pistols? Sorry I'm just confused about what you mean.

Last go around for pistol when Beretta won the contract, I seem to vaguely recall issues surrounding production. I think it might have been an Army requirement, rather than DoD, but this is all from memory, and this was a long time ago. Something like Glock wasn't even considered, because they wouldn't set up manufacturing in the US. I know they are assembling Glocks in GA, now, but most all the machining, finishing, barrel-forging, injection molding and stamping is still done only in Austria, AFAIK. Basically everything important. I could be wrong.

That's why there is such fierce competition for them since there is a lot of money to be made.

The persistent internet rumor is that Glock already has unfilled orders for guns in the hundreds of thousands, if not a million. They already have a lot of money to be made. They could perhaps make a little more money in the short term by expanding and giving up some interest/control in their companey, but I think they are more concerned with maintaining quality and reputation and demand/price. And of course maintaining control.

In a time of emergency, the government can call on any number of domestic manufacturers that can mill steel to make a 1911 or a Beretta. There are a lot of very specific manufacturing techniques and trade secrets in making Glock parts; at least if you want to make them as efficiently and consistently as Glock does. Very expensive equipment that would require a huge investment. And specific knowledge that Glock might not want to share. In a world war III scenario, the government can award a contract to a sewing machine company to make "Glocks," but they won't be able to make them the same way Glock does.

 

[krupparms]

Both the Glock & Beretta are fine handguns. But the wight of the Glock would make me choose it. It is also durable, accurate & can be fixed easily by the armor. When you are carrying an M-60 & the ammo, spare barrel ect., you need to save as much wight as possible. Also as pointed out you can use hi-cap magazines. I was issue a S&W model 15, .38SPL. And I would have liked that Glock alot more! Glocks are a big step forward in handguns & were will see more militarys useing them or something similar! The U.S. has aways wanted a magic gun that will do it all! The inventory will always have a mix of handguns that have legitimate uses, as already pointed out. The Glock isn't perfect or magic! But it's what I would choose between the Glock or Beretta.

 

[kBob]

barnbwt,

What do you mean by Patton's beloved saber?

The Patton saber was not a personal affectation of GSP and he did not wear one about at any time. They are a long heavy blade that was mounted in the scabbard to the saddle and never worn. He did design the weapon when told to do so at a time when there were still mounted units and they were still considered viable. He also wrote a manual for their use. Both the Saber design and manual were excellent work that attracted the attention of folks higher up.

Patton did take to conspicuous wearing of handguns , certainly as early as the 1914 expedition into Mexico where he wore his famed 1873 Colt Single Action Army instead of carrying the new issue M1911. He gained further notice by using this old style single action in .45 Colt to dispatch at least two and perhaps more Villistas.

Some say he also carried this pistol in WWI when he was in command of a company of the little 1917 Renault tanks. Interestingly he at one point gave support to an Infantry outfit commanded by a young Douglas Mac Aurther and wouldn't all of us like to have been "a fly on the wall" for that event.

In WWII he generally wore his SAA in the rear for photo ops but on occasion on the left hip up front. His primary up front side arm worn on the right was a S&W .357 later called the Model 27, like the Colt, with Ivory grips.

His day to day wear included a Colt 1908 (with stars on the right grip frame) a Remington 51, or a Colt some say a police positive special and others a detective but with a 2 inch barrel.

-kBob