Importance of Pistols role in todays millitary?
- Thread starter Blueduck
- Start date
- Status
No Quarter
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 310
As a Marine issued a Beretta back in the day, as well as a shotgun (Squad Leader), we spent a ton of time on work parties. We built an airfield in Somalia, cleared land for a camp. Worked checkpoints in town, etc. etc.
You can't have a rifle in your hands at all times. You CAN have your handgun on you, even in PT gear. I drew my pistol more than once when doing crowd control, checkpoints, etc.
It is a necessary piece of gear.
You can't have a rifle in your hands at all times. You CAN have your handgun on you, even in PT gear. I drew my pistol more than once when doing crowd control, checkpoints, etc.
It is a necessary piece of gear.
edmo01
Member
Are handguns still required? Yes...
As a retired USAF pilot, my primary weapon was always a handgun.
Are there now better options than the M9? Again, yes.
The M9 is an overly big and heavy handgun for a 15+1 9mm. However, it was always accurate and reliable for me.
Did I like the M9? Yes.
During the first Gulf War my unit was still issuing us pilots the trusty old S&W M15. It is a really nice 38 Special Revolver. Now let's be realistic. If I ever needed a handgun the Beretta M9 with 15 rounds is definately more comforting than a revolver with 6 rounds of 38 Special.
Yes, as a pilot if I'm pulling out a handgun things are going bad. However, if things are going bad I want the most effective gun available.
Edmo
As a retired USAF pilot, my primary weapon was always a handgun.
Are there now better options than the M9? Again, yes.
The M9 is an overly big and heavy handgun for a 15+1 9mm. However, it was always accurate and reliable for me.
Did I like the M9? Yes.
During the first Gulf War my unit was still issuing us pilots the trusty old S&W M15. It is a really nice 38 Special Revolver. Now let's be realistic. If I ever needed a handgun the Beretta M9 with 15 rounds is definately more comforting than a revolver with 6 rounds of 38 Special.
Yes, as a pilot if I'm pulling out a handgun things are going bad. However, if things are going bad I want the most effective gun available.
Edmo
Last edited:
Levan9X19
Member
there is a log debate about the weapon pilots should have in order to defend himself and also survive in wild. I doubt pistol is suited for this role.
Nom de Forum
Member
Why the doubt? What weapon do you think would be better?
Old Dog
Member
I note that folks are still stuck on mag capacity and consider the M-9 as a 15+1 pistol ...
As with most 9mm service pistols now (SIGs and CZs), the M-9 is an 18+1 or a 20+1 pistol.
As with most 9mm service pistols now (SIGs and CZs), the M-9 is an 18+1 or a 20+1 pistol.
Ever been in the cockpit of a tactical jet aircraft? Not a lot of spare room for extra weapons, unless we're issuing Phasers now ...
Zerodefect
member
I don't see how a person could eject from a fighter with a PDW or Carbine strapped to them. Sure you could put one in the ejection seat. But then you'd have to follow the seat down to be anywhere near it. Is that even plausible? Kinda hard to see where the seat went while being launched out of an airplane.
And one or two aviators aren't going to win a fight against anything on foot.
And one or two aviators aren't going to win a fight against anything on foot.
BudMan5
Member
I am a retired senior Infantry NCO. My last assignment oin active duty in 1999 was as the 1st Sgt of a light Infantry Company. I don't post here often because i don't like to get embrouiled in a flame war. When I do post, i try to stay away from stating a fact or cdescribing a situation wuithout citing a source to valid what I write. please note that i have done that in this post.
here are some very basic facts about an infantry unit. There is a Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE)for every unit in the Army. There sometines is a modified Table of Oirganization and Equipment (MTOE)
For a typical light infantry company (by light Infantry it means they are not mechanized or airborne) that is authorized 136 people, each person is described to include his rank and title, his weapon and even his night vision or optic. Here is a link to the standard MTOE of an Infantry unit in the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Division:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/07017L000.htm
The ONLY people in a typical Infantry company that are authorized a pistol are the six machine gunners, the three mortar gunners, the Company Commander and the Supply Sgt. Everyone else is issued a rifle.
There are only a total of 11 pistols in an entire infantry company.
The M9 is a very old pistol in service and in fact, it is a very old design (1951) and that's a copy of an even older design (1934).
It is a big gun. Many of the people who are assigned a pistol as a primary weapon (flight crews, MPs, CID, medics. etc) are small such as women. The M9 is not a usr friendly weapon for anyone with small hands.
The new proposal for bids concerning a new pistol does not describe a specific caliber other than it is required to equal a certain standard in specific situations, for instance range. The request for proposal does require that a pistol submitted has to be modular in design, that is, it has toi be able to be adapted at the organization level (the lowest level of maintenance) to be mission and user specific. In plain language that means that the pistol has to be able to be adaptable for concealed carry (replacing the M11 which fills that role now) and it also has to be adaptable for the individual user. That means it be able to be re-sized to fit the operator's hands and ambidextrous.
So, the new pistol has to be lethal within certain parameters and it also has to be size adaptable.
There has been a lot of disinformation poull out about this on many forums and blogs. As I stated, I always try to provide a source document so here is a link to the actual request for proposal and it describes the requirements of that the military wants in a new pistol:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=fd2662aa6580151c9fdc7dcf0f0481e5
I am really not interested in getting involved in some internet chest beating war. I don't have a dog in this fight, I am presenting (and citing) facts concerning where the military is headed with a pistol.
BTW, the Marines are issuing those M1911 pistols to their Special Operations folks not to the line snuffies. Their Special Operations folks have been carrying a 1911 pistol for decades, mainly rebuilt M1911s many of them built for my Father's generation. They just can't keep the old guns going anymore they were played out.
here are some very basic facts about an infantry unit. There is a Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE)for every unit in the Army. There sometines is a modified Table of Oirganization and Equipment (MTOE)
For a typical light infantry company (by light Infantry it means they are not mechanized or airborne) that is authorized 136 people, each person is described to include his rank and title, his weapon and even his night vision or optic. Here is a link to the standard MTOE of an Infantry unit in the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Division:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/07017L000.htm
The ONLY people in a typical Infantry company that are authorized a pistol are the six machine gunners, the three mortar gunners, the Company Commander and the Supply Sgt. Everyone else is issued a rifle.
There are only a total of 11 pistols in an entire infantry company.
The M9 is a very old pistol in service and in fact, it is a very old design (1951) and that's a copy of an even older design (1934).
It is a big gun. Many of the people who are assigned a pistol as a primary weapon (flight crews, MPs, CID, medics. etc) are small such as women. The M9 is not a usr friendly weapon for anyone with small hands.
The new proposal for bids concerning a new pistol does not describe a specific caliber other than it is required to equal a certain standard in specific situations, for instance range. The request for proposal does require that a pistol submitted has to be modular in design, that is, it has toi be able to be adapted at the organization level (the lowest level of maintenance) to be mission and user specific. In plain language that means that the pistol has to be able to be adaptable for concealed carry (replacing the M11 which fills that role now) and it also has to be adaptable for the individual user. That means it be able to be re-sized to fit the operator's hands and ambidextrous.
So, the new pistol has to be lethal within certain parameters and it also has to be size adaptable.
There has been a lot of disinformation poull out about this on many forums and blogs. As I stated, I always try to provide a source document so here is a link to the actual request for proposal and it describes the requirements of that the military wants in a new pistol:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=fd2662aa6580151c9fdc7dcf0f0481e5
I am really not interested in getting involved in some internet chest beating war. I don't have a dog in this fight, I am presenting (and citing) facts concerning where the military is headed with a pistol.
BTW, the Marines are issuing those M1911 pistols to their Special Operations folks not to the line snuffies. Their Special Operations folks have been carrying a 1911 pistol for decades, mainly rebuilt M1911s many of them built for my Father's generation. They just can't keep the old guns going anymore they were played out.
Last edited:
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
So, this whole rigmarole is so the military can call the concealable and service pistols by the same name? Seems wasteful. Especially in light of their sparse issuance, by your description. I wonder if the money spent researching this topic could be used to instead maintain our current choices in a better state than you describe.
Also, seven posts in six years --you sure know how to hold your tongue; kudos
TCB
Also, seven posts in six years --you sure know how to hold your tongue; kudos
TCB
savanahsdad
Member
I'm guessing you didn't read my follow up post , #66, it is not what someone PREFERS , but what fits them , and as much as I tried and both of my son's have tried , it just don't fit , and that is a common complaint with them other than there ugly , but I don't care what a tool looks like, if it may save my life , but it has to fit , and for the record . my son prefers a 1911
BudMan5
Member
I was trying to point out a misconception that there are a lot of pistols in an Infantry unit. There aren't. But all flight crews, MPs, medics, etc are issued pistols as their primary weapons. There are about 10 combat support/combat service support soldiers for every one infantryman.
The Army isn't spending any money on the proposal, that's up to the individual companies to do the research and submit a proposal. They do the R&D not the Department of Defense
And, you seemed to have glossed over my entire post (demonstrating why i don't like to post too often)
Why should the military have to have two different types of pistols? Two entirely different training programs, different spare parts, different magazines, different holsters and mags carriers.
Soldiers used to come in one size fits all but that is no longer true. The Army (and AF, N and MC) is proactively attempting to accommodate all of their service members.
I'll go back to attending to the rest of my life which is away from the computer and internet forums. I was just bored listening to our Commander in Chief spout his usual nonsense for the masses to lap up and "strolled in" here.
The Army isn't spending any money on the proposal, that's up to the individual companies to do the research and submit a proposal. They do the R&D not the Department of Defense
And, you seemed to have glossed over my entire post (demonstrating why i don't like to post too often)
Why should the military have to have two different types of pistols? Two entirely different training programs, different spare parts, different magazines, different holsters and mags carriers.
Soldiers used to come in one size fits all but that is no longer true. The Army (and AF, N and MC) is proactively attempting to accommodate all of their service members.
I'll go back to attending to the rest of my life which is away from the computer and internet forums. I was just bored listening to our Commander in Chief spout his usual nonsense for the masses to lap up and "strolled in" here.
Last edited:
.455_Hunter
Member
As a prior service Army O3, I feel the M9 should be issued to pretty much everyone E6 and up, with others availabe for lower ranks as needed. The concept that only weapon carried by a Platoon Leader or 1SG should be a rifle is complete nonsense. When you need a pistol, you NEED a pistol, especially when your primary job is NOT directly shooting a rifle.
BudMan5
Member
Well, Captain, it's been my experience in combat on two different continents that if things get to the point where the platoon leader or the 1st Sgt need a pistol there are probably going to be several laying around for the taking
.455_Hunter
Member
...along with MANY rifles.
Unit leadership and selected subordinates should carry a pistol at all times, with rifles available as the situation dictates. This mandatory carry of sidearms should be SOP for CONUS as well.
Unit leadership and selected subordinates should carry a pistol at all times, with rifles available as the situation dictates. This mandatory carry of sidearms should be SOP for CONUS as well.
leadcounsel
member
I would argue that isn't the most efficient method of combat for a world superpower... "wait until your buddies die and then you can have a pistol."
Reminds me of that really obnoxious and silly line from "We were Soldiers" when the CSM says that about the M16 to the COL.
Also reminds me of that line from "Enemy at the Gates" when handing out Mosin rifles and ammo to every other Soldier, sending them out in teams where the unarmed Soldier is to wait until his partner dies and pick up his rifle.
I think what the O3 was stating, and I tend to agree, is that there are many times when you might need a pistol when carrying a rifle was otherwise impractical. You may not be able to rely on them "laying around" under many scenarios, yet still need one.
cluttonfred
Member
Thanks, BudMan5, for framing the question as primarily how to arm non-infantry personnel. Setting aside for a moment the question of a back-up weapon for the infantry, this thread does make me wonder if we really doing "non-combat" personnel a favor by issuing them a pistol as their only weapon. Didn't we already have this debate around 1942 and came up with the M1 Carbine instead? Even today, wouldn't a compact lightweight shoulder-fired weapon still be a lot more useful than a pistol in actual practice?
For example, the 9x19mm Beretta M9 weighs 1.16 kg (41 oz) loaded with 15 rounds. An 5.7x28mm FN P90 weighs about 3 kg with 50 rounds. An 4.6x30mm H&K MP7 weighs less than 2 kg with 20 rounds. Even setting aside the special-purpose small-caliber, high-velocity PDW cartridges, something like the 9x19mm B&T MP9 with foregrip and stock still weights less than 2 kg with 20 rounds. The MP9 and MP7 can be holster carried.
Personally, I think we ought to be having two different competitions. There ought to be one competition for sidearms to supplement the trooper's primary weapon, likely to settle on a compact, double-stack, polymer-frame DAO 9mm pistol. Then there ought to be a competition for a PDW, a modern incarnation of the M1, to be issued to folks that carry no other weapon so they at least have a fighting chance when the bad guys turn up.
For example, the 9x19mm Beretta M9 weighs 1.16 kg (41 oz) loaded with 15 rounds. An 5.7x28mm FN P90 weighs about 3 kg with 50 rounds. An 4.6x30mm H&K MP7 weighs less than 2 kg with 20 rounds. Even setting aside the special-purpose small-caliber, high-velocity PDW cartridges, something like the 9x19mm B&T MP9 with foregrip and stock still weights less than 2 kg with 20 rounds. The MP9 and MP7 can be holster carried.
Personally, I think we ought to be having two different competitions. There ought to be one competition for sidearms to supplement the trooper's primary weapon, likely to settle on a compact, double-stack, polymer-frame DAO 9mm pistol. Then there ought to be a competition for a PDW, a modern incarnation of the M1, to be issued to folks that carry no other weapon so they at least have a fighting chance when the bad guys turn up.
steveracer
Member
In Iraq in 2007-2008, I had a rifle and a pistol, and used both.
In Afghanistan in 2010 I had a rifle and a pistol, and used both.
In Djibouti and Somalia in 2012 I had a rifle and a pistol, and used both.
All the Army, Marines, Airmen, and other Sailors in every unit I deployed with on the ground had a rifle and pistol, and often used both.
"certain members of an infantry unit" doesn't apply anymore. Every unit I was around was wearing four different types of camoflague and often different nations flags on their sleeve.
Brits carried either the Sig 226 or BHP. Eastern Europe people carried the Makarov or Tokarev of some other oddball pistol in 9mm.
Everyone had a holster on them. Everyone had a pistol. Out of about 15,000 people I was around in Afghanistan and Iraq, less than 1500 had only one weapon.
What nobody had, anywhere, ever, that I saw, was a big ass knife. Everyone had a folding knife and a multi-tool. Not one Ka-Bar to be seen anyplace where I have been since 2007.
We all had lots and lots of magazines for everything, and lots and lots and lots and lots of nylon crap in boxes and bags that nobody used.
Pistols everywhere. Common as boots.
In Afghanistan in 2010 I had a rifle and a pistol, and used both.
In Djibouti and Somalia in 2012 I had a rifle and a pistol, and used both.
All the Army, Marines, Airmen, and other Sailors in every unit I deployed with on the ground had a rifle and pistol, and often used both.
"certain members of an infantry unit" doesn't apply anymore. Every unit I was around was wearing four different types of camoflague and often different nations flags on their sleeve.
Brits carried either the Sig 226 or BHP. Eastern Europe people carried the Makarov or Tokarev of some other oddball pistol in 9mm.
Everyone had a holster on them. Everyone had a pistol. Out of about 15,000 people I was around in Afghanistan and Iraq, less than 1500 had only one weapon.
What nobody had, anywhere, ever, that I saw, was a big ass knife. Everyone had a folding knife and a multi-tool. Not one Ka-Bar to be seen anyplace where I have been since 2007.
We all had lots and lots of magazines for everything, and lots and lots and lots and lots of nylon crap in boxes and bags that nobody used.
Pistols everywhere. Common as boots.
I was in Engineer units and support units that operated under a MTOE. I was a combat engineer and then a machinist. As a machinist I also operated 5 ton wreckers and M88 recovery vehicles. I was always assigned either the M60 or a M16 along with a pistol (with the exception of the one unit where I was issued a M3A1). I served from 89 to 96. As a 12B, it was usually the M60 and pistol. As a 44E, it was a M16 and pistol.
Zerodefect
member
Thanks guys. It's great to hear 1st hand experience on this. It would be great to hear if you'd rather have the M9 or something else. (in the other thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=770580 )
Stand1 Scott
Member
Allow me to chime in.
As a long serving British soldier I have seen us go from the pistol (BHP) being something that only the company commander or higher, SF, or MP's carried, to being issued one anytime I went out of camp in Civilian clothes in NI, limited issue to vehicle crews in Bosnia, the. Iraq, to where now, anyone who goes outside the wire in theatre is issued a Glock 17 Gen4, and in fact most soldiers now get issued a pistol for deployments. We have woken up to the constant threat of inside attacks.
Prior to my last deployment to Iraq, we were told of a recent incident where a Danish officer had gone into the porta cabin shower block started shaving when 2 Iraqis burst out of the toilet stalls like something from a Jason Bourne film, they had rags soaked in chloroform or similar. He managed to get 1 round off from his pistol, into the floor. But it obviously bout everyone running.
So yes, it does have a place. Personally, I was a warrior recovery vehicle commander. My rifle was 3 feet below me inside the vehicle, and I had the chain gun that I had to drop down inside to operate. My Sig 226 lived on my vest incase of someone jumping onto the side armour and climbing up.
As a long serving British soldier I have seen us go from the pistol (BHP) being something that only the company commander or higher, SF, or MP's carried, to being issued one anytime I went out of camp in Civilian clothes in NI, limited issue to vehicle crews in Bosnia, the. Iraq, to where now, anyone who goes outside the wire in theatre is issued a Glock 17 Gen4, and in fact most soldiers now get issued a pistol for deployments. We have woken up to the constant threat of inside attacks.
Prior to my last deployment to Iraq, we were told of a recent incident where a Danish officer had gone into the porta cabin shower block started shaving when 2 Iraqis burst out of the toilet stalls like something from a Jason Bourne film, they had rags soaked in chloroform or similar. He managed to get 1 round off from his pistol, into the floor. But it obviously bout everyone running.
So yes, it does have a place. Personally, I was a warrior recovery vehicle commander. My rifle was 3 feet below me inside the vehicle, and I had the chain gun that I had to drop down inside to operate. My Sig 226 lived on my vest incase of someone jumping onto the side armour and climbing up.
.455_Hunter
Member
Yes- the number of M9's "in country" FAR exceeded MTOE allotments. I know in many units it was defacto-SOP for all persons going outside the wire to have a sidearm, even junior enlisted.
I can't argue with that logic.
I can't argue with that logic.
leadcounsel
member
During one of my deployments, I was tasked with doing a monthly inventory. Took a lot of pictures. Here was the extra handguns in my SF Battalion.
You can see at least four 1911s, three BHPs, two Sigs, and lots of M9 surplus in our unit arms area.
As expected there were the typical other weapons too.
On another deployment we were short M9s, so I was temporarily issued a BHP while awaiting our RIP/TOA and property change over transition.
I also always carried a multi tool, small flick knife. I also carried a larger fighting knife outside the wire on my IOTV or IBA.
I was not issued a pistol in my conventional unit, and they were less common in conventional units. I was issued a pistol in the SF unit on all of my SF deployments. I guess it comes down to budget and MTOE and presumed need - but my need was no or less on my tours as I spent a lot of time outside the wire, and attacks were not unusual on FOBs.
In the dynamic 360 degree threat of modern warfare with no front lines so to speak, pistols should be quite common.
You can see at least four 1911s, three BHPs, two Sigs, and lots of M9 surplus in our unit arms area.
As expected there were the typical other weapons too.
On another deployment we were short M9s, so I was temporarily issued a BHP while awaiting our RIP/TOA and property change over transition.
I also always carried a multi tool, small flick knife. I also carried a larger fighting knife outside the wire on my IOTV or IBA.
I was not issued a pistol in my conventional unit, and they were less common in conventional units. I was issued a pistol in the SF unit on all of my SF deployments. I guess it comes down to budget and MTOE and presumed need - but my need was no or less on my tours as I spent a lot of time outside the wire, and attacks were not unusual on FOBs.
In the dynamic 360 degree threat of modern warfare with no front lines so to speak, pistols should be quite common.
Attachments
Last edited:
I was issued an M9 and M4 for both of my deployments (Iraq and Afghanistan). On both deployments I worked closely, one-on-one with the host nation militaries, and even lived on a combined patrol base with my Iraqi partners. My M9 was with me always (can't say the same for the M4), and my experience during my first deployment shaped my decisions regarding the M9 during my second. For #2 I brought my own 18- and 20-round MecGar magazines, and quality holsters. I never had need to fire it in a gunfight, but it did help me out once.
A handgun isn't useful to all servicemembers in all situations, but I considered mine invaluable.
A handgun isn't useful to all servicemembers in all situations, but I considered mine invaluable.
cluttonfred
Member
From what recent veterans are saying, I wonder if the increasing use of handguns would be an argument to adopt something smaller and lighter than the M9, either a compact model or a subcompact with finger extension to get all the fingers on the gun to minimize the total increase in load. Would it really make much difference in practical terms to give up a little sight radius and velocity by dropping the barrel length from the M9's 5" to 4" or even 3" to save weight and bulk?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
