Military sidearm question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course, the only time our weapons were unloaded was when were cleaning them at Firm Base 1.... I apologize if I misunderstood your post. It sounded like you were running around with your weapon on fire every time you left the wire.

Misunderstanding on both parties.:eek:

I spent time attached to various different units of the 3rd and 5th Marines.
Hit was 1/23 I believe and Faluja was 3rd LAR. (I never bothered to keep track otherwise.)


Al Asad, Dulab, TQ, Ramadi, Faluja, Habbanea... I got around.
 
We were directly attached to the 2nd Marine Division throughout our stay in Iraq. Never saw anything fundementally different in their tactics compared to ours. As fine a group of warriors as I have ever worked with. I did notice though that the Marine Corps is not nearly as liberal with issuing sidearms as the Army is. Maybe because they don't have the number of weapons we do. Marines seem to stricly regulate sidearms to Officers, high ranking NCOs, machine gunners and corpsman, whereas the Army generally issues pistols to all of these and gives out leftovers to whoever asks for them. Hell, I was personally issued an M4, M21, M9, M240B, and a Mossberg Model 500. All were in my name and any of these not in use were secured in my connex. It's simply amazing how much overkill we had compared to the Marines we replaced.
 
I know this sounds ignorant and perhaps, against policy... but why don’t our personnel carry 9mm Hollow Points? It's YOUR LIFE! :banghead:

Just like some people disobey company policy by carrying concealed at work. You’re risking your job, but it could save your life. Plus, no one will know unless the SHTF.

I don’t know how it works over there, but I would damn sure keep the best ammo possible with me. If that means smuggling hydrashoks, so be it.

Comments?
 
Mcknife, you may find that what people post on the internet and what they actually carry while there is sometimes two different things.
 
NO kidding , during the Libyan missile attack we weren't issue ammo for guard duty while I was staioned in Wiesbaden . Lets just say with in 24 hours the local Rod n Gun club was totally out of 45ACP , 9MM and 233 rem .
 
Thanks marksman for the clarification.

I certainly hope they'd have some common sense. But there are still those who are strict by the book and risk their lives with sub-par 9mm fmj.

They need to issue HP is mass quantities.
 
Mcknife, you must also understand that a military courts martial, for violating the policy against HP ammo is much more serious than being fired from a job. Military prison can not be a fun way to spend many years of your life. Also, most of the real fighting is done with rifles, crew served weapons and aircraft. The sidearm, while playing a larger role than it has in previous wars, is still filling a very limited role. That said, I wish I had at least had HP ammo during my lone experience with a pistol in combat.

As tight knit as much of our military is, there are those who would quickly rat another soldier out if they found out that soldier was carrying unapproved ammo. I would not want to be standing in front of my Battalion Commander and explaining my choice of ammo. I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six, but I am wise enough to know when something is worth the risk of being judged and when it is not. I agree that it is an absurd rule, but I am a soldier. It is my job to follow orders, so long as those orders are legal.
 
Once again, I find myself slightly at odds with you Brother Marksman13:
-Or maby not, judging by your post about the internet.;)

I won't say anything about 'unaproved HP's...'



However, let me jump in on one point:
The 'No hp's' is according to the Hague convention (Not the Genevia(SP?) as many people think)
And states against CONVENTIONAL military forces in a DECLARED war.
Nether of which is the case in Iraq.
We were ISSUED non FMJ 5.56 made by Black hills prior to Faluja.
 
I will be the first to concede that I may be mistaken, Nomad. We were constantly preached to about using non issue ammo. If you are issued ammo that is not FMJ, then by all means use it and never think of it again.:D

I realize that we never signed the Hague accords. I will not argue that point at all my friend. I have seen non issue ammo confiscated by superiors. Not sure if it was right or wrong for this ammo to be confiscated. Perhaps I worded my post incorrectly. We were always cautioned against using non issue ammo for whatever reasons, and therein lies the problem I see with using HP ammo. If it wasn't issued, we weren't allowed to carry it.

Hope that clears up my muddy water just a bit. Thank you for your polite attitude and the information. May all our future discussions be this courteous.
 
We heard the same thing about 'unissued ammo'

On a TOTALLY unrelated issue, did you ever notice when you were on the 2 way firing range there were NO 'Zeros' around?:rolleyes:


I was supprised myself by the Black hills being issued... (I was packing a 249 so didn't get any, but I made sure to see the boxes due to my supprise.)

+1 on the Politeness. It's hard to communicate over printed words, but we have managed to work through the lack of facial expressions... Thanks.
 
I'm afraid the term "zeroes" escapes me. May be a Marine Corps thing, like Oooorah.:D Sorry, couldn't help myself. The only zero I ever heard of was in relation to POA being POI. I will say I did not see many zero ranges, and I will say that many of our guys did not check their zero nearly often enough.

I will admit to being a bit of smart ass, and I like to make jokes, but I truly hate to offend anone most of the time. I did take being called a liar rather personally though.:D I try not to ever judge someone's war stories unless I know them to be fabricated. I do understand why so many people are quick to call BS on stories that don't sound like they follow SOP. There are an awful lot of posers out there.
 
Again, My appoligies. I've ran into a few more 'posers' than usual lately, and it kinda gets to me. (Sorry for taking it out on you.)
Especaily since one (Just the other day) has been a friend of mine since high school...

Zeros= Officers

O-1, O-2...

VS. E-1, E-2...

Again, my appoligies.
 
Roger, good copy. We never called them zeroes. You are right however, NCOs run the show in the sand box and officers usually step in just in time to mess things up. We had a great commander, but our LTs were FUBAR.
 
IRT Silvanus (Post #29) (Sorry, I can't figure out how to quote your question on this forum):

a. We were not allowed to chamber a round. We were also not allowed to put a mag in the gun. Both issued mags had to be carried in the holders on the belt.

b. Somebody else mentioned only having 5 rounds per mag. I was only commenting that I don't remember that being the case on my ship.
 
Experience

Well, I can tell you from experience that the pistol is meant as a defensive weapon only, at least for the Army. Even in CQC situations, I have never seen a pistol used as a primary offensive weapon. There are so many more appropriate weapons to choose from. Nowhere in Army doctrine that I know of would a pistol be the weapon of choice for anything but defensive action.

While there does seem to be more "dual-armed" personnel on the battlefield now than in the past, there are very few that are only armed with a pistol, with medical personnel and Chaplain's staff coming to mind as examples of personnel that carry only a defensive weapon, if any at all. Also, usually very high ranking officers, such as a Task Force commander and maybe specific staff or advisers, are only defensively armed. However, these personnel always travel with a well armed security detail.

In modern combat, the vast majority of personnel are armed with an offensive weapon of some kind (sometimes multiple), typically an M4/M16, and in some cases a defensive weapon, typically an M9/M11 pistol.

Many personnel get sidearms now, in addition to the offensive weapon, most often depending on his/her job function. One category of personnel that I did not see mentioned yet that are almost always "dual-armed" are Military Intelligence, Human Intelligence (HUMINT) personnel.

Oh, and to comment on the idea of carrying a weapon in a combat zone without a round chambered. That would be asinine. On some bases in theatre (especially larger ones), yes this does occur, and some even require the magazine removed from the weapon. However, this is not the norm, and definitely should not occur "outside the wire."
 
Last edited:
When I was in the Air Force as a medical officer, initally we qualified with a 38 revolver ( 4" barrel version of my K-38) then later the M-9.

The enlisted folks qualified with the M-16. I always told them If we were sent to a place where we needed to be armed that I would be happly to trade my M-9 to the first taker for a M-16. There was always several who did not like guns and said they were willing.
 
I have no military experience,but heres my take.Iraq is probably one of the most unpredictable major warzones in history.For all you know the guy 10 feet away walking down the street has a bomb strapped to his chest and could charge you any second. when a human bomb is running at me every millisecond counts.I'd rather pull a pistol and fire away than raise my m4 to shoulder height and fiddle the safety to semi.And I haven't been shot,but I can imagine a .45 hurts a lot more than a 9mm.And as much as I admire the brave soldiers we have fighting today,they are soft compared to the vets of Nam and WWII.One of the main reasons they switched the standard sidearm from .45 to 9mm is because these college kids who have never held a gun in their life "can't handle" the recoil.The "Warrior Spirit" has unfortunately weakened over time.Some of the soldiers in Iraq right now are left wing gun grabbers!I know this for a fact.
 
Bondo, your lack of military experience is duly noted, therefore I will cut you some slack on your lack of basic military knowledge/common sense. The plain and simple fact is that no one that I know of could possibly draw a pistol and successfully engage a target faster than I can bring my M4 or Mossberg to my shoulder and engage the same target. There are at least five extra steps to drawing and firing the pistol. You have to release the grip of your rifle, reach towards your holster, disengage at least one, most likely two rentention devices, draw the pistol upward, align the sights, swipe off the safety and fire. And you are doing all of this just to fire a round that is inferior to the one you have immediately available.

Your weapon will already be at the low ready if you are doing a dismounted patrol. How much easier is it to bring your rifle/shotgun to your shoulder, align the sights (depending on distance, may not even be completely neccessary(sp?), swipe the selector switch to fire and pull the trigger?

And do me a favor and save your assinine rhetoric about how today's troops are so much softer than those of yesterday. That is absolute crap. It is man's tendecy to compare himself favorably to his replacement. It makes people feel good to say they were tougher, faster, better shooters, etc than the people who are doing the job today. The fact is that the US military of today is the finest group of warriors ever assembled. Our training, technology, and ability to gain intel far surpass most previous and current armed forces around the world. It is a simple matter of adaptation, and I intend no offence to my fellow veterans from previous wars. They gained the knowledge that we used to improve ourselves.

You seem rather young, and are most likely still in some level of school, so do yourself a favor. Pay very close attention in your history classes. Replacing the 1911 had nothing to do with modern soldiers being recoil sensitive. We switched to a NATO round, the 9mm, to be logisticaly compatible with NATO forces around the world. Tell me how in the world today's soldiers are more recoil sensitive than those of previous wars when studies have shown that the average American is actually larger than the average American of years gone by?

Not intending to hurt your feelings, just trying to educate you a bit. If you ever reach for a pistol with a rifle in your hand, you aren't likely to go home that night. And, if you keep passing off bad info like the recoil sensitivity issue, someone is going to come along and really hurt your feelings.

Also, rest assured the "Warrior Spirit" is alive and well! We continue to fight as hard as we can, where ever we are needed, as long as we can. You have been watching too much liberal media, and once again you haven't checked your history books. There have been spineless, gutless detractors as long as there have been wars. The difference between then and now is that everyone of those disgruntled, opionated naysayers has access to a blog and a media outlet. You hear more about it now because we live in a world where media technology thrives and anyone can get their opinion out to everyone.
 
Bondo

Sorry but I have to add that it's obvious you've never been in the military. I served 14 years (86-2000) and I met more than a few vets from WW2, Korea and Vietnam. Many of them told me that the modern soldiers are better equipped, better trained and more fit. Many of these old timers were combat arms vets.

Also do a little more research regarding the 1911. There was many a soldier who went on and on about the horrible recoil of the 45 auto and that it wouldn't hit the broad side of a barn. many of the troops doing the complaining about the 45 were WW2 troops.

I've read reports from WW1 by officers about how the soldiers had absolutely no skills with firearms and the same thing was written by northern officers in the Civil War! So much for the weakning of the warrior spirit.

There have always been liberals in the military and some of them have been very effective at being combat soldiers. General Stilwell was a classic left wing political type and he was as tough as nails. While the majority are conservative that isn't always the case. While I might not agree with them I respect a political liberal who is willing to wear the uniform and put it on the line for his or her's country. Don't go badmouthing the folks who are actually serving - regardless of their political orientation.
 
Well I spent my time in the service, didn't have to worry about a silly little 9mm. I got them years. Know what I mean? SEA 1970
 
One of the main reasons they switched the standard sidearm from .45 to 9mm is because these college kids who have never held a gun in their life "can't handle" the recoil.The "Warrior Spirit" has unfortunately weakened over time.Some of the soldiers in Iraq right now are left wing gun grabbers!I know this for a fact.

Thank you for sharing with us your vast lack of knowledge.

FYI according to several 5 foot tall women I know the 9mm is more 'snappy' than the .45 and they prefer the 'push' of the .45.

As for as weak... look into the combat load of WW2 VS now...


Again thank you for sharing your OPINION.
 
As a Marine rifleman in Viet Nam in 1969 and 1970, I carried an M-79
grenade launcher for a few months. I was the "squad heavy weapons
platoon". Since the launched grenade did not "activate" until it was
about 15 meters out, they gave me a 1911-A1 as a close-in support
weapon.
I shot it as much as I could scrounge extra ammo, and grew to love
the gun. I bought a new Colt Mk. IV, Series 70 .45acp in 1973, and
haven't been without it since.
I never fired the 1911 in a combat situation, but there were many times
when I felt a whole lot better knowing I had it.
BTW, I carried it "cocked and locked" ALL the time. The only time the
round came out of the chamber was if I knew we were having a weapons inspection, which we had maybe once a month. Otherwise it was loaded
to the hilt, and I never had any problem with that.
But why should I have. We were "combat" Marines, and we were in a
combat situation. We kept our guns loaded.

Walter
 
And do me a favor and save your assinine rhetoric about how today's troops are so much softer than those of yesterday.

Got that right. I am sure that the Regulars left from the Revolutionary War were telling the recruits in 1812 that same ol' crud — "Back in the old Army..."
 
I believe the idea of only loading 5 rounds in a 1911 mag in the Navy was done to reduce the strain on the mag springs. The thought was five rounds would place less strain on the springs then a full 7 round load. I've run across so many mentions of the "only 5 rounds in the mag" in relation to Navy watchstanders and the like that I have to believe it was SOP for quite awhile. It makes some sense when you consider the age of the pistols and magazines and the fact that the "watch duty" mags were constantely left loaded.

That's my theory on it, anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top