What does the term, "Go to War Gun" or "Fighting Gun", mean to you

Status
Not open for further replies.

george burns

Member
Joined
May 26, 2014
Messages
1,849
Location
Sebastion
It seems like I see this a lot when the people who review guns, are reviewing guns. It somehow tries to segregate those guns which some of us carry, as not being durable, powerful, or resilient enough to withstand professional use as in the Police or Military. Or that's how it appears to me anyhow, if you think I am wrong you are welcome to interject you're meaning as you see it.
I sometimes don't see how the distinctions are made. Is say a Glock 17, more of a go to war gun than say a glock 19, or does it stop at a glock26?, "just to use one brand as a comparison", It seems that any gun that you can stick a magazine in that takes more than a derringer, could be considered a Fighting gun, if you are the guy doing the fighting, and that's what you have at hand. I understand that they are trying to make a point, but that point gets lost in translation, as many things do these days.
Would you agree that any gun capable of killing another human being is a Go To War Gun, or are there specific characteristics that such a group of firearms should have. Say 10 rounds, a minimum of 9mm, and some history? Let's not forget that our Go to war gun was a 1911 for 100 years or so, and that only had 8 rounds in it, so capacity is subjective to a degree unless modern technology has changed the rules. What is a fighting or go to war gun?
 
To me it means a gun that you trust your life to.

Something that's ultra reliable. A gun where if you had to go to war you wouldn't feel underarmed by having it.

In some contexts it means a gun where it you were living in a dirt hole and had very little time or means to maintain it that it would still work and you'd be able to shoot back.
 
I'm assuming based on the context of the OP that we're talking about handguns since all the references to firearms that can be identified as to type refer to handguns and none refer to long guns, so I'll respond along those lines.

I have a few handguns that are a lot of fun to shoot at the range that would be near the bottom of the list if I put all my guns in order with the most suitable for self-defense at the top.

To me, it just means that the gun is an obviously good choice (as opposed to being adequate or a good compromise) for self-defense use. I would qualify that a little more by saying it's also probably larger and has more capacity than a typical concealed-carry pistol. I think that saying a handgun is a good "go to war gun" is synonymous with saying that it is an obviously good choice for a home defense handgun or a good LE/Military issue sidearm.
...any gun that you can stick a magazine in that takes more than a derringer, could be considered a Fighting gun, if you are the guy doing the fighting, and that's what you have at hand...
This is a common misconception, and it leads to a lot of wrangling on internet gun forums.

A lot of people try to argue that what they already own, or what they can afford, or what they like, or what they can conveniently carry, is automatically a good choice for whatever urgent need arises. A gun is a good choice for an urgent need if it has the qualities that make it a good choice for that particular application. I'm not saying that a person should give up if they find themselves in a self-defense situation and all they have is a .22LR derringer, but I am saying that the fact that someone already owns a derringer (or likes derringers a lot, or can easily carry a derringer) shouldn't lead them to try to rationalize why it's a good choice for self-defense.

Imagine a person with these qualities:
  • Has common sense.
  • Has a lot of solid, fact-based knowledge about handgun self-defense.
  • Owns a tremendous variety of handguns in a huge variety of vintages, types, calibers, and configurations.
  • Has no special preferences among the owned handguns.
  • Shoots all owned handguns equally well and is intimately familiar with the operation of each one.
  • Thinks fast and well under pressure.
Now imagine that this person sitting in the gun room. Alll the handguns are fully loaded and there are also 3 loaded spare magazines/speedloaders for each one. There are several loud noises. Next, from the front of the house a family member screams: "They kicked in the front door!", "They have guns!" and from the back of the house, another family member screams: "They're coming in the back door!". Then the screams are replaced by the sound of shooting.

This hypothetical person grabs one of the guns and the loaded spare magazines/speedloaders for it and runs toward the noise of the shooting. The selected gun is a good "go to war gun".
Would you agree that any gun capable of killing another human being is a Go To War Gun...
Not at all. I own some airguns that have lethal potential but I would never consider using one of those as a self-defense gun.
 
Last edited:
There was a time when it was a matchlock musket. A go to war gun is a gun that you bring to war. Over the years that's been pretty much anything and everything.
 
A little over 240 years ago a "go to war gun was whatever those minutemen had. They were a hodgepodge of whatever was available. Just as today thanks to our 2A if there is ever a time when the citizens of our great nation are called upon en masse to take up arms, we will all bring our "fighting gun".
 
To me it means the gun that you have with you when the cow excrament self levatates up into the rotating oscillator.

We had a similar term for the break out war that we expected in Korea - Come as You are. Meant that you fought the fight/war with what you had on hand when it started and don't expect any additional help in the near future
 
I would guess a "go to war gun" means something different to someone who has been to a war than someone who hasn't. It doesn't mean a pistol to me.
 
Reliable,
Durable,
Easy to use/instinctive
Large magazine
Accurate for its purpose
“Fits the role”

The last one is hard for me to state with a short definition. I have a Daniel defense m4v11. I would argue it is well set up to be a fighting carbine, no it is not an M27 with an acog, but it beats the m4 with iron sights and i have a lot of confidence in my rifle, it fits the role of a fighting carbine. My RRA AR15 is set up for 3 gun and does not meet the fighting carbine role, I do not believe it would take the same punishment

For handguns, a Glock 19 is a great gun, but I can get a more consistent grip on the full sized model and if I’m not worried about concealability I go for the 17 or 34, I have absolute confidence that my Glock will work,
 
to me it's whatever Uncle Sam hands me and points the direction to go , outside of that I consider my personal firearms just that a personal firearm of my choice nothing more or less , I find the term go to war gun in the civilian atmosphere just silly talk IMHO
 
Would you agree that any gun capable of killing another human being is a Go To War Gun, or are there specific characteristics that such a group of firearms should have.
....
What is a fighting or go to war gun?
No, I don’t agree that any gun capable of killing a human (which, really, encompasses every gun) fits in the “go to war gun” category.

For me, a “go to war gun” or “fighting gun” meets certain criteria.

• It must be a “full size” or “duty size” gun.
• It must be chambered in 9mm (if a handgun) or 5.56 (if a rifle), minimum.
• It must not be chambered in anything larger than 40S&W (if handgun) or .308 (if rifle).
• It must have rail/s to allow easy attachment of a weapon-mounted light and optics.
• It must be proven to meet at least basic reliability standards. Not necessarily passing any and every conceivable torture test; but must function flawlessly with any factory-available ammo short of operator error.

That’s it. Nothing too uncommon. Most firearms available today will meet this criteria. All in all, it’s a pretty low standard. The only thing I would add is that the firearm must be semi-automatic and magazine fed. I wouldn’t carry anything else into combat if given the choice. In the other hand, I’d be comfortable carrying just about anything that meets the above criteria into combat, provided I was given the opportunity to train with it.
 
Elsewhere on this board Dave McCracken described a fighting shotgun as one to be used “in dire peril”. I figure that can be applied to any firearm described as a “fighting gun”.
 
To me, it means a gun that is reliable, accurate, easy to maintain, and applicable to the modern 24/7 battlefield under any conditions.
 
I guess I see a few types of guns.

First I’m too old to “go to war”. So for me to do so, thing would be horrific. Major civil unrest that has degraded to all out civil war.

So, a reliable rifle that could survive the demands of that would be my “fighting gun”. Basically a basic AR made of good reliable components.

A step down would be next. That would be home and self defense. Maybe some rioting or gangs looting and terrorizing. Again a reliable rifle, maybe a tactical shotgun and a reliable pistol. The rifle is the same as above.

Otherwise, the most likely fighting gun is my EDC. A small conceal carry pistol that’s reliable. A gun that will shoot reliably if I have someone try to harm me or those around me.

Beyond that the other guns I have or plan to get are “range”/training and competition guns. Range and/or training guns are guns used to work on certain skills. A 22 LR upper or a 22 pistol to work on techniques without recoil using cheap ammo. Competition guns may or may not be reliable enough for “combat”. A 3 gun rifle with a light weight BGC adjustable gas block etc is an example.
 
I have a very specific meaning. M-14 and M-1911A1. Although dad preferred a Thompson and the same M-1911A1, so I figure a Thompson could fit the bill.
 
Pistols don't stand out to me, rifles do. What kind of and how far you want to go back kind of plays a point as to the answer.

Speaking modern, a variation of the M4 would be my answer.
 
I agree with Sistema1927. I was issued an M16A1, but I had plans in place to get one of our M60's if we were deployed.

I also agree with John Blitz and Nightlord; A pistol is to fight your way to a rifle (or belt-fed) with, in war.
 
to me it's whatever Uncle Sam hands me and points the direction to go , outside of that I consider my personal firearms just that a personal firearm of my choice nothing more or less , I find the term go to war gun in the civilian atmosphere just silly talk IMHO


+1

Those terms mean more to Feinstein and Friends than me.(ETA: I don't like playing into their hand and feel those terms are more bravado than anything else when use outside of the proper context)
 
Last edited:
Unless you are obligated to do so by contract or enlistment, few of us are going anywhere near a war.

It's a euphemism for "trust your life on reliable."

Fire a few thousand rounds through it so you know what you are talking before you declare it so, and know how to clear it under stress if it does actually jam.

I know which ones I'd pick.
 
I first heard this term on the NFP, and I'm not really sure what to make of it.

Like others have said, it's generally a gun that has the capability, firepower, reliably, and durability to hold up to the rigors of prolonged conflict.

To me, that's pretty much any pistol fielded by a major law enforcement department/agency or military. Glock, SIG, Beretta, S&W, Walther, HK, FN, etc.

My biggest issue, and arguably most fantastic as this probably borders on teotwawki territory for a civilian like myself, would be a gun with magazines and parts that could be rapidly procured in the field. Glock would be king at this. I think tripping over 92 mags would be next. Part of the reason I selected the SIG p320 is that in the coming years of service magazines will become readily available.

Really there are a ton of guns fitting this description.
 
I have always preferred the variation on the term "fighting handgun" that I read once from Jeff Cooper, who wrote that a handgun is actually a "fight-stopping" device.
 
For handgun reviews, I usually take fighting gun to mean a gun suitable for duty carry by LEO or military. I assume that the gun is not intended for competitive target shooting or concealed carry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top