Pistols in modern warfare.
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
dragonfire
New Member
I think Pistols will have continued importance in even todays scenario
I maybe repeating some earlier points, neverthless..
I maybe repeating some earlier points, neverthless..
- Pistols are important as Secondary weapons
- Pistols are important as Self Defense weapons
- Pistols are important in CQB as well as in the Urban Domain
- Pistols are used by Spec Ops esp with silencer
- Pistols will be very usefull in Undercover ops
- Pistols are useful in Ant-Terrorist ops (mostly for covert ops though)
Last edited:
If you're asking if it's better to have a pistol and two mags or 9mm/.45ACP, or two extra mags of 5.56mm, consider the following:
Is your rifle likely to jam, break a firing pin, or become unserviceable during an engagement?
Are you more likely to run out of ammunition for your rifle?
In either of these situations do you think that you will be able to effectively use a pistol or another weapon?
Honestly, you'd have to look at the statistics for this. But you can't change the weapons loadout based on the mission or location - even though in urban combat pistols are infinately more useful than open field - because having the same thing on your person at all times reduced thinking and reaction times when the pressure is on.
I can look up and hit a stationary target with a 9mm at 20m at the range, but I doubt I could repeat it under fire (mainly because I haven't seen combat yet, and don't have good practice).
So the question is, do you issue people with pistols (which are light, compact and have moderate usefulness) or issue them with an SMG (which is bulky, heavy and expensive) which could perhaps be useful as a room broom or close engagement decisive weapon?
No.
The pistol will remain until someone invents a newer small arms weapon that is accurate, weighs very little, and is more accurate and useful than a pistol. Which, in reality, would pretty much be a miniature assault rifle!
Is your rifle likely to jam, break a firing pin, or become unserviceable during an engagement?
Are you more likely to run out of ammunition for your rifle?
In either of these situations do you think that you will be able to effectively use a pistol or another weapon?
Honestly, you'd have to look at the statistics for this. But you can't change the weapons loadout based on the mission or location - even though in urban combat pistols are infinately more useful than open field - because having the same thing on your person at all times reduced thinking and reaction times when the pressure is on.
I can look up and hit a stationary target with a 9mm at 20m at the range, but I doubt I could repeat it under fire (mainly because I haven't seen combat yet, and don't have good practice).
So the question is, do you issue people with pistols (which are light, compact and have moderate usefulness) or issue them with an SMG (which is bulky, heavy and expensive) which could perhaps be useful as a room broom or close engagement decisive weapon?
No.
The pistol will remain until someone invents a newer small arms weapon that is accurate, weighs very little, and is more accurate and useful than a pistol. Which, in reality, would pretty much be a miniature assault rifle!
I think that there are now better options available than pistols.
The main problem with pistols, as several posters have noted, is their extreme inaccuracy in the stress of combat. A figure I've seen quoted for effective hit range is about 10 feet (3m). Highly-trained special forces types can do better, but if you're talking about a personal defence weapon (which is what the vast majority are issued for) you're talking about people who probably don't get a lot of training or practice with them.
I think that pistols are best regarded as flash/bang distraction devices, with the added feature that a bullet might occasionally hit someone - possibly even an enemy (although I'd be interested to see any stats on the number of the enemy hit by them as opposed to friendlies hit by NDs).
I've looked at all of the options for PDWs here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PDWs.htm
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
The main problem with pistols, as several posters have noted, is their extreme inaccuracy in the stress of combat. A figure I've seen quoted for effective hit range is about 10 feet (3m). Highly-trained special forces types can do better, but if you're talking about a personal defence weapon (which is what the vast majority are issued for) you're talking about people who probably don't get a lot of training or practice with them.
I think that pistols are best regarded as flash/bang distraction devices, with the added feature that a bullet might occasionally hit someone - possibly even an enemy (although I'd be interested to see any stats on the number of the enemy hit by them as opposed to friendlies hit by NDs).
I've looked at all of the options for PDWs here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PDWs.htm
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
It depends. If you are riding in an APC and you have to search houses and tunnels (Gaza) a pistol might be a nice addition. However if you have to live on your ruck for a couple of days- no chance. A 9mm pistol with 2 mags adds roughly 3 pounds - 3 pounds that are far far better left home or used on a sound suppressor or additional rifle mags. I don't know if you ever made military ruck marches - they are terrible especially for the guys with the squad automatic weapon. These are the times where you hate to be tall and large 
In harsh climates it might also be better to leave also the body armour at home when doing long marches , or at least the back plate. Especially if you are skiing mountains up and down. Taking pistols with you under such conditions is almost criminal.
In harsh climates it might also be better to leave also the body armour at home when doing long marches , or at least the back plate. Especially if you are skiing mountains up and down. Taking pistols with you under such conditions is almost criminal.
But when you ride an APC you might also carry a PDW or even a short AR with you.
And while I probably got alot of pistol training compared to other branches (tank crews still carry two P8 and two UZIs here) I doubt I would hit alot with a pistol if I would have ever been in the need to dismount while being in combat.
Even an old short submachine gun like the UZI gives you alot more usefull firepower than any kind of pistol. Not to talk of modern PDWs like the MP7.
And they are not too big to be carried in an AFV or in any other kind of vehicle.
I would say modern PDWs make pistols less necessary for AFV crews or for any vehicle crew.
And while I probably got alot of pistol training compared to other branches (tank crews still carry two P8 and two UZIs here) I doubt I would hit alot with a pistol if I would have ever been in the need to dismount while being in combat.
Even an old short submachine gun like the UZI gives you alot more usefull firepower than any kind of pistol. Not to talk of modern PDWs like the MP7.
And they are not too big to be carried in an AFV or in any other kind of vehicle.
I would say modern PDWs make pistols less necessary for AFV crews or for any vehicle crew.
I gave the HK7 a quick look and it seems to be a sensible weapon for the PDW role. It is compact and light but can lay down volumes of fire similar to an assault rifle with seemingly decent accuracy and control. This is vital in any modern firefight but especially so if your get ambushed. I'm out of my lane when it comes to terminal ballistics but it the bullet has light weight, high velocity and high sectional density. A long and slim projectile is more likely to tumble than the short and thick one of a pistol. All in all a vast leap in usable firepower compared to a pistol.
Actually I think it is a great weapon for specific tasks and roles like assault climber and tunnel rat. Overall a good compact and light AR like the one used by the Austrians seems to me to be the most sensible choice for a combat rifle. Does anybody know btw how the new Israeli AR performed?
Actually I think it is a great weapon for specific tasks and roles like assault climber and tunnel rat. Overall a good compact and light AR like the one used by the Austrians seems to me to be the most sensible choice for a combat rifle. Does anybody know btw how the new Israeli AR performed?
Yep, my pick would be between the HK MP7 or, if you don't like small bullets, the even smaller 9mm B&T MP9.
The pics linked to below (MP9 at the top) are from the article which I provided a link to in my last post. Since they have the benefit of folding stocks and handgrips, they are small enough to holster and either would be far more accurate and effective than any pistol.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MP9 MP7 1.jpg
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MP9 MP7 2.jpg
The pics linked to below (MP9 at the top) are from the article which I provided a link to in my last post. Since they have the benefit of folding stocks and handgrips, they are small enough to holster and either would be far more accurate and effective than any pistol.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MP9 MP7 1.jpg
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MP9 MP7 2.jpg
winnyfield
New Member
I thought it was a variant of the HK USP that replaced the M1911.
In future, maybe an 'intermediary' cartridge say, .40SW (very popular police round in N. America and Australia), 9mm HP (an exception could be made) or .357 Sig for penetration.
The MP7 lacks stopping power. Period. It's got good penetration, but the bullet lacks the power to make someone fall from the impact of the round. In this regard, a 7.62x39 AK104 for CQB does a nice job. The round is abundant in OPFOR countries and only costs 17 cents PER round if you want to manufacture it. (It's fact) The AK mechanism is reliable. US Spec-Ops buy these. The stock can be folded, NATO Picatinny sights can be added, a foregrip, and most importantly, a muzzle break that reduces the recoil. Quite compact for a 7.62x39 AR.
Then there is the new AK-9. It uses a silent 9x39 round that is effective at breaking through armor at 400m. (No shit guys) However, the round is said to be quite expensive. The gun is quite similar to the Bizon PP-91 9mm SMG in design.
As for pistols, I personally think that the Tokarev round was way better than the new mini Makarov round. Tokarev had stopping power comparable to 9mm Parabellum. Makarov is quite under that level. Pistols nowadays are more like symbols of officership rather than anything. However, I still remember that part in Saving Private Ryan where Horvath throws the gun at the Nazi.nfloorl:
I guess that's one of the few applications of your pistol if you get into a sticky situation.
Then there is the new AK-9. It uses a silent 9x39 round that is effective at breaking through armor at 400m. (No shit guys) However, the round is said to be quite expensive. The gun is quite similar to the Bizon PP-91 9mm SMG in design.
As for pistols, I personally think that the Tokarev round was way better than the new mini Makarov round. Tokarev had stopping power comparable to 9mm Parabellum. Makarov is quite under that level. Pistols nowadays are more like symbols of officership rather than anything. However, I still remember that part in Saving Private Ryan where Horvath throws the gun at the Nazi.
nfloorl:I guess that's one of the few applications of your pistol if you get into a sticky situation.
The problem with all of the compact carbines is that they're too big for non-infantrymen to carry all of the time, so they'll get stashed somewhere out of the way. Where they're likely to be forgotten about and out of reach if needed suddenly. If anything is going to replace a pistol it needs to be not too much bigger, so it can be holstered. Otherwise you'll end up with a pistol and a carbine.
The 9x39 round isn't silent, it's subsonic. Which means that the gun can easily be quietened with a good suppressor, but it's still nowhere near silent.
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
After taking a closer look at terminal ballistics there are some interesting points. It seems to be a very controversial topic. Even Elephants can be dropped by a well-placed shot with of smallcalibre rifles and handguns but sometimes bodies of animals (and humans) are able to operate with many hits of rather large calibres.
a) The German army round (from Wikipedia, source RUAG)
DM11 cartridge technical data:[4]
* temperature range: between -54°C and +52°C
* velocity/energy at 0 m: min. 685 m/s / 476 Joule
* velocity/energy at 100 m: 505 m/s / 255 Joule
* ballistic coefficient C 1: 0.141 - 0.150 (ICAO)/(Army Metro)
* mean chamber pressure: max. 400 MPa
* penetration at 50 m: mild steel plate 9 mm thickness
* penetration at 200 m: CRISAT NATO target (1.6 mm titanium plate + 20 layers of Kevlar)
* penetration in gelatine bare at 25: < 35 cm
* accuracy at 100 m: Ø 10 cm
* effective range: 150 m
b) This light, small and long round will tumble in soft tissue, causing greater damage than it size might suggest.
c) It is difficult to know under which conditions the bullets of this calibre will fragment.
Some rules:
Generally the higher the velocity, the more likely the fragmentation.
The more brittle the more likely the fragmentation.
The harder and more inelastic the obstacle the more likey the fragmentation.
The closer to a lateral collision (tumbling) with the obstacle the more likely the fragmentation.
d) It is a rather goulish topic
All in all it seems that this PDW offers what it was built for. It will cause a good deal of damage in a human body, albeight less than a assault rifle. But with the large volumes of controllable and rather accurate fire it will keep heads down. And the weapon and large amounts of ammunition are easy to carry.
a) The German army round (from Wikipedia, source RUAG)
DM11 cartridge technical data:[4]
* temperature range: between -54°C and +52°C
* velocity/energy at 0 m: min. 685 m/s / 476 Joule
* velocity/energy at 100 m: 505 m/s / 255 Joule
* ballistic coefficient C 1: 0.141 - 0.150 (ICAO)/(Army Metro)
* mean chamber pressure: max. 400 MPa
* penetration at 50 m: mild steel plate 9 mm thickness
* penetration at 200 m: CRISAT NATO target (1.6 mm titanium plate + 20 layers of Kevlar)
* penetration in gelatine bare at 25: < 35 cm
* accuracy at 100 m: Ø 10 cm
* effective range: 150 m
b) This light, small and long round will tumble in soft tissue, causing greater damage than it size might suggest.
c) It is difficult to know under which conditions the bullets of this calibre will fragment.
Some rules:
Generally the higher the velocity, the more likely the fragmentation.
The more brittle the more likely the fragmentation.
The harder and more inelastic the obstacle the more likey the fragmentation.
The closer to a lateral collision (tumbling) with the obstacle the more likely the fragmentation.
d) It is a rather goulish topic
All in all it seems that this PDW offers what it was built for. It will cause a good deal of damage in a human body, albeight less than a assault rifle. But with the large volumes of controllable and rather accurate fire it will keep heads down. And the weapon and large amounts of ammunition are easy to carry.
I think it is unlikely that the 4.6mm bullets would fragment. They are optimised for armour penetration, so have hard steel cores.
A summary of the issues over the effectiveness of bullet strikes in general, and PDW rounds in particular, is here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/terminal.htm
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
A summary of the issues over the effectiveness of bullet strikes in general, and PDW rounds in particular, is here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/terminal.htm
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
I think we should get back to the topic.
PDW like the MP7 give far better value per pound than pistols in almost all cases. IMHO they are excellent for niche roles, support personell and as secundary armament for troops with a specialist weapon (sniper rifle, MGL, RPG launcher).
The riflemen should carry a compact and light bullpup assault rifle with a barrellenght around 360- 400mm chambered in the 5.56 NATO fitted with a compact sound suppressor.
PDW like the MP7 give far better value per pound than pistols in almost all cases. IMHO they are excellent for niche roles, support personell and as secundary armament for troops with a specialist weapon (sniper rifle, MGL, RPG launcher).
The riflemen should carry a compact and light bullpup assault rifle with a barrellenght around 360- 400mm chambered in the 5.56 NATO fitted with a compact sound suppressor.
Target.
PDWs are not designes to be used instead of short ARs. There are enough shortened ARs out there.
It is designed to give the mentioned support personal, vehicles crews, MG-teams, etc. a weapon which is small enough to be out of the way in most situations but offers alot more firepower (In terms of range, RoF and accuracy) when needed.
A short AK is also defenitely not in this category.
PDWs are not designes to be used instead of short ARs. There are enough shortened ARs out there.
It is designed to give the mentioned support personal, vehicles crews, MG-teams, etc. a weapon which is small enough to be out of the way in most situations but offers alot more firepower (In terms of range, RoF and accuracy) when needed.
A short AK is also defenitely not in this category.
metalkat 77
New Member
A kind of utopy
Well my friend is some thing if I ask about if some day the wars don't be no more, will no ned a weapon any more?
Of course for me if we have to solve some conflict between us and one of the to solve that diference is the use of the force or the armed forces, the answer about your questions is yes the hand guns will keep using in the batle field at side with the regalmentary rifle of the soldier not only to mark a status between the oficer and trops, no pistols will going to keep using in the moderne war fare becase can be a firer suport or personal protection in places where a rifle with their long dimenstions could make a little hard the job to get the misions objective in a war fare and if we keep sending soldiers to fight a batlle to die in a war fare yes such as pistols and rifles will be there but with the fastest advancing in technology (computers, electronic devises, etcétera) will be necesary to keep an army in the traditional way or the only enough men and women expert in the handling and operation of this new techonology that for some experts is to send the war another level, is a war where a safety distance could send all kind of weapons to smash an enemy and only send a few men to make the cleaning job, thats the real question i guess how ever in evry kind of conflict we have to send soldiers to fight this batles well yes will going to neeed use pistols, rifles, machines guns, and evrithing to can get the result.
Well my friend is some thing if I ask about if some day the wars don't be no more, will no ned a weapon any more?
Of course for me if we have to solve some conflict between us and one of the to solve that diference is the use of the force or the armed forces, the answer about your questions is yes the hand guns will keep using in the batle field at side with the regalmentary rifle of the soldier not only to mark a status between the oficer and trops, no pistols will going to keep using in the moderne war fare becase can be a firer suport or personal protection in places where a rifle with their long dimenstions could make a little hard the job to get the misions objective in a war fare and if we keep sending soldiers to fight a batlle to die in a war fare yes such as pistols and rifles will be there but with the fastest advancing in technology (computers, electronic devises, etcétera) will be necesary to keep an army in the traditional way or the only enough men and women expert in the handling and operation of this new techonology that for some experts is to send the war another level, is a war where a safety distance could send all kind of weapons to smash an enemy and only send a few men to make the cleaning job, thats the real question i guess how ever in evry kind of conflict we have to send soldiers to fight this batles well yes will going to neeed use pistols, rifles, machines guns, and evrithing to can get the result.
In the Aussie army pretty much the rank would be removed out field and saluting is prohibited to ensure the enemy cannot easily work out who are the leaders on the battlefield and kill them. IMHO, the only reason to carry a pistol is if you need to - not to make you easier to find so a sniper could ventilate you.