Pistols in modern warfare.

[F-15 Eagle]

I was wondering what everybody here thinks about the use of pistols in modern warfare.

As far as I know the M9 9mm is used largely by the U.S. Army as well as Marine colonels and above and Navy Petty Officer First Class and above only. The US Army currently plans to use the M-9 for years to come. And I don't know if the Marine Force Recon unites still use the M1911A1 or not but I think they do, please let me know if they do or don't.

So my main question is do you think Pistols still have uses in modern warfare like a last resort weapon or a secondary backup weapon or do you think they are obsolete?

 

[stigmata]

I remember i read a former spetznaz that had served in Afganistan.
He said they had a joke, the pistol was a very important weapon, and one should make sure to have one bullet ready when there was an impending risk of being captured alive by the afgans.

 

[eckherl]

I remember i read a former spetznaz that had served in Afganistan.
He said they had a joke, the pistol was a very important weapon, and one should make sure to have one bullet ready when there was an impending risk of being captured alive by the afgans.

When they were captured alive they would not stay that way for to long, same holds true for Americans captured.

Service sidearms are used solely for personal defence, most engagements are within 50 meters or during combative arms confrontations.

 

[der_Master]

I think that they are great and should be used by everyone in the armed forces. I mean in a fire fight it always easier to switch to a pistol than reload if your position is really compromised. Furthermore what if your primary gun was hit with a bullet and rendered inoperable (or just jammed), a pistol would be great. Also if someone gets hit with a pistol round they will drop just as easily as by a standard nato round (not including body armour). Anyway the only real reason that I see why soldiers would not be issued a pistol is cost, which is a bad excuse imo. My Favourite pistol would have to be the H&K usb.

 

[riksavage]

Most successful engagements involving pistols take place between 5 & 7 metres, and in most circumstances they are considered a secondary weapon should the primary have a stoppage or require a sudden mag change in an emergency. I would award anyone with a shooting gold-star if they could, under pressure, hit a moving target with a pistol at anything beyond 10-metres. I doubt many forces these days issue them as a primary unless in a covert environment or for use by senior officers as a purely self-defence arm. Most armies have replaced pistols originally given to drivers, AFV and aircrews with a carbine or SMG.

They do serve a useful purpose when searching confined spaces in an environment where a long barrelled weapon is inappropriate,urban CQB scenario for example.

The problem with the pistol is it requires a tremendous amount of range time and concentration to shoot it well and accurately under pressure.

 

[winnyfield]

I was wondering what everybody here thinks about the use of pistols in modern warfare.

As far as I know the M9 9mm is used largely by the U.S. Army as well as Marine colonels and above and Navy Petty Officer First Class and above only. The US Army currently plans to use the M-9 for years to come. And I don't know if the Marine Force Recon unites still use the M1911A1 or not but I think they do, please let me know if they do or don't.

So my main question is do you think Pistols still have uses in modern warfare like a last resort weapon or a secondary backup weapon or do you think they are obsolete?

USN pilots use a 9mm compact Sig (p228?).

 

[Todjaeger]

I think that they are great and should be used by everyone in the armed forces. I mean in a fire fight it always easier to switch to a pistol than reload if your position is really compromised. Furthermore what if your primary gun was hit with a bullet and rendered inoperable (or just jammed), a pistol would be great. Also if someone gets hit with a pistol round they will drop just as easily as by a standard nato round (not including body armour). Anyway the only real reason that I see why soldiers would not be issued a pistol is cost, which is a bad excuse imo. My Favourite pistol would have to be the H&K usb.

I do think pistols have there place in the armed forces. When issued appropriately, things are fine. However, I do not think it is appropriate for everyone to be issued a pistol.

As other posters have mentioned, pistols are really most effective in the ~15-25 ft/ 5m-7m range. As a rule, unless one has no choice, one does not want to become engaged at that close a range, also, with the distribution of other weapons (carbines, SMG, etc) there are other, potentially better weapons for CQB. This would mean essentially that a pistol would really be a 'backup' weapon issued to those who do not normally need a weapon (high ranking NCO & CO's) or to those in situations where they might develop a problem with their primary weapon or have their primary be inappropriate at a critical time and need some form of backup weaponry.

As for reasons why everyone is not provided with a backup weapon, there are a number which come to mind. There are of course cost issues, both is establishing sufficient stockpiles of pistols as well as ammunition. Then there is the amount of training time, costs, etc to actually train everyone to be able to use a pistol properly.

Then there is relevance to the mission. By this I mean, is a pistol even needed? Aboard ship in the USN, except for special circumstances (and/or areas/personnel) any small arms are kept in arms lockers. IIRC from what I have been told, using a 688/Los Angeles-class SSN, there were (are?) some pistols as well as a few M-14's carried. And then on a regular basis, there is a yearly (I think, memory fuzzy) qualification shoot at a range. For the M-14 it was explained to me that the requirement more or less consisted of managing to shoot it down range without accidentally shooting yourself or someone else with it.

Lastly, for Army or USMC purposes... The question needs to be asked, which is better. An extra 30-60 (or more) 5.56mm ammo in magazines, or a sidearm and perhaps 30 rounds for it? There is a finite limit to how much weight it is reasonable for someone to cart around, even if they are normally motorized or mechanized. Between the normal kit one carries while on patrol (rations, water, armour, packs, ammo & primary weapon) it all adds together quickly. At some point, a trade off has to be made as to what will be carried or otherwise brought along.

-Cheers

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I remember i read a former spetznaz that had served in Afganistan.
He said they had a joke, the pistol was a very important weapon, and one should make sure to have one bullet ready when there was an impending risk of being captured alive by the afgans.

I have to agree after seeing what happens to captured Americans in Iraq before the pistol is sometimes the only way out of it.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Used my M9 almost everytime I went out of the wire. Either for intimidation(Iraqis are deathly afraid of pistols), combat or because of the confines of vehicles or environment. Also just for walking around FOBs with some sort of weapon. They were issued to everybody down to the last private and that was an excellent decision.


-DA

 

[Onkel]

Lastly, for Army or USMC purposes... The question needs to be asked, which is better. An extra 30-60 (or more) 5.56mm ammo in magazines, or a sidearm and perhaps 30 rounds for it? There is a finite limit to how much weight it is reasonable for someone to cart around, even if they are normally motorized or mechanized.

I don´t know much about useage in other armies, but in the germen army a pistol is not usually worn by infantrymen. Maybe as sidearm of the heavy- weapon guys.The pistol is the weapon only for self defence purposes worn by staff persons or those who have to keep secrets. Eg our commanding gunnery seargent used to wear one when training with our AA- Radar outside military facilities. To protect the IFF of beeing captured.

In some armies the leader may have only a pistol. It´s not the leaders job to shoot, but to lead. some may know, that during WW I english officers had only a stick in the beginning. Until some had to find out, that a stick is enough to command, but may be useless against a folding spade or a bajonet.

 

[Marc 1]

Hated to damn things. Just something else to keep clean or to lose during fire and movt. The running joke was that they were issued with a lanyard so that you could throw the pistol at the enemy (more accurate and effective), then pull it back in and throw it again (semi automatic). Marksman with a rifle, but couldn't hit the side of a barn at 10 meters. I suppose more practice could have fixed that but having fired a pistol I have to giggle whenever I see a cop movie where a cop shoots a running target one handed at 200m.nfloorl:

Maybe with a more modern ergonomic weapon than the old brownings we were issued, or the incentive of knowing you were going to a combat zone I could have found more reason to improve things.

Scariest weapons range you will ever be a safety officer on is a recruit practice with pistols - the damn things have a habit of being waved around like fairy wands.

 

[eckherl]

Used my M9 almost everytime I went out of the wire. Either for intimidation(Iraqis are deathly afraid of pistols), combat or because of the confines of vehicles or environment. Also just for walking around FOBs with some sort of weapon. They were issued to everybody down to the last private and that was an excellent decision.


-DA

M9 will be around for quite some time, U.S Army announced additional purchase of 20,000 pistols. Good weapon, I never have had a issue hitting anything at 50 meters with it.

 

[winnyfield]

Used my M9 almost everytime I went out of the wire. Either for intimidation(Iraqis are deathly afraid of pistols) ....


-DA

Not the first time I've heard this. Rifles (AKs) are everywhere but important people have pistols; it's a sign of authority and it's taken more seriously.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Not the first time I've heard this. Rifles (AKs) are everywhere but important people have pistols; it's a sign of authority and it's taken more seriously.

That and it's also used a lot for executions.

-DA

 

[Deadmanwalking]

A pistol is generally issued to officers, platoon commanders, etc. as already mentioned it is good only for close quarter work. Or when leading, as you have to use a commset and stuff, so you have only one free hand. Officers also carry a carbine which can be fired with a single hand. But only a strap on Mag.
I was within a almost accurate with the rifle myself...but the pistol...if you saw me at the range you might mistake me for a recruit!

 

[shrubage]

Pistols are seen as something of a status symbol in the british army. In combat support arms vehicle crews are meant to have priority yet they always seem to find their themselves attached to the hip of some officer back at camp.

One issue with pistols that partialy explained the army's reluctance to issue them widely is that pistols have a far higher rate of negligent discharges, and I think that's a common trend across most militaries.

Like one of the posters mentioned with the US army most front line british troops have pistols issued, One infantry JNCO told me that they're a big confidence boost, he also mentioned that there were incidents of blokes SA80s jamming and instead of trying to clear it reaching for a pistol. Thats pure word of mouth from someone I don't really know so I can't support it.

On another note as an operational replacement for the browning 9mm Sig Sauers are issued but there's still no word on an army wide replacement for the browning.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I don't see a problem with the 9mm as some people hate it but if you think about it the Germans had the same 9X19mm round in WWII and the Russians used the smaller 7.62 and those worked fine as well so the M9 pistol I think is good enough and yes I love the M1911A1 and I think they still have a place but the M9 can still do the job as good as any other.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I don't see a problem with the 9mm as some people hate it but if you think about it the Germans had the same 9X19mm round in WWII and the Russians used the smaller 7.62 and those worked fine as well so the M9 pistol I think is good enough and yes I love the M1911A1 and I think they still have a place but the M9 can still do the job as good as any other.

The Tokarev 7.62x25mm was a much faster bullet (400 vs 350 mps) providing for about the same energy potential as the 9x19mm (~480 J). Interestingly the CAG (Delta Force) have moved away from the M1911 favoritism to Glocks because of higher jamming rates in the sand of the Middle East. Though they are still loading them with big .45 bullets.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The Tokarev 7.62x25mm was a much faster bullet (400 vs 350 mps) providing for about the same energy potential as the 9x19mm (~480 J). Interestingly the CAG (Delta Force) have moved away from the M1911 favoritism to Glocks because of higher jamming rates in the sand of the Middle East. Though they are still loading them with big .45 bullets.

They have Glocks in .45 ACP? I did not know they got rid of the good old M1911 I'll miss that gun.

 

[S400]

They have Glocks in .45 ACP? I did not know they got rid of the good old M1911 I'll miss that gun.

Springfield Armory recently added a thumb safety to their XD line in anticipation of military orders rolling in. The XDs are great pistols, and available in .45ACP. I personally have a doo doo brown compact in 45. BANG!