Militarily are handguns obsolete?

Depends on what your rank and job is.

The common sailor/soldier/marine does not use a handgun and, historically, that's how it's always been.

Just what Quiet said, I know with the Marine Corps. officers are issued sidearms and only a handful of jobs where enlisted personel carry, it pretty much the same across the board. The army tankers are issued sidearms as well.

And with all my buddies in the military, thats what their training and thought process is, your sidearm is only used to get you back to your rifle

I think in the increasingly common urban combat settings, handguns and shotguns will become more commonplace.

I only saw them issued in limited roles and circumstances.


Certain members of crew-served teams, Officers, and Officers-of-the-Guard when back in garrison.

A rifle is a better offensive and defensive tool, if it can be employed. As long as committees run the armed forces, who knows what standard weapons will be. However, close quarters is just that. Get overrun, end up in a fight that is so close that getting to a rifle 3 feet away, or possibly not being able to employ it (searching tight places, exiting vehicles) as fast as a sidearm, and you have reason to keep handguns in the mix. Will we ever toss bayonets and knives because they are too 18th/19th/20th century? If I am coming out of a sound sleep, you can bet I can get a shot out of handgun in close quarters faster than an M16. Would the Army let me? It is sad that we even have to ASK that question.

My unit issued both to everyone. As far as I can tell, the reasoning is that they had them, so why not issue them?

My main grievance is the woeful lack of pistol training. If we issue them as emergency tools, then people should be trained to use them in emergencies.

It was a convenience, to have the option to carry the pistol for day-to-day use and not have to find a place to lay the rifle in the chow hall.

Of course not.

The military bought 450,000 more Beretta M9's in 2009.

I had one 'issued' it got as far as the arms room, I said no thanks, I was a medic, if I needed a pistol and couldn't use my M-4 (cause I'd be getting that anyways, whether or not I wanted it) I had HUGE issues and so did everyone else, bigger than just getting my pistol.

Mind you I was mounted and on the road 16hrs a day with Cav Scouts. As for pistol proficiency, medics and MP's were the in crowd shooting them.... Frankly I was scared of some of the other units that came to qualify, the MP's had the pistol trainers, they made jokes that some of us medics were better at making the holes than patching them.

Some of the tankers, literally, put my boots in grave harm, I saw a buddy get hit by a double ricochet (off a tankers boot and into his gut, left a hell of a bruise) from one of the them braking low and hitting 3 meters in front of the firing line. So in the end, I didn't mind if the XO carried my pistol, he ran the joint while the CO, um, wondered playing PL, and it was much easier to go to all the meetings with it.

When you figure in what you are gaining by carrying a pistol and the weight of it most grunts would rather just carry more ammo for their rifle. Pistols are pretty useless except for some special circumstances. You really don't want the enemy within pistol range.

In the Army, Officers, M.P.'s, SPECOPS, C.I.D.
Coast Guard Boat crew members

You forgot
medics
Chaplains assistants (the only MOS with Bodyguard in the duties description)

And are limited to only DEFENSIVE use of firearms according to the Geneva conventions....
but when was the last time one of our enemies followed that old rag....

For police and defense

I recently read that the MARINES will now issue M4 carbines instead of pistols to non coms and junior officers. Their experience has shown handguns have limited value in the field.
In this insurgent war, small units often have to engage by themselves until support arrives and the extra guns in the hands of a sergeant or lieutenant could make a difference.

On the other hand, military police HAVE TO HAVE THEM. Policing is not combat, it is dealing with many other situations and you need a defensive weapon like the handgun.

Special Forces often operate at very close range, so a handgun, especially if it has a suppressor makes a great deal of sense.

Infantry units doing house to house work may also need a handgun for going around corners, holding locals under guard or in a confined space.

The other main use for a handgun will be personal protection in a war zone, but not including the field.
If you are working inside a city on non patrol duty, you need a weapon, but not a carbine or rifle.

One of the biggest concerns in the military are the complaints from troops in every service that they do not feel safe, even in their quarters. Issuing a handgun makes a lot of sense for these people. It is much less dangerous to friendly troops if used inside a building and can always be there.
A BERETTA 92 + 2 magazines is something you can always have with you, an M4 with some 30 rounders is not.

Jim

M.P's have a sidearm and either a m-16/m-4 or SAW or M-60 or M-2 50 Cal, M-203 Grenade launcher. Convoy escort in some places is combat. M.P's now can get the C.I.B.

Golden, please don't confuse a MP's combat duties, with their state side garrison policing duties. MP's are THE rear ares security force, where Infantry is the frontline troops.

MP's ROLL HEAVY in a warzone, really heavy, as in they have the nice APC with due mount turrets etc. and part of the security mission is to do convoy escorts.

Forty years ago I sometimes carried a sidearm depending upon my primary weapon. I never fired a 1911 after basic training.
Are sidearms obsolete? No. Do they play a major roll? No. Are they necessary for certain individuals when circumstances would mitigate against a more effective weapon? Yes. In situations other than possibly spec ops, does 9mm vs .45 really make a difference? No.
Has anyone reading this thread actually fired a pistol in combat? Do you have personal knowledge of any one who has?

I find it strange that the military doesn't issue a sidearm along with a rifle.

I understand opting out in favor of more ammo but what if their rifle goes down? They've nothing to fall back to.

Ft Benning, Officer Candidate School, Brown Hall, 1967, "The ultimate authority of every officer in the armed services of the United States of America reisides in his sidearm by Act of Congress."
Translation; If mission essential an officer may be required to kill one of his own troops. The use of his sidearm is authorised for this purpose by act of congress. The officer will be courtmartialed to determine necessity by a general court with only two possible verdicts allowed, necessary in the performance of duty, murder in the first degree.
Those were raw bloody days for me over 40 years ago, but I know why an officer wears a sidearm.

blindhari

Walking arsenal, if your rifle/carbine goes down you either find another one, or you die.

Has anyone reading this thread actually fired a pistol in combat? Do you have personal knowledge of any one who has?

Yes I have as a Navy Hospital Corpsman assigned to a Marine unit in VN, actually a CAP unit, I had occasion to use my trusty 1911 several times.

If someone is shooting at you, and you have a sidearm to return fire, you are not worried about what caliber it is, only that you have the ability to fire back...

walking arsenal said:

I find it strange that the military doesn't issue a sidearm along with a rifle.

I understand opting out in favor of more ammo but what if their rifle goes down? They've nothing to fall back to.

Click to expand...

Good point. I've never served, but if I did then I'd prefer to carry a handgun anyway as a backup weapon. I'd bring my own if I have to.

Nearly all officers have them.....number one son carries his M9 in a Safariland thigh holster w/Crimson Trace laser grips, along with other "items" picked up along the way. When on patrols in a crowded Humvee they use both M4's and M9's....pistols are handier especially when you're busy with computers-radios-navigation-etc. He has had to pull his on several occasions and painted the laser on some characters in a couple cases.....fortunately the laser beam was deterrent enough to diffuse the situation without having to pull a trigger.

We had 1911A1s on board ship, only fired in training, but the 1911 was far more maneuverable inside a compartment than the 870 or the M14, the only two other choices. We did our own security - no Marines on board. If we had been boarded, I think I would have been more comfortable with a 1911 in that case.
Now, isn't this new generation of "bullpup" small caliber PDWs supposed to change the role of the pistol/rifle for support troops, similar to the supposed role of the 30 caliber M1 carbine?