Importance of Pistols role in todays millitary?

The role of the military handgun hasn't changed a bit...it's a tool that goes along with your job, and you carry it, because they issue it to you and expect you to carry it.

CQB. When your rifle goes down, what are you going to transition to? Your flashlight?

It's nice to have a team where I can just peel off to reload of clear a malf while they continue to fight. But if you get stuck in a situation on your own, that pistol is mighty nice to have. Unless it's a pathetic M9.

I'd rather have one on my thigh and not need it than not have one and wish I did.

It's a part of a system.

It is possible to win a war without rifles, if you have other guns and jets and armored vehicles. Is that a sound tactic? No.

It is possible to win a war without machineguns, if you have other guns and jets and armored vehicles. Is that a sound tactic? No.

Hell, it is possible to win wars without tanks, if you have more Apaches. Is that a sound tactic? No.

It is not feasible to have a rifle on you all the time. Do you really want to spend a minute trying to get your rifle stuck in a crevice out while in a burning tank?

The bottom line is that no matter how insignificant it is, some soldier will end up facting enemies while armed with a pistol, and military cannot avoid buying them. So, if it is enevitable, why not buy a good one, especially when good pistols are not that expensive?

So all that said, has the role of the modern millitary pistol changed in the past 20 years?

Click to expand...

It depends on the type of battle.

What is certain is that there is a significant change in the way the community involved in use of guns realized the potential of a pistol.

My boy is a USAF TACP/JTAC, he carries his M9 right on the front of his vest and as far as he's concerned it is as important a part of his kit as his M4.

Looks like Sergeant Major Kasal's was pretty useful during the Second Battle of Fallujah. Granted that was over 10 years ago but I doubt much has changed in urban warfare since then.

I think with the growth of special units and tactics they may well play a bigger role than in the past. Still a small piece of the puzzle overall and most guys I know would much rather have a couple of extra mags than the weight of a handgun. Of course that depends on your job too.

Blueduck said:

So all that said, has the role of the modern millitary pistol changed in the past 20 years?

Click to expand...

I believe they've become much more important for the guys who carry them because of the circumstances we find ourselves in overseas. No clear front line or rear area, and attacks occur even "inside the wire".

When you can't always have a rifle handy a pistol is better than nothing.

Slightly off topic, this subject is also why I think our military should consider adopting a very compact PDW/SMG to serve as a partial alternative to handguns.

Yeah. The guys I've talked to were happy to have pistols. They are special forces. The average soldier may not have much need. But, if you are kicking doors, searching hovels, clearing cars etc, there are times when the pistol is handy. But, according to them, it's just not that big a deal.

Interestingly, one if my buddies went over with a Beretta, along with all his guys. A pallet of Glock 19's showed up. They all ditched the M9's and grabbed Glock 19's.

Somebody didn't get all the 19's they ordered I'll bet.

For self-defense in a area where the rifle is not normally carried (i.e. in camp) I would prefer to have a small handgun that I could easily carry and be lightweight for the pocket. A S&W J-Frame revolver would for me a close to ideal choice.

Since the main feature of a handgun is being handy the little J-Frame would make for a constant companion. I recall reading S&W Model 60's were popular with our troops in Vietnam for this very same reason.

In the field I would prefer extra maagazines or better yet more hand grenades to a handgun.

As usual, every poster is absolutely certain that if the Army just issued (fill in name of favorite handgun) all our enemies would be killed in minutes, and Johnny would come marching home. Sure.

Jim

Horse meet baseball bat.

It has been argued, and failed, that the individual rifle is useless because of crew and vehicle served weapons. Is the pistol useless? Not really. 99% of people issued one will never use it. A common joke in the military is "If I have to switch to this (M9) something is severely _____ up." Can it be useful? Sure. Weapon malfunction, run out of ammo, bad breath distance decreases the effectiveness of a rifle, even a carbine like the M4. In the end it is better to have it and not need it.

One area where the bean counters get it right is the expense. Whether by design or accident since a pistol is rarely used, they do not cost the military thousands of dollars per unit. A high quality firearm benefits the soldier but the same soldier knows his weapon is made by the lowest bidder. Do we NEED a new pistol? I say no. There is nothing about the current M9 that breaks that can't be fixed or replaced. Would it be nice to have? Probably.

Handguns(m9) are not issued to every soldier. It's just not in the military's interest to buy one for everybody. Most e-4 and below in the army will hold one long enough to qualify at the range and clean it and turn it in. However, they are generally issued to vehicle crew members, senior leadership, and snipers and machine gunners. The thought behind this is that crew members will often times have at least one hand occupied with operating vehicle components if a self defense situation arrises. Senior leaders because, well, they rank high enough they don't want to have to carry a rifle and ammo everywhere. And because it distinguishes them as senior. So they want people to see they have a pistol. Because they have rank. Anyway, snipers and machine gunners get them because their primary being heavier and unwieldy at close range, it gives the soldier an easier platform to use.
as to the purpose of the pistol changing in the last 20 years, no. The military still issues weapons based off of MTOE standards(Modification Table of Organization and Equipment)laid out by each branch for the given overall strategic mission of the unit. MTOE hasn't chbanged much as overall missions remain the same, thus equipment doesn't change.

I was glad I had one. They can be very useful at times.

I speak from experience of ownership and shooting a lot of platforms and carrying a M9 in Iraq, owning 1911s, Berettas, Glocks, Sigs, CZs, SWs, XDs, etc. and being a military history enthusiast (not an expert, but my opinion has some merit).

The pistol has never and will never change the outcome of a battle or a war.

But it sure is a game changer for an individual during a life and death fight.

For instance, SGT York killed a lot of Germans with his sidearm, and became pretty darn famous from his WWI actions. He used his 1911 as a backup to his rifle in killing 20+ and capturing around 130 Germans.

But, again, rare and no impact on the war.

I dated a woman who was a medic in the Army. She was rendering aid to Iraqi combatants who were injured. One attacked her and stabbed her with a combat knife. She drew her M9 and put him down and in doing so was awarded a Purple Heart and a CAB.

Didn't impact the battle or war, but saved her life.

Average combat load for a dismounted Soldier is ballpark 80 pounds. Body armor, helmet, and weapon, and ammo (7 mags), boots, water, rations, first aid kit, multi-tool, etc. is going to start you at 60 pounds. Start adding extra stuff like sleep systems, 2 days clothing, more water and food, E tool, knife, etc. and it adds up quickly ... I know infantry guys who were expected to ruck long distances with 100 or 120 or more pounds. Carrying AT4, belts of ammo, baseplates, demo, you name it.

Ounces = pounds, and you know that intimately when you are rucking for miles and hate every extra ounce of weight.

The pistol is perhaps among the least useful item day-to-day, but still important. But the days of a 2+ pound pistol should come to an end.

The pistol should be lightweight, reliable, accurate, easy to maintain, rugged, high capacity, and cheap to produce/maintain. The 1911 no longer fills many of these rolls. Nor does the Beretta M9.

A polymer gun like Glock/SW/XD is proven design, lighter, cheaper, simpler, etc. IMO it's the obvious direction for a modern military.

I believe that it's better to have it and not need it. The extra weight of the 1911 or M9 didn't bother me. It was nice knowing that the sidearm was there in case I had any problems with the M60 I carried.

Question....

It sounds like you answered your own question.
In the early 1990s, the US armed forces in the post Desert Storm/post Cold War(Warsaw Pact-USSR) era started pushing 2 big concepts: anti terrorism(counter terrorism) & LICs(low intensity conflicts).
The national security & defense wonks all pushed a belief that small unit tactics(special ops) & limited or low intensity military campaigns(Haiti, Kosovo, Restore Hope, etc) would be the "new normal". Urban warfare or MOUT would be required skill training & our armed forces would need sidearms for CQB(close quarters battle).
This doctrine and mindset wasn't completely lost or wrong in the 2000s but with the GWOT(Global War on Terror). The US Air Force re-hauled and expanded their basic training & in service training for new airmen to include fighting with small arms or CQB type combat with insurgents.
The US Army still goes by the older standards of most sidearms being used by special ops(tier one), MPs/MPI/MI/CIDC, air crews, commissioned officers, and/or generals.
The carrying and deployment of military sidearms won't change. Video games, milsim, airsoft etc is not going to change that.

Looks like Sergeant Major Kasal's was pretty useful during the Second Battle of Fallujah. Granted that was over 10 years ago but I doubt much has changed in urban warfare since then.

Click to expand...

That pic Jeff-10 included pretty much says it all, and effectively answers the OP's question.

The Sergeant' s rifle jammed, ran dry of ammo, got lost, et al., and he transitioned to his pistol (secondary weapon system) in order to prevail in his immediate fight against Jihadee thugs, or at least survive, despite being wounded.

His M9 was another tool in his mil-issue tool box and he used it to keep himself alive (and maybe fellow soldiers too) in one of the most brutal, cut-throat places on earth, then or now.

Would like to personally thank him for his service.

* * * But the days of a 2+ pound pistol should come to an end.

The pistol should be lightweight, reliable, accurate, easy to maintain, rugged, high capacity, and cheap to produce/maintain. The 1911 no longer fills many of these rolls. Nor does the Beretta M9. * * * .

Click to expand...

You are, of course, aware that the Marines adopted the Colt-built .45acp MARSOC M45A1 (1911) rail gun?

A polymer gun like Glock/SW/XD is proven design, lighter, cheaper, simpler, etc.
IMO it's the obvious direction for a modern military.

Click to expand...

Not to the Marines.

Captain Walker....

When Captain Samuel H. Walker of the Texas Rangers was asked by Colt Firearms to help T&E a new type of revolver for his Rangers he told Samuel Colt he wanted the weapon to be "big & heavy". When Colt asked why, Walker said: "so when it's unloaded, it can still be used as a club".
Thus was the history of the huge Colt Walker revolver.

jeff-10 said:

Looks like Sergeant Major Kasal's was pretty useful during the Second Battle of Fallujah.

Click to expand...

Which do you think he found the most useful, the pistol in his right hand or the combat knife in his left hand?

By all accounts of the action, he never used either one.

I would think the soldiers that died in Ft. Hood would have liked to have had a pistol.

Pilot said:

I would think the soldiers that died in Ft. Hood would have liked to have had a pistol.

Click to expand...

They could have had two pistols issued to each of them and it wouldn't have changed a thing that day. They wouldv'e been locked in an arms room at the unit and the ammo would've been locked up at the AHA or ASP, just like the rest of their issued weapons were.

I've carried a pistol in combat and the majority of use it saw was shooting dogs in Iraq. A few times it was out in tight spaces where my M4 was unwieldy but that's about it. Vital to combat success? No. Nice to have in case the primary weapon goes down? Damn straight. The M9 isn't bad (not really good either) but if it would be more cost effective at this point to purchase a new pistol then I see nothing wrong with it.

My experience has always been that the soldier on the ground fervently wants a sidearm. The idiots in charge of supplying them sees no need for the most part. It's been that way for most of the last century.