Militarily are handguns obsolete?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When I was with 2nd MarDiv the following jobs had a sidearm.

OOD-locked in battalion safe M9
OOW-locked in battalion safe M9
Armorer (inside) worn M-9
Armorer guard (M16A2)
Battalion officers 1st Lt, and above M-9 / M-16 optional upon request
MPs M-9
Devil Docs M-9
Tank Drivers M-9
MEU medical/dental personel M-9

Thats not an exhaustive list but some of what I remember

On a side note 8404 Devil Docs/ Combat Corpsman usually carry a combat drop PPpsH or a AK 47, ask me how I know ;)
 
Having a side arm is not obsolete, it's a back up gun, and that never goes out of style.

The M9s they use on the other hand are big, heavy steel framed DA/SA pistols that are a bit obsolete compared to guns like the Glock 17.
 
If I had my way on sidearms, we'd go to G19s or something- big enough to be a duty weapon, small enough to not be your primary weapon. Then again, I'd want to go to like a subcompact size for my sidearm and carry a bit of extra ammo in a perfect world.
 
When I was in the role of gunner in our three man machinegun crew, I carried a pistol. I was also issued one while in Somalia on account of being temporarily assigned to a vehicle convoy security detachment. (which was fun!)

I had a rifle or a machine gun in both settings, but I was darn glad to have the pistol. I never shot it in combat, but it was drawn several times either because someone was close to getting shot, someone was being covered while being searched, or simply to back an individual up.

In all of those cases, a rifle would have worked, but not as well. I don't want to make myself out to be some super tough guy that has seen the elephant more times than Hannibal, because I am definitively NOT some high speed low drag guy, but at the end of the day, in those particular situations, the pistol was the better tool. In all of those situations, I was close enough that I was able to move around somewhat more easily what with all the crap we had to wear. Additionally, I was able to retain more control of the weapon, and at the ranges that I was at in these cases, ballistics were sort of a non issue. That round would have done whatever I wanted it to do, basically.

Would I want to fight with a pistol? No! It was purely a defensive and back up to my main weapons. It served a particular role very well, but in the grand scheme of things it was not in any way a primary weapon. This statement in no way makes it "obsolete", by the way. The weight and space issues involved in carrying a pistol with a couple of extra mags are negligible when compared to the advantages of having a back up firearm.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that pistol skills are not (or at least were not) taught particularly well. I had a familiarization plus annual quals, and that was it. Not such a big deal for me as compared to other guys since I grew up shooting handguns, but I personally felt underprepared to use a pistol in combat. I did it, and I am certain I made every mistake possible in doing so.

As an aside, I liked then and like now the M9. Obviously a whole lot of people don't, but I always did. Easy to maintain in the field, accurate enough, reliable. My issued M9 was bashed around a lot over the time that I had it, and if I could have bought it when I got out, I would have because it always worked. Always. The gun is perfectly fine, it's that crappy ball ammo that I have a problem with.

Also:

What we carry would have killed a Roman soldier

Assuredly, it would not have. I would agree that many Marines and soldiers carry ancillary stuff that is rarely, if ever, required on patrols, and I am the first person to say that a big knife is kind of a dumb thing to carry on patrols because of the extra weight (with no particular pay off in utility over something not as big), but for the most part a human being in reasonable physical condition can easily haul the weight you are talking about. I am not saying it is fun, but with modern load bearing equipment it isn't exactly torture either. Then again, the 7th Marines motto is "Prepare to March", so maybe I am just biased.
 
Last edited:
Right before the close of my time in the Corps I had a chance to go to Afghanistan.After 2 tours in Iraq I wanted to go but a medical problem I developed made it to where I had to stay home then get out, but that is a different story. As me and my CWO4 were preping to leave they made hime trun in his M-9 and get an M4. They did that because the brass wanted only Colonel or higher carrying sidearms unless their MOS(tankers,corpsman,MPs,RPs and the like) stated they were to use the pistol. How ever a buddy of mine got sent to a MUE a few months ago and called me and asked if I could buy his Beretta 92 because he wanted to by a 1911 similer to the Marsoc 1911 he was issued when he got to Pendleton. And he is a E-5 Sergeant. So no matter what the brass says it looks like the handgun is gonna say in the military for a while.
 
We have to understand the theory of the handgun -- it's the gun you always have with you. Sitting in the latrine, waiting in the chow line, wherever you are, your handgun is there. And that's why handguns will never be obsolete in combat situations.
 
I frequently have to go onto a military base for my work. The base security guys are issued M9 BERETTA pistols, but frequently do not carry them when working base security if they are carrying something heavier. It is their choice from what they tell me. Oddly enough, they still are wearing holsters for the pistol, just not wearing the pistol.

Which just demonstrates how substandard and flawed MPs are as "police" and helps explain why more and more garrison law enforcement is done by DOD police rather than inadequately trained and un-vetted guys crammed into a career field that requires huge manpower totals to do light infantry/light cavalry work in theater.

Having a side arm is not obsolete, it's a back up gun, and that never goes out of style.

+1. On the SOF side of things, even as a support guy, I had a pistol to go with my long gun -- and the training to employ both effectivelly. On the Big Army side my current unit has something like two pistols for the entire Troop (I don't even think my lieutenant warrants one). Pretty retarded, but then we have so much trouble just getting effective training for the Joes on M4s and crew served that pistols would just be another thing our guys wouldn't know how to use.

But -- pistols will never be obsolete, despite conventional wisdom claims to the contrary. As a back up weapon during CQB if your primary goes down they're simply necessary. As a potential requirement in some cases where your long gun is too big, also never out of style (ever seen what passes for an attic space in some Afghan compounds? asking someone to search that with an M4 or with no gun at all just doesn't work either way, but a pistol -- with the skill to use it -- not bad).
 
Vern, So was my M4, with a full mag in a pocket or in a pouch on the stock. Only time it wasn't with in reach, was in the showers, and then it was with a battle buddy.
 
Quote:
What we carry would have killed a Roman soldier
Assuredly, it would not have. I would agree that many Marines and soldiers carry ancillary stuff that is rarely, if ever, required on patrols, and I am the first person to say that a big knife is kind of a dumb thing to carry on patrols because of the extra weight (with no particular pay off in utility over something not as big), but for the most part a human being in reasonable physical condition can easily haul the weight you are talking about. I am not saying it is fun, but with modern load bearing equipment it isn't exactly torture either. Then again, the 7th Marines motto is "Prepare to March", so maybe I am just biased.
http://www.military.com/news/article/gear-that-protects-troops-also-injures-them.html?ESRC=eb.nl

-- The number of soldiers medically retired from the Army with at least one musculoskeletal condition increased nearly 10-fold from 2003 to 2009, according to Army statistics.

When soldiers headed out on extended foot patrols, their average load ranged from 87 pounds to 127 pounds. When they came under attack and dropped their rucksacks, most of their fighting loads still exceeded 60 pounds.
 
Some stuff isn't negotiable, as far as what you carry, but there's also a certain dumb attitude in the military that carrying excessive weight on the back is a sign of manliness. Couple that with a command environment that is too cowardly to compromise ballistic protection for mission effectiveness under any conditions and there's a problem and an institutional culture that won't ever let it get any better.
 
I provided my own 1911 back in 69/70. Saved my butt twice. I would not go into any kind of combat without one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was issued an M-9 and an M-4/16 at various points in my career. Typically, I carried 210 rounds of 5.56 (one mag in the rifle, 6 carried) and 3 mags for the M-9. I never had to use the M-9, outside of qualifying, and always considered it a back up if the SHTF big time. There were times when I was issued only the M-9, but that was for flight crew duties, and virtually pointless. But even then, it was better than a dirty look and some harsh words.

Ultimately, the handgun is a tool with a specific use. If the situation never demands it, no big deal. But if the situation ever comes up, you'll be glad you had it.
 
Last edited:
It isn't that a pistol is not potentially useful its just that another 100 rounds of 5.56 is more potentially useful. I worried a lot more about running out of ammo than my rifle failing and leaving me defenseless. Its awfully easy to get pinned down and sieged out.
 
Short answer:

No, and they never will be. Pistols don't win battles, but they sometimes save the lives of the men who do. People who are in harm's way are adept at finding ways to increase the odds that they'll go home alive, and even personnel who are forbidden from carrying pistols will find a way to get one.

My great uncle carried a personal 38 in the Pacific to sleep with and he used it once in New Guinea.

Exactly...and if he hadn't had that revolver, there's probably a good chance that you'd be referring to him as your late great uncle who was killed in action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top