Military hates personal weapons?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Blakenzy

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
917
I was just wondering why the military will not allow its members to carry their own sidearms when in active duty during combat? I could understand a policy against infantry men choosing their own primary weapon, because you might end up with a logistical nightmare where you get individual troopers carrying their pop's good ol' .30-30. But side arms are an entirely different matter.

A permision to carry what ever side arm you want will never have any effect on the strategic outcome of any conflict. However it could have a very significant outcome for the individual. Used as a last ditch option, a sidearm can actually mean the diference between life and death. So long as the individual sidearm carried by the individual infantry man is compatible to the task at hand, and is cambered in a common combat cartridge, say 9mmNATO or .45ACP, I see no reason why the military would forbid carrying a personal sidearm, that could (or not) be registered with the CO for administrative purposes.
 
Even with sidearms, there are significant advantages to being able to grab an extra mag from your buddy if you drop yours in the mud, or to being able to grab another gun and have it work exactly the same as the one you're used to.

Handguns controls, grip angles, etc. vary a great deal.
 
I think it's mostly a matter of logistics and safety.

The military doesn't know if Private Bubba's pistols is safe to use, or has been modified to have a 1/2lb trigger pull and a worn disconnector. What happens if it ADs and shoots another soldier? Their armorers are trained to work on military issue equipment.

While I'd have little problem with factory stock Glock pistols (maybe with night sights) or similar pistols, there's just far too many unknowns for them to bother.

What happens if Private Bubba's Sig runs out of ammo in the middle of a firefight. Sergeant Jones can't just hand him a few mags and have Bubba ready to go in a second, as the mags don't fit. That could easily cost lives.

If Bubba's issue M9 goes down, it can be swapped out by the armorer in a few minutes. If his 1911 goes down, who's going to fix it? Are the armorers going to store his broken pistol until he can order parts and have them mailed to the front? Is he going to get a loaner M9 for the time being? What if he had an XD that needed to be couriered (not mailed) back to Springfield for repairs as spare parts aren't available? Is FedEx going to have regular pickups at the base? How much for shipping?

That said, I've seen a few 1911s and other non-standard guns among members of my unit. It's a bit easier to carry a 1911 (or any pistol) in a leather chest holster when one's inside a tank than a pistol with the obnoxious army belt holster.

As much as I would have preferred to carry my Glock 19 (and have a bunch of spare parts back in the barracks), I can understand the reasons for not wanting non-issue pistols over there.
 
Yes, I know. Thats why I understand a policy regarding primary longarms.

How ever sidearms have never tilted the balance in a battle, and perhaps only marginally increase the efficiency at a tactical level. It's in the invidual, personal circumstances that sidearms really shine. Why is the military so concerned about what sidearms its members choose to carry into danger's way? It is certainly not for the well being of the individual soldier. It has very little if any strategic significance, so why?
 
Yes, I know. Thats why I understand a policy regarding primary longarms.
Click to expand...

The same logic applies to sidearms as well.

How ever sidearms have never tilted the balance in a battle, and perhaps only marginally increase the efficiency at a tactical level. It's in the invidual, personal circumstances that sidearms really shine. Why is the military so concerned about what sidearms its members choose to carry into danger's way? It is certainly not for the well being of the individual soldier. It has very little if any strategic significance, so why?
Click to expand...

Sidearms have certainly had significance in various conflicts. Perhaps not major significance in newsworthy type sense, but you can bet it'd be significant for the people involved. :eek:

If in a firefight a soldier is hit and goes down and another soldier's pistol breaks, it's simple to pick up the downed soldier's pistol and continue firing as they are standard and one trains accordingly. If I were trained on a Glock (point and shoot) and someone tossed me an HK P7, Sig, or 1911, I might be confused for a few moments. Those few moments could well cost me my life.

As a tank crewman, pistols were our primary "oh, crap" weapon as maneuvering a rifle out of the hatch in any sort of graceful manner was not really possible. (Don't ask why we were getting out of the tank, but needless to say it happened a few times. That "death before dismount" thing doesn't always apply...:cuss:) Pistols are commonly used to get bad guys off the outside of the tank (happened to my Lt. a few times), and a rifle would be a disadvantage due to its length and need to have both hands on it. So yes, for many, pistols are a very important weapon.
 
Ammo supply maybe? And even if you had to bring your own ammo, it would have to be NATO approved (No JHPs) and that would be more of a pain than standard issue.

Just a thought, not sure how true/relavant it is.
 
Yes, yes, yes. I agree that pistols are very important to the individual combatant. I never said other wise but I still cannot shake the idea that the only reason the military has negative policy regarding the posession of individual sidearms is that they like to keep complete control over every single aspect of a soldier's life, and allowing them to choose and carry a weapon of their choice would undermine their authority to an extent.

BTW, are there enough pistols to go around in th US Army? I wrote this thread because I was under the impression that there was a shortage of sidearms, that pistols were highly valued amongst the people who actually fight and, however, soldiers are not allowed to arm themselves with their own captured, bought or gifted pistols even if they were not issued one by the military.
 
Yes, yes, yes. I agree that pistols are very important to the individual combatant. I never said other wise but I still cannot shake the idea that the only reason the military has negative policy regarding the posession of individual sidearms is that they like to keep complete control over every single aspect of a soldier's life, and allowing them to choose and carry a weapon of their choice would undermine their authority to an extent.
Click to expand...

That may be an issue, but I think it's much more of one of logistics than any sort of malicious intent.

The US military is a sizable organization. Keeping things logistically simple minimizes expenses, increases efficiency, and maximizes training simplicity. Having to train on one rifle (M16/M4 which both work the same), one pistol (M9), and only a handful of heavier weapons (M249, M240, M2) makes it much easier to supply and train soldiers. Obviously, specialized training is necessary for tankers, artillerymen, and other such fields, but I'm mostly referring to issued weapons.

Similarly, many police departments standardize on a single make and model of pistol simply for logistical purposes.

As for there being a shortage of pistols, I haven't heard anything at all about that. My entire unit was issued pistols, as well as a few spares. Being tankers, we might have gotten a higher priority than others, but I don't really know.
 
we are not allowed to have personal weapons and we are not allowed to tote around captured weapons for very long and they have to be turned over. i would love to carry a sidearm but more than that i would like my saw gunner to carry one for his protection. and the 240 gunners. but they are in weapons squad and they don't belong to me. but i still think they should have them.
 
UNIFORM

The term uniformed service not only applies to clothing but to weapons as well. It keeps logistics easy. However as an armed service officer myself i have seen some guys carrying non standard service pistols around. Is it non SOP yes. But depending on your rank or where u stationed a lot of stuff is often looked the other way.
 
The last thing I'd want to do is have to rely on some poor fallen guy's chrome-plated Lorcin to fight my way back to my rifle.

jm
 
Wouldn't the MSM love to report that PFC Jones shot and kill someone with a big bad .45.
Their report would be if he was using the standard NATO 9mm the guy would have lived.
How inhumane of the US Military.:fire:
AC
 
The military, like other things...

...is overly regulated today. The official prohibition against personal weapons is just one sign of the times. Historically, there has always been the "official" position, and the "unofficial, what ever it takes" position. Soldiers on the sharp end used to get quite a bit of leeway about what the carried for a sidearm/war trophies, as long as they carried their official issue weapons as well.

Today there is a lot more oversight, particularly by people who are not on the sharp end, and who's main obsession seems to be making sure everyone on our side follows the rules. No matter if the rules put our sons and daughters at a disadvantage or not.

A personal sidearm may not turn the outcome of a battle, but it can save the life of the soldier who does turn the outcome of the battle.
 
I would say that it going down shouldn't matter unless it is a position that is normally issued a sidearm. If private bubba wants to carry his sig the worst that can happen is it goes down and he is i nthe same position he was in before his baby arrived at the front. If nothing else and the military is worried about longistics of the pistol going down and the soldier being without it whats the argument agianst being allowed to purchase your own sidearm that is identicle to the standard issue sidearm?
 
It has been a really long time since personal weapons were allowed. There are tons of good reason for this.

BTW, are there enough pistols to go around in th US Army? I wrote this thread because I was under the impression that there was a shortage of sidearms, that pistols were highly valued amongst the people who actually fight and, however, soldiers are not allowed to arm themselves with their own captured, bought or gifted pistols even if they were not issued one by the military.
Click to expand...

Capturing one and keeping it is not allowed either..... Unless I am in an armored vehicle I would want a rifle anyway. A pistol has limited usefulness in combat. Even all officers pretty much now carry long arms outside the wire.
 
THE AMIGO - "However as an armed service officer myself i have seen some guys carrying non standard service pistols around."

Back in the mid-1980s, I knew a man who had been a Pathfinder paratrooper with the 101st Div. (ABN.), in the early 1960s. He told me that he and his Pathfinder platoon members could carry their own sidearms on their missions. He said that they had to be inspected by the armorer, kept locked in their lockers, and they had to qualify with them on the Army's pistol range. They were not allowed to carry "junk" guns.

His was a S&W 19 .357 Mag.

When I was in college many years ago, I became friends with a guy there who was there on the G.I. Bill. He had been a paratrooper and made a combat jump with the 187th R.C.T. (ABN.), in Korea. In addition to his M1 Garand, he carried a P38 pistol that his father had brought back from WWII.

My uncle, USMC, a "China Marine," carried a Colt's Detective Special .38 Spc., when he was on several of the islands in the Pacific during WWII. His first combat out there was on a little island that no one had ever heard of. It was called, "Guadalcanal."

So, as The Amigo said, there are occasional exceptions. Those I just mentioned were obviously many years ago.

L.W.
 
While it might be argued...

that today handguns on the battlefield don't tip the scales in a significant manner I'm not sure this is true throughout history.

It seems I remember that one of the reasons the 1911 is tied to the military is the pistol it replaces was ineffective against certain enemy forces. Apparently enough so that the field commanders petitioned for a more effective sidearm. It it wasn't making a difference, why switch?

migoi
 
Once pond a time, the Marine Corps issued 45s to those on crew served
weapons like BAR men, Machine gunners, Mortars, and officers. I think
the theroy was when the TO weapon failed there was some kind of back
up (also issue was K Bar knife}. Guess with the officers, they needed
free hands for maps and communications.
 
I would say that it going down shouldn't matter unless it is a position that is normally issued a sidearm. If private bubba wants to carry his sig the worst that can happen is it goes down and he is i nthe same position he was in before his baby arrived at the front. If nothing else and the military is worried about longistics of the pistol going down and the soldier being without it whats the argument agianst being allowed to purchase your own sidearm that is identicle to the standard issue sidearm?
Click to expand...

As far as I know (from reports from buddies who were over there; I got hurt in training and couldn't go), just about everyone has pistols over there. Maybe not some of the REMF guys who don't leave the wire, but most people they saw had their sidearm at least within reach at all times they're not in the shower.

In addition to logistics, there's also safety -- what if Private Bubba's Sig has a bad trigger job and malfunctions, sending a round into Bubba's (or worse yet, someone else's) leg? I suspect there might be more a personal liability issue (as much as I hate that phrase) with such a gun compared to an issued pistol.

All in all, it's probably for the best that your average rank and file soldiers stick with their issued weapons. The tip-of-the-spear SF types have specialized weapons (like the suppressed HK in .45 ACP) but as far as I know they pretty much carry issued guns, rather than personal ones. Sure, some CO's might look the other way, but there are sound reasons for requiring that soldiers carry at least their issued guns.
 
Logistics, training and diffently saftey all play a large role in why the military does not allow enlisted men to have personal sidearms. I believe officers and Special Forces have some leway on what they can carry. One has to remember that the vast majority of people in the military today, have little to no experience with firearms (except for trigger time in video games) before they joined the service. It a complete culture change from the vietnam era where many enlisted men had some civilian firearm experience. This is why their are alot of antis in the military today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Military Weapon Designations?
Replies
14
Views
1K
gunnutery
G
F
  • Locked
Is Military Anti-Gun?
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
4K
mljdeckard
mljdeckard
2
  • Locked
Battlefield Ops: My Weapons Of Choice
Replies
10
Views
832
jercamp45
J
S
  • Locked
Army looking for new weapons
Replies
1
Views
550
Langenator
L
G
  • Locked
Taiwanese gunsmith tailors weapons for the military's most specialized units
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Steamship Trooper
S
Back
Top