Military hates personal weapons?

[tinygnat219]

Blakenzy,

There's one word to answer why the military doesn't allow personal sidearms: Logistics. If you are in a fire fight and your .357 Sig runs dry, and your buddy tosses you a magazine of 9mm, what are you going to do?

There's also the multitude of types of ammo, gun parts, etc. This is VERY costly to maintain. With a standardized sidearm, you get commonality and easy replacement of parts.

 

[Blakenzy]

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.

Exactly. Why won't the army allow personal side arms? Because it appears that they don't care very much about their troops on the "personal" level.

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?

OK, if the army si so concerned about improving the capabilities of their pistols, then they would issue HP ammo and to hell with that darn Hague Convention. Try this: "If it will make a difference, then why NOT switch" Politics and beurocracy dominate the military's actions, not common sense.

If you are in a fire fight and your .357 Sig runs dry, and your buddy tosses you a magazine of 9mm, what are you going to do?

Ask him to throw you a rifle magazine and instead load your rifle ??? If you are down to your pistol you are combat inefective (or close to..). There's a reson the word "rifle" is in RIFLEMAN. One is nothing without the other.

 

[GRIZ22]

I saw a variety of personal sidearms in use in Vietnam 22s, 380s, 44 mag, 45 LC etc. The first time I ever saw Super Vel ammo was a lieutenant had brought a few boxes over with his 4" S&W Model 19. You had to keep these out of sight in the rear but nobody really cared in the field. My brother went over to Vietnam when the entire 4th Infantry did and said you couldn't find a pistol in the Seattle-Tacoma area and when you did you paid a premium price. They didn't pay too much attention what you brought in country but wouldn't let you leave with anything but an authorized war trophy. Problem was if you had anything that fired other than 38 spl (available froim the Air Force or Army Avaiation units) or 45 ACP you were out of luck when it came to ammo resupply. You couldn't run down to Wal Mart for more. Try to find 40 S&W in Baghdad. I was 18 when I went over to Vietnam so I couldn't buy a pistol before I left. I managed to acquire a 2"SW Model 10 somebody else had brought over and later on a GI 45 (don't know if someone had brought it over or it was a "combat loss").

The same situation exists in Iraq as far as I know. A friend of mine who was a truck driver there had acquired a Taurus PT92 which he could get away with as he carried it in a GI holster. He also acquired an AK. Not because of the superior reliability as most AK fans would like to hear but because it gave 3 rifles (his and his asst driver's M16s and the AK) to empty before reloading in the event of an ambush.

Another friend in the Marines brought his 9 mm SIG with him and brought it back.

I'm sure Soldiers or Marines who want a sidearm can acquire one in spite of regulations.

 

[heypete]

Exactly. Why won't the army allow personal side arms? Because it appears that they don't care very much about their troops on the "personal" level.

This has been discussed several times during this thread.

I think I can sum up the reasons why the army doesn't allow personal sidearms as follows:
1. Logistical nightmare.
2. Training nightmare.
3. By having a standard sidearm, and soldier can immediately use any other soldier's sidearm, ammunition, or magazines if the situation requires it.
4. Because of 1-3, the army appears to be inflexible (true), but doing so actually improves the likelihood of a soldier having a pistol they can effectively use in a combat situation.

Ask him to throw you a rifle magazine and instead load your rifle ??? If you are down to your pistol you are combat inefective (or close to..).

Be that as it may, being able to exchange sidearms, ammo, and magazines is a valid reason for the military standardizing on one sort of pistol, ammo, and magazine for said pistols.

You may disagree, but that's simply how things are.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

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.

Um, I have seen nothing like this in Iraq, 2003 and 2004. Most officers and many SNCOs had pistols (frequently with rifles as well), but very few people under SSgt had pistols, except for certain MOS (some comm guys, EOD guys, etc).


Most of the reasons above seem accurate, but I'd say the largest overall issue is one of control. The military is not a big fan of "doing your own thing".

From the higher-up perspective, the benefits of letting troops pick their own sidearms is negligible, so any conceivable downside (accident risks, logistical issues, etc) is enough to outweight the miniscule benefit for the system as a whole.

 

[heypete]

Um, I have seen nothing like this in Iraq, 2003 and 2004. Most officers and many SNCOs had pistols (frequently with rifles as well), but very few people under SSgt had pistols, except for certain MOS (some comm guys, EOD guys, etc).

Hmm. Everyone in my unit, from the lowest PV2 to the CO himself were issued and carried pistols.

Of course, we were tank crewmen, so that might be a bit different than other units.

Now, did the army use our tanks? No. They went over and guarded checkpoints. The guys going out to interact with the drivers generally just carried their pistols while the guys in towers had pistols and rifles. I suppose it's easier to look over someone's paperwork without having to deal with a rifle danging about on a sling.