Stan187

You quoted me. Nowhere, did I say that. If you want to know what I said, then just reread. I refuted your earlier statement, I didn't make a different claim.

dave lukins

Gents, even in war you cannot use your "weapon of choice". The Military must use the weapon of issue, and not protect themselves with a secondary non-issue weapon..sad but true

leib10

Agreed, but a pistol would only take up the space one or maybe two M16 mags would take up. Should your primary weapon fail, those mags are useless to you.


Depends where you keep it. Leg holsters are convenient enough.

__________________
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

Shek

I carried both a M4 and a M9 while I was in Iraq. If I had to do it over again, I would ditch the M9. The only thing it was good for was to meet the requirement of being armed while on the FOB instead of having to carry around the M4. Now, where it would be good is issuing it to drivers in armored vehicles so that they have a weapon they could use out of the hatch in a bind, but still have a M4 for when they are dismounted (rare, but it does happen for various reasons).

The M9 magazines (which hopefully has been fixed by now) were ghetto, and the chances of a failure of the pistol was many times greater than that of the M4. You'd be better off if sh!t hits the fans having some grenades in a situation where your M4 goes south on you. You'll have the same effective radius, but you'll add shock effect to the inventory, which will allow you more flexibility to move to a better position. If things get really bad, you still have an assault rifle with a bayonet.

As far as having excess 5.56 mags that are no longer useful to you, you can hand these off to your buddy or other team/squad members.

Next, the piece of gear that gave me the most trouble was my pistol holster/leg rig get up. Always chafing me and riding up, looking back, I'm surprised I kept it for as long as I did.

Lastly, if you are doing things right, it should take several squads to a platoon to clear a house.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

dave lukins

Major Shek Sir you would have been horrified at the weapons issued to UK tank soldiers ,thankfully never used in anger in BAOR at least..a 9mm sub machine gun..try finding that if your vehicle got hit

TopHatter

Dave,
Which 9mm sub, the Sterling?

Stan187

My contention was that while desirable, I imagine there are times when you have to make do without a whole platoon to clear that house. I wasn't commenting on proper procedure or best-case scenarios as such.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

sappersgt

Sappers were issued with sidearms in addition to their primary weapon. I was issued an Uzi SMG and a Browning Hi-power. The fact I issued with a sidearm that meant I was armed in situations where carrying my Uzi wasn't practical, like at HQ, in town or while doing "welfare checks" on the "lay sisters" at the mission.

Carrying a sidearm around all the time was sometimes a pain but you got used to it. I can say that carrying it all the time did make it much more familiar and easier to use. I felt naked when I got discharged, it was the first time in years I wasn't carrying a pistol!

To be fair my sidearm as an adjunct to my primary weapon wasn't very effective. I only once had to use my Browning when I was also armed with my primary weapon. All the other times I used a pistol it was the only weapon I had.

__________________
Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
(Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)

dave lukins

Yes Tophatter the Sterling, not a perfect choice for a tank driver

tankie

That was the one , it was good as a close quarter weapon , ie in a room on auto , at single shots a target could be hit consistantly up to about one hundred to 2 hundred yards with decent ammo , not the usual crap we were issued with .

But no matter how dirty it was when the trigger was pulled it worked .

__________________
TANKIE , WITHOUT WAX

pdf27

Have you seen the stubby-carbine version of the SA80 they're issuing now? Quiet short and probably quite cheap as it uses most of the same parts as the A2, but I swear the first time someone uses that in anger they're going to blow off their left hand...

__________________
Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

TopHatter

The Sterling was the first weapon I ever fired that was full-auto, so it's got a special place in my heart

After shooting nothing but pistol, the heavier and steadier Sterling was just plain fun fun fun. I have to admit though, with that horizontal side-loading magazine, I can see how cramped conditions would make it a real pain.

(I also can't watch the original Star Wars trilogy and not smile when I see the stormtrooper's blasters )

Swift Sword

Hi Guys,

On the pistol thing:

I do not have the benefit of military experience, but I carried weapons in various capacities for a decade and held the one handed gun in high regard even when I was armed with a shotgun, carbine or SMG.

In my experience, a two handed American with a one handed weapon is never a bad thing.

Having talked to numerous vets and active service personnel ranging from WW2 through OIF, the bulk of them were glad to have pistols and/or revolvers at their disposal and would procure them from the enemy if neccessary.

I can undestand the complaints about the bulkiness of service pistols for I personally consider the M9, good as it is, to be a bit of a boat anchor.

A few cases of when pistols came in real handy in a military context come to mind:

1. A Vietnam Marine once told me how he was breifly captured.

His assailants jumped him, got his rifle, bayonet and grenades. They sat on him for a minute but their quick pat down missed a Walther PP he had procured locally and was carrying in a pocket.

When his unit counter attacked, his captors blinked and what one would expect from a U.S. Marine transpired: he used the hidden pistol to shoot at them at close range and make good his escape.

2. I heard (have no citation) that in ODS a pilot who was shot down was captured and marched off by a single Iraqi soldier while his mate circled over head.

From what I understand, the pilot was unarmed. Seems to me a man with a modest amount of training and even a small handgun could have solved this problem and waited under air cover for a ride home.

3. Another Vietnam anecdote: a doctor of my aquaintance got his start in medicine as a helicopter pilot flying casualties to aid stations or whatever they were called.

On one occassion, the crew cheif was busy helping load litter cases when a woman ran up to throw what turned out to be a land mine into the helicopter.

The pilot in question drew a revolver and shot the woman dead at eight paces with two Remington .38 hollow points.

There was a CAR-15 in the cockpit but nobody had a chance to grab it because they were all busy with the wounded and other sundry chores.

In my personal experience, having a handgun available translates into having a backup band in the event there are unarmed people about.

One fine day in a past life (not in a military context BUT tactics is tactics just the same), I was riding in the back of a coupe with an unarmed driver and an armed passenger in the front seat. We were set on from two sides.

Being pent up in the back seat, I unholstered and handed the driver my cocked and locked Browning High Power while D. bailed out the right side with his weapon (in the meantime, I was unlimbering a Winchester 12 ga. pump racked behind the backseat ).

While I was exiting the passenger's side of the vehicle to join the fight, the driver who was moments before unarmed discharged two rounds: he was set upon by a troglydyte with a baseball bat.

Because someone had a pistol available to arm him, the driver was not maimed or killed.

I guess to my mind the arguments for having a pistol in a military context run as follows:

1. in the event primary goes down for whatever reason you have something that shoots further than a knife, further than you can throw a grenade and gives a point target option that a grenade does not;

2. confined spaces, prisoner handling, need other hand free for whatever reason;

3. having a pistol and the knowledge to use it can increase morale and confidence in the face of the unknown;

4. history is full of incidents where soldiers have used their pistols and revolvers to solve immediate problems which were otherwise not satisfactorily resolvable by other means.

5. they count as extra weapons which can be distributed to the man on your left or right if they come up empty handed for whatever reason.

Training and experience of WAB military proffesionals duly noted, I am in favor of pistols for the troops if they want them and can prove basic profficiency.

If for some reason I am pressed into the war, I will be carrying a pistol or revolver and I will not be too particular about make, model or method of procurement.

I know how to use them and have needed them before.

Have a nice weekend,

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

Captain C

I find it hard to believe that an M-9 is considered heavy. Mine is practically a flyweight compared to a fullsize 1911, of course my fullsize is a Kimber Warrior II (speaking of junk...). The issue with the M-9 magazines was that they were too old. You can't leave some magazines fully loaded forever. We've all heard the stories of magazines left fully loaded for 10 years, but that is a rarity if not downright unbelieveable. The issue of bad magazines is history, at least with the Army. A friend of mine went to Afghanistan last year and I offered to buy him some new magazines to take with him. He said they had new magazines coming out their bohunkus.

Personally, I have never had my M-9 jam, and I've fed about everything through it you can think of in the last 15 years. It's easy to shoot and accurate at any practical range. I would always want to have my backup in a war zone. In some situations it is going to be easier to use than even an M-4. There are many options of where you can wear it, shoulder harness, chest harness, hip, thigh; it's just not an issue. your primary weapon can take a hit just as easy as a man can. It's nice to have a weapon without waiting for your bud to get killed first...... The guy from my church works in the motor pool in Baghdad. He has no weapon under the vehicle with him while working on it. He would definitely prefer to have an M-9 to having to wait until he is out from under the vehicle to get his M-16. To each his own I guess....

__________________
Revelation 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
(Been There)

Shek

Glad to hear that they've fixed the mag problem.

As far as weight, it's not that heavy. However, you cannot consider it in isolation. It's the marginal effect of the extra pounds, and when you're carrying 60-80 pounds of "lightweight" stuff, an extra few pounds can make a difference. With all the stuff you do carry, and with limited space on your body armor, the optimal place would be a leg rig. However, consider the environment - soldiers stuffed into crammed HMMWVs, which are more crowded because of combat loads in the vehicle itself, additional equipment that HMMWVs didn't have just a few years back (GPS, FBCB2/BFT, actually having weapons mounted in a turret ring, etc.), with body armor (remember, it's lightweight at approximately 25 pounds now with the DAP and side protection) and attachments that will double the girth of a soldier easily. The leg rig WILL catch on stuff frequently, and in keeping with Murphy's law, this will want to happen when you don't want it to.

Now put the dismounted soldier in an urban environment pitted against an insurgent not encumbered with all this gear and wearing running shoes with a planned and probably rehearsed avenue of escape. While most likely in better shape, the marginal extra weight and additional equipment hanging off waiting to catch on obstables could mean the difference between detaining suspected insurgents or not even having a chance.

Lastly, there are situations where it is very appropriate to have soldiers kitted out with pistols, to include some dismounted elements (smaller teams that will often not be working within mutual support of other elements, machine gunners, snipers, etc.). My argument is against the thought that all dismounted soldiers need a pistol as a secondary weapon.