I'm curious, why does the U.S. military still use a full-size, all-steel sidearm?

Given all of the other gear a modern soldier carries (kevlar, armor, extra mags for primary weapon, grenades, helmet, etc . . .), it'd seem to make more sense to carry a compact polymer gun as a secondary weapon. A compact Glock or XD in .40 or .45 would provide more firepower in a smaller, lighter package.

Is there a reason I'm missing due to my ignorance, or is it just bureaucratic inertia?

The US Military doesn't only use a full-size metal frame sidearm. Most conventional units do carry the M9 Beretta (if they are issued a sidearm at all), whereas a lot of other units carry other things, including the Sig P228, Glock 19, Colt 1911, etc.

Except for the occasional handgun chambered in .45 ACP, which will generally be restricted to the Special Operations community, the overwhelming majority of pistols in the military are chambered in 9mm. This is similar to 5.56 being the standard rifle round. It's mostly a logistical issue: if every unit got to pick their armaments, costs would escalate, and units would lose their modularity. Bad **** would happen. That's just the way it is.

Cassius, thanks for taking the time to answer what was probably a dumb question.

I had no idea any units carried Sigs or Glocks.

I would honestly be surprised if there were very many people on this forum that knew the answer to your question, so don't feel bad. Truthfully, I have no idea if regular Army units carry anything other than the M9 Beretta. Considering that some of my friends in the regular Army who are deployed right now were issued M16A2s, it wouldn't surprise me.

I actually carry a Sig, though I prefer shooting the M9, to be honest. Just don't like lugging its heavy ass frame around, especially since it's my secondary weapon.

I'm curious, why does the U.S. military still use a full-size, all-steel sidearm?

Given all of the other gear a modern soldier carries (kevlar, armor, extra mags for primary weapon, grenades, helmet, etc . . .), it'd seem to make more sense to carry a compact polymer gun as a secondary weapon. A compact Glock or XD in .40 or .45 would provide more firepower in a smaller, lighter package.

Is there a reason I'm missing due to my ignorance, or is it just bureaucratic inertia?

We use Glocks.

The US Military doesn't only use a full-size metal frame sidearm. Most conventional units do carry the M9 Beretta (if they are issued a sidearm at all), whereas a lot of other units carry other things, including the Sig P228, Glock 19, Colt 1911, etc.

Except for the occasional handgun chambered in .45 ACP, which will generally be restricted to the Special Operations community, the overwhelming majority of pistols in the military are chambered in 9mm. This is similar to 5.56 being the standard rifle round. It's mostly a logistical issue: if every unit got to pick their armaments, costs would escalate, and units would lose their modularity. Bad **** would happen. That's just the way it is.

Yep its logistical. 9mm, 5.56, 7.62 are all standard NATO munitions which makes logistics simpler for Multinational missions.

well around here (Israel) it varies as well, very special forces - Glock. not as special forces - Sig. more down the line of how special they are - FN (can't remember the model). and other units, such as police units and such are often carrying Jericho - both polymeric and metal frames. and it's mostly logistical. there's still a lot of FN's lying around so those got passed down, cause well we are possibly the stingyest army in the world. in all fairness it is still a good gun, and hell the 1911, has been around since basically 1911.

Consider too, that for the most part, military forces could give less than a **** about handguns. Given the wide availability of rifles which are a few orders of magnitude more deadly, and require a few orders of magnitude less training, pistols just don't measure up.

Very few people carry them and I don't remember ever meeting anyone who had actually shot an enemy with one - though I did once talk to a guy who almost had.

In terms of military operations, pistols are nearly useless. The Armies of the world can and do carry powerful rifles openly - what good would a pistol be?

Well, when your buddy in the silo won't turn the Goddamn key, it's pistol time. Take that commie-lover!

Consider too, that for the most part, military forces could give less than a **** about handguns. Given the wide availability of rifles which are a few orders of magnitude more deadly, and require a few orders of magnitude less training, pistols just don't measure up.

Very few people carry them and I don't remember ever meeting anyone who had actually shot an enemy with one - though I did once talk to a guy who almost had.

In terms of military operations, pistols are nearly useless. The Armies of the world can and do carry powerful rifles openly - what good would a pistol be?

Please stop with this inconvenient piece of reality! Tomorrow is Monday and I must watch 24 long after it has jumped the shark, and watch Jack pwn all those assault rifle carrying fools.

SFGOON,

Out of curiousity, are carbines, shotguns, and submachine guns useful to modern military?

SFGOON,

Out of curiousity, are carbines, shotguns, and submachine guns useful to modern military?An M4 is technically a carbine. And at any rate, we have all three of those in our armory, along with many other things. Shotguns can be especially useful for breaching doors. SMGs are useful for other things.

SFGOON,

Out of curiousity, are carbines, shotguns, and submachine guns useful to modern military?
For the navy, shotguns are extremely useful for ship security and are widely used.

SFGOON,

Out of curiousity, are carbines, shotguns, and submachine guns useful to modern military?

many sniper rifles are bolt action as well

Consider too, that for the most part, military forces could give less than a **** about handguns. Given the wide availability of rifles which are a few orders of magnitude more deadly, and require a few orders of magnitude less training, pistols just don't measure up.

Very few people carry them and I don't remember ever meeting anyone who had actually shot an enemy with one - though I did once talk to a guy who almost had.

In terms of military operations, pistols are nearly useless. The Armies of the world can and do carry powerful rifles openly - what good would a pistol be?

That's only true on the battlefield.

Pistols are there for that rare moment when your rifle malfunctions and you DON'T lose your life because of it. At least in military terms. Hence the term "Sidearm". Pistols are better for law enforcement, self defense, and point entry with shield, where they are simply one of the only reasonable measures for the situation.

As for uses, each weapon has its advantages:

Shotguns - Excellent close range weapons. 00 Buck 12 GA loads will put down an intruder every time so long as they are in range of about 50 meters or so on average. Plus, in urban environments, they perform their tasks with little or no risk of overpenetration that could hurt any innocent bystanders.

Sub Machine Guns - Another great entry weapon. Clears out rooms fast. Assault rifles are great, but the rounds are capable of zipping through both their human targets and the walls behind them which isn't a great risk. Plus using pistol-type ammunition like 9mm or .45 can give you less kick than a rifle with often more stopping power due to the shape of the round and its energy dispersal.

A carbine is just a short rifle. They often have almost just as much accuracy as larger rifles with less weight. I'd rather have a carbine than a full sized rifle if I were in the service. I trust my accuracy plenty with a shorter barrel, and I'd like the advantage of having more mobility and energy due to packing less of a load. Gimme an M4 and a Glock, please!