Page 1 of 4 1234 Last
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    95
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    Military Sidearms

    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?

  2. #2
    Cassius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,038
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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.
    "No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    95
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Cassius, thanks for taking the time to answer what was probably a dumb question.

    I had no idea any units carried Sigs or Glocks.

  4. #4
    Cassius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,038
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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.
    "No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal

  5. #5
    Gezere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Rhineland Pfalz, Der Vaderland
    Posts
    10,579
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by moli View Post
    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.
    ______
    Xiao Ao Jiang Hu Zhi Dong Fang Bu Bai (Laughing Proud Warrior Invincible Asia) Dark Emperor of Baji!!!

    RIP SOLDIER

    Didn't anyone ever tell him a fat man could never be a ninja
    -Gene, GODHAND

    You can't practice Judo just to win a Judo Match! You practice so that no matter what happens, you can win using Judo!
    The key to fighting two men at once is to be much tougher than both of them.
    -Daniel Tosh

  6. #6
    Gezere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Rhineland Pfalz, Der Vaderland
    Posts
    10,579
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cassius View Post
    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.
    ______
    Xiao Ao Jiang Hu Zhi Dong Fang Bu Bai (Laughing Proud Warrior Invincible Asia) Dark Emperor of Baji!!!

    RIP SOLDIER

    Didn't anyone ever tell him a fat man could never be a ninja
    -Gene, GODHAND

    You can't practice Judo just to win a Judo Match! You practice so that no matter what happens, you can win using Judo!
    The key to fighting two men at once is to be much tougher than both of them.
    -Daniel Tosh

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    871
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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.

  8. #8
    SFGOON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,208
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion
    You sound like a foaming-at-the-mouth-loon out of Dr. Strangelove.
    Sometimes, we put Ricin in the Cocaine. :ninja7:

  9. #9
    Vorpal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    A Hell of my own making
    Posts
    3,082
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Well, when your buddy in the silo won't turn the Goddamn key, it's pistol time. Take that commie-lover!

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,580
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by SFGOON View Post
    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.

Page 1 of 4 1234 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO