U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 01-22-2017, 11:58 AM
Status: "Trying to make sense of it all" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: NW Nevada
11,555 posts, read 9,075,598 times
Reputation: 10450

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Army_Guy View Post
Knock down power is an awful myth.

The caliber is chosen based on cost, supply (there are hundreds of thousands of rounds in inventory), holsters, etc.

The fact is that if you're in "a military situation" and you're down to a pistol, things are beyond horrible at that point.

True enough. Handguns do have their niche, but they are certainly not primary weapons. I do believe that the M1 carbine was intended to be a replacement for the sidearm. If I were tossed into an escape and evade situation I would rather have the carbine than a pistol. I certainly would not want to be stuck with just a pistol in a battlefield situation. Not in any caliber.


I'm actually surprised that the military hasn't given aviators a carbine/SBR option to a pistol. I suppose for some cockpit space and the ability to have the weapon stay with you in a bailout is certainly a concern. Fighter pilots springing to mind. For those guys I suppose a good pistol is the best option. Still, I don't see an insurmountable issue with the theory.


The sidearm will always have its place. They are handy. But you are quite correct about "knockdown power" really being far less of an issue than the attention given it implies it to be. At least as far as military use is concerned. Indeed, if your down to a pistol in the face of the enemy, that's really only about a half step better than hearing "fix bayonets".
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2017, 01:14 PM
 
Location: SW OK (AZ Native)
10,975 posts, read 4,857,069 times
Reputation: 4802
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
True enough. Handguns do have their niche, but they are certainly not primary weapons. I do believe that the M1 carbine was intended to be a replacement for the sidearm. If I were tossed into an escape and evade situation I would rather have the carbine than a pistol. I certainly would not want to be stuck with just a pistol in a battlefield situation. Not in any caliber.


I'm actually surprised that the military hasn't given aviators a carbine/SBR option to a pistol. I suppose for some cockpit space and the ability to have the weapon stay with you in a bailout is certainly a concern. Fighter pilots springing to mind. For those guys I suppose a good pistol is the best option. Still, I don't see an insurmountable issue with the theory.


The sidearm will always have its place. They are handy. But you are quite correct about "knockdown power" really being far less of an issue than the attention given it implies it to be. At least as far as military use is concerned. Indeed, if your down to a pistol in the face of the enemy, that's really only about a half step better than hearing "fix bayonets".
One pilot did bring a personal Uzi-type gun. But in the fighter cockpit space is hard to find, and then there's the ejection... anything not physically "bolted" to the pilot is gone. Everything we needed in our survival raft had a lanyard; almost everything in the vest was tied to the vest (survival radio, knife, signal mirror, etc) so as not to lose it. If we had to eject wearing night vision devices the procedure, unless it was pull the handle now or die, was to remove them. (My plan was to then stow them in my G-suit pocket so I could use them on the ground.) Otherwise stuff hanging out there was likely to cause injury.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
3,990 posts, read 1,840,394 times
Reputation: 2736
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
True enough. Handguns do have their niche, but they are certainly not primary weapons. I do believe that the M1 carbine was intended to be a replacement for the sidearm. If I were tossed into an escape and evade situation I would rather have the carbine than a pistol. I certainly would not want to be stuck with just a pistol in a battlefield situation. Not in any caliber.


I'm actually surprised that the military hasn't given aviators a carbine/SBR option to a pistol. I suppose for some cockpit space and the ability to have the weapon stay with you in a bailout is certainly a concern. Fighter pilots springing to mind. For those guys I suppose a good pistol is the best option. Still, I don't see an insurmountable issue with the theory.


The sidearm will always have its place. They are handy. But you are quite correct about "knockdown power" really being far less of an issue than the attention given it implies it to be. At least as far as military use is concerned. Indeed, if your down to a pistol in the face of the enemy, that's really only about a half step better than hearing "fix bayonets".
There are photos of Vietnam era helicopter pilots with M1 and M16 carbines in their Apache cockpit. Tank crews are similar they have a pistol but access to first submachine guns and now carbines assuming they have time to grab them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
11,248 posts, read 6,190,823 times
Reputation: 9124
10 years to pick a pistol? Don't know much about military requirements but wouldn't really any off the shelf commercial handgun do?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 04:36 PM
 
9,768 posts, read 9,582,549 times
Reputation: 13077
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider View Post
10 years to pick a pistol? Don't know much about military requirements but wouldn't really any off the shelf commercial handgun do?
Lol, yes, pretty much any of the top tier companies would be just fine. This is just yet another example of the insane bureaucracy, paralysis by analysis.

The Beretta was the issued sidearm when I was active, I remember once qualifying and out of 20 people, three of the guns malfunctioned, it was ridiculous. At the time I summed it up to poor maintenance, but I knew that I could completely neglect my Glock and H&K and they will work just fine. It was then I knew the Beretta had issues.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Southwest
1,098 posts, read 592,508 times
Reputation: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgsing View Post
Things change. In my day it was the M1911 45 and the S&W Model 10 revolver in 38 cal. This was at the beginning of Vietnam and we were still using a lot of WW2 hardware. M1 Garand and then moved to the M14. We also used and gave away to the Vietnamese BAR's, M1919 Browning light machine guns and even a few Thompsons. I never used a M16 when I was in SE Asia. All from a Marine Corps perspective.

I read when the M16 was introduced into SE Asia, it was touted as "self cleaning", which is incorrect if I'm not mistaken. Consequently, no cleaning kits where issued. Also, the first M16s were using ammo with either incorrect or sub-par gun powder. I read a number of servicemen were found dead with their jammed M16s next to them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Florida
2,892 posts, read 3,336,726 times
Reputation: 7849
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
The Beretta was the issued sidearm when I was active, I remember once qualifying and out of 20 people, three of the guns malfunctioned, it was ridiculous. At the time I summed it up to poor maintenance, but I knew that I could completely neglect my Glock and H&K and they will work just fine. It was then I knew the Beretta had issues.
I think it's a variety of factors that make people really not like the M9.

It's a really bulky gun, IMO. The safety is on the slide and for those with smaller hands such as myself, it wasn't quick to disengage he safety to fire.

My experience of putting about 3,000 M9 shooters through ranges last year was more of a maintenance and magazine issue than pistol design issue. They were poorly maintained. Pistol training is almost non-existent in the regular Army. Of course the small units are going to get the training but your units outside of Rangers and SF aren't going to have the budgets to train like they should.

Most Soldiers simply aren't gun people, believe it or not.

I would say it's likely that your Glock and H&K are better maintained and newer. One of the weakest parts of a pistol is the magazine and that's where I've seen a lot of failures with the M9. We order M16/M4 magazines by the thousands, guys buy their own PMAGS. But we neglect the pistol magazines and I've yet to see a Soldier buy their own.

The sights on the M9 plain suck. Plain white sights that work decent in well lit conditions but are basically useless without light. The rifles have the reflex sights and ACOGS. Even the iron sights are pretty good, they've been working for quite a while.

I suspect this is going to boost sales for Sig Sauer a lot. For some reason, when people hear the term military grade or that the military uses a particular piece of equipment, they think it has to be the best.

But for those of us who have served, we always go back to the term "lowest bidder."
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Retired in Malibu
883 posts, read 925,242 times
Reputation: 2323
I have to admit I felt good having a 1911 on my hip when I was in Vietnam.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 09:17 PM
Status: "Trying to make sense of it all" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: NW Nevada
11,555 posts, read 9,075,598 times
Reputation: 10450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrolman View Post
I have to admit I felt good having a 1911 on my hip when I was in Vietnam.

I don't think, personally, that any pistol will ever come along that will truly ever fill the 1911s boots. Its service record speaks for itself and it's still a wildly popular platform for all manner of use. I'll never give mine up. And I built it as an heirloom piece. It will go to my son eventually. I don't think we should have ever adopted a 9mm over the .45. NATO standards be damned.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, AK
2,754 posts, read 1,290,999 times
Reputation: 4669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Army_Guy View Post
I think it's a variety of factors that make people really not like the M9.

It's a really bulky gun, IMO. The safety is on the slide and for those with smaller hands such as myself, it wasn't quick to disengage he safety to fire.


Our procedure was to insert the magazine at the clearing barrel, release the slide and then decock it. We would then leave the safety off. Even during training exercises we never had the safety engaged. And we certainly didn't have the safety engaged in the sand box.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top