"Perfect" Military Handgun

#1 SIG P220, .45ACP
#2 1911, .45ACP
#3 Beretta, .40S&W
#4 Beretta, 9mm

Although we're talking pistols, I'll venture an opinion on rifles as George Hill did.

IMHO, the M16/M4 series of rifles will (and have) do just fine. For all the problems, real and imagined, they have served our country (and some others) pretty well.

ATW,
Mike
 
What was the quote supposedly from the Navy Seal? Something like - "if all you got with you is a handgun you are in deep s**t".

As any handgun in a military setting is going to be used as a backup to a real gun anyway (M4, MP5, M14, etc), the smallest, lightest handgun you can get would be nice. Something like a G30 would be good.

Of course, since you are limited to FMJ, a big 45 acp hole would be nice. Perhaps something like a G30 would be a better choice.

On the other hand, since the 1911 holds 7-8 rounds, something with that many rounds or more (say 10+1) would be nice. On that basis I now think that something like a G30 would be the best choice.

Sincerely Rusty
 
In my opinion issuing handguns to Infantry Line outfits makes no sense for the following reasons.
1. Cost
2. Training
3. ACCIDENTS

You can throw all the what ifs into the equation as you want. What if your firing pin breaks, what if a spring in your trigger group breaks etc. etc.? You could what if yourself right into not being deployed.

Concerning handguns for clearing buildings and rooms. In WW2 there were plenty of rooms cleared with M-1 Grands and I believe the 16 quite suited for that use. If you look today what do most of the SWAT teams use but a shoulder fired weapon it may be in pistol caliber but it is shoulder fired.

Concerning tunnel rats, I would think some kind of smaller caliber silenced handgun might fit the bill but my personal opinion is a couple hundred pounds of C-4 would be better.

One area I think handguns could be issued to small long range recon units since their buts are alone in a lot missions and are hanging on a string but then again if 60's and 16's can't take care of the threat what would the handgun do. These units train, train, train more than a regular infantry unit. Concerning what handgun should be issued I would think what ever the standard issued weapon is what they carry.

I've I said in a couple of other threads I carried a 1911 for 4 months as a 60 gunner and it made a good chow weapon when you got resupplied every three days. If my 60 broke or ran out of ammo I'd be hunting for a 16

Turk
 
Let me ask this question:

What happens when your PRIMARY weapon fails? Not if, but WHEN in the case of the M-16.

I think many of the posts have ignored the fact that the rifle is the primary weapon. I am not saying anybody should ditch their rifle or carbine and take up a handgun instead. I'm saying that I'd rather have something other than a knife when I run out of ammo, experience a malfunction, or am caught with my pants down (you do have to relieve yourself in war).
 
Glock 26. Simple manual of arms,9mm NATO, reliable,small and light. With the weight and space you save by not carrying a big handgun you can carry a spare 30 rounder for your rifle which will do you a LOT more good. IMHO if your rifle fails totally a handgun won`t help you much in a military context anyway. Marcus
 
Previously Posted BY Badgerarms

BTW, the M-4 is NOT replacing the M-16 in any capacity.
I guess I was dreaming when they issued M-4's to my infantry battalion, and all eight others in the 82nd Airborne Division nearly two years ago. And I don't mean one or two, they completrly replaced 120 M-16A2's in my company with M-4's. We were one of the first conventional,non SF or Ranger units, to get them and I know that other light infantry battalions in the army have them now. In the hands of the people who are most likely to use them , the light infantry, M-16's are being replaced with M-4's. I have my facts straight, do you?
On the issue of perfect millitary handgun I don't think there is such a thing, just different needs for different situations. I love Glock, own a model 21, but the lack of a manually operated safety makes it a risky proposition as the standard issue handgun for most troops.
I don't think most soliders need a sidearm as they are of marginal use on the battelfield. Any one remeber the bank shootout in LA? Thats a good illustration of how useful hahdguns are when everyone else is packing a modern battle rifle.

[This message has been edited by HMIB (edited August 26, 2000).]
 
Originally posted by badgerarms:

Let me ask this question:

[[[[[[What happens when your PRIMARY weapon fails? Not if, but WHEN in the case of the M-16.]]]]]]

Give me a break we're back to M-16 bashing.

Now concerning going to the can. It very simple. You take your entreching tool and rifle outside of the primeter, you dig a hole squat and go. Your rilfe is laying on the ground beside you.

Running out of ammo. It would be interesting to know if the Military every did a study on the occurances of this happening.

If you have fired your 400 plus rounds (this was my units basic load) I would say you're in a major battle and if you think your Glock with a couple of mags. is going to turn tide your dreaming. I would trust re-supply and additional grunts were on way.

TurK
Click to expand...
 
Used M16s for over 20 years and NEVER had one go tango uniform on me while firing... that includes a tour in RVN. Saw very few suffer major problems as long as they were provided operator level maintenance and the unit armorer was competent.

M4s have, as another poster pointed out, replaced the M16 in light infantry units, Rangers, and SF. It is also in the TO&E for the new Brigade Combat Teams being fielded at Ft. Lewis.

Should the pistol be issued to the average grunt? No. For those whose rank/MOS requires skill with the pistol, yeah. For certain skills (SOF, LRSD, Force Recon) others of that type...yeah. Issue them pistols.

Mike
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HMIB:
Previously Posted
I guess I was dreaming when they issued M-4's to my infantry battalion, and all eight others in the 82nd Airborne Division nearly two years ago. And I don't mean one or two, they completrly replaced 120 M-16A2's in my company with M-4's. We were one of the first conventional,non SF or Ranger units, to get them and I know that other light infantry battalions in the army have them now. In the hands of the people who are most likely to use them , the light infantry, M-16's are being replaced with M-4's. I have my facts straight, do you?[/quote]

Why the flame? The 82nd is an Airborne unit. Airborne units require lightweight, compact weapons. Give me figures on the percentage of M-16 rifles being replaced with M-4 carbines and I will eat crow. Otherwise, keep your anecdotal flaming in check.

Now to the original subject, reread the above posts. I was not saying we should replace the rifle or carbine, the post was about a sidearm, a backup, or a second choice weapon the fit particular situations. The LA bank robbery suspects were both killed by handguns, BTW. Their 'effective' rifles had managed to wound many, kill none.

And, for the record, I think that the M-4 is an excellent replacement for the M-1 Carbine, Grease Gun, and some M-16 rifles used in situations such as airborne or calvary troops. It pales, however, in comparison to unfailingly reliable weapons such the AKM and H&K G-36K which I'd put in she same size class. And for anybody who has ever experienced a 'jam' in any 'gas-pipe' gun when they should have experienced a 'bang,' the hatred runs deep.

------------------
God made us...
Thomas Jefferson made us equal...
John Browning made us free.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Spight:
Used M16s for over 20 years and NEVER had one go tango uniform on me while firing... that includes a tour in RVN. Saw very few suffer major problems as long as they were provided operator level maintenance and the unit armorer was competent.
[/quote]

What? Saw very few stopages provided operator and unit armorer level maintenance was competent? Wow, please continue to prove my point. KISS should definitely apply.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Should the pistol be issued to the average grunt? No. For those whose rank/MOS requires skill with the pistol, yeah. For certain skills (SOF, LRSD, Force Recon) others of that type...yeah. Issue them pistols.
[/quote]

No argument there except that the average grunt should be trained for pistol use.

Mike, I'll assume that you keep your weapons as clean as I do, correct? What percentage of grunts would you say don't provide their weapons with the same care? Do you want those soldier charged with covering your backside?

The M-16 is a flawed design of dubious use in battle. It should be replaced immediately and without prejudice with a real weapon such as the HK G-36 or even the AK-74. I'd love to hear the flames on this one, but please do it in another forum. This is the handguns forum, after all.
 
Previouly quoted by Bagerarms

The 82nd is an Airborne unit. Airborne units require lightweight, compact weapons. Give me figures on the percentage of M-16 rifles being replaced with M-4 carbines and I will eat crow. Otherwise, keep your anecdotal flaming in check.

Not trying to flame just point out that your wrong. Anecdotal? Perhaps. Infantry units in the 2nd Infranty Division in Korea have them, 25th Infantry Divison in Hawaii have them, 101st Airborne Divison (Air Assault)in Kentucky have them, 10th Mountain Division in New York have them. In addition to infantry units in these divisions that have them, support personell who accompany them have them in some numbers( ie:Forward Observers, Combat Enginners, Air Defense). The infantry elements of 4 out of the army 10 total active divisions have these weapons as their primary rifle. You wanted statistics, somwhere around 40 percent of infantry battalions have them or will have them, at least 40 percent since light divisions are made up mostly of infantry and heavy division tend to have less. Not to mantion SF and Rangers and the other branches SF units.

You dont have to eat crow, I'm just trying to point out that the M-4 IS replacing the M-16 in a very large capacity.

Why is this significant? Because the M-4 is a superb CQB weapon, and one of the reasons you quoted of why soliders should carry a sidearm is the inefectivness of the modern battle rifle in close combat. Im saying the people who are most likely to have to use their weapon in combat now have an effective CQB weapon as their primary firearm.No flame intended, but when your wrong your wrong.

By the way I have had good experience with the M-16/M-4. Have trained with German paratroopers with the G-36, good weapon from what I've seen, but no iron sights. I think people tend to look at others equipment as superior when their own is fine. Having trained with them I would take an American paratrooper with an M-4 any day of the week over a German paratrooper with a G-36.
 
Badgerarms,

I bet you would like to have this moved to another forum.

I totally agree with Mike Spight post.

The following is fact not fiction.

During my tour with the 173rd Abn. Bdge(Sep) 68-69 I never seen an M-16 malufunction or heard of one breaking. Mike's post hit the nail right on the head.

The most rounds I ever put through my 16 at one sitting was 13-14 mags. in a firefight south of Ankhe it never missed a beat.

During my tour I served as a M-60 gunner, squad leader, Hawkteam leader (Ambush Team) and finished my tour as a Infantry Platoon Sarg. But what do I know I was just a Regular Army grunt that 1049'd to Vietnam.

Would I want someone covering my backside with a 16?? you bet your life I would and HAVE.

Turk
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HMIB:


By the way I have had good experience with the M-16/M-4. Have trained with German paratroopers with the G-36, good weapon from what I've seen, but no iron sights. I think people tend to look at others equipment as superior when their own is fine. Having trained with them I would take an American paratrooper with an M-4 any day of the week over a German paratrooper with a G-36.

[/quote]

I'd be interested in knowing on what basis you'd rather have the M-4 than the G-36K? Is it just an issue of the sights or do you just like the M-4 better?

I'll step back from the discussion for a moment and say that the civilian AR-15 I own has never skipped a beat. I like how the gun feels and handles. I do, however, think the AR-18 bolt and gas system is far superior. The AR-18 was an inferior weapon in terms of durability, but the gas system was a mature and effective design.

Check out http://www.zmweapons.com/lr-300ml.htm

[This message has been edited by badgerarms (edited August 26, 2000).]
 
Originally posted by Badgerarms

I'd be interested in knowing on what basis you'd rather have the M-4 than the G-36K? Is it just an issue of the sights or do you just like the M-4 better?

I don't know if I'd rather have an M-4 than a G-36. Im just saying there isn't that big of a difference in my book between the two. I've found the M-4 reliable, accurate, light weight and compact. The same seems to be true of the G-36, from my limited expereience. I do have a problem with the lack of iron sights on the rifle. What I'm getting at is I don't think the difference between the two rifles is sufficent enough to seriously consider rearming US forces with it. I think the difference in who wins fight is not whether they have the newest wonder-weapon, unless the weapon is a tremendous leap foward in technology, but the training and discipline of the troops who employ it. Don't get me wrong I think the G-36 is a fine weapon and certainly wouldn't mind carrying it.
 
I vote for the Glock 19 or 26. The G19 is the most size efficient 9mm I know of. Why mention the Glock 26? These subcompacts will shoot with the best of them and they accept G19 magazines. If you put an A&G adapter on the the G19 magazine the G26 feels like the compact model. Regards, Richard.
 
I have had my issue M16s fail me during Q. I have seen others fail. Mine were as well cared for as possible, don't know about the others.

Some rifles are tougher, more reliable than others. The AK and G36 will keep firing reliably long after a M16 has gotten dirty enough to choke, break parts less often. IIRC, when they T&Ed the G36 at Yuma, they went over 15K rounds with no jams and without cleaning; try that with any M16 variant.

OTOH, since I was never issued more than 240 rounds at a time, does it really make any difference? :)

------------------
>>>>---->
http://home.att.net/~brokenarrrow/
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BrokenArrow:
OTOH, since I was never issued more than 240 rounds at a time, does it really make any difference?[/quote]

Yeah, it does make a difference. Taking down the M-16 leaves you with little parts, springs, pins, etc that easilly get lost. How many extractor pins get lost a day in a typical Army unit? When you have to break down the rifle completely every 8 magazines, there is something wrong with the mechanism.

Training can solve many of the problems, but you can also say that about the Chauchat LMG of First World War fame. That doesn't take away from the FACT that the design sucks. Even Gene Stoner ditched the hair-brained gas-pipe on the Stoner 63 and AR-18 designs. The Volkswagen exhaust driven Heater worked, but the design sucked. The Johnson 1941 worked too, but the design sucked. Why do we continue to settle when a better design exists?

The Gas Tube system came about out of necessity. Designers of the time hadn't figured out how to deal with the heat generated by combustion gases and concluded that the gas pipe would allow heat to be more manageable. What a brilliant idea it was to have it vent STRAIGHT INTO THE BOLT AND ACTION.

Here's an analogy: Why don't Car Designers use the Exhaust power from a car to drive the camshaft? Hmmmm, vent the exhaust pipe into the crankcase? Great idea. All we need to do is clean out the crankcase ever 240 miles! There's a reason they call it Exhaust and there's a reason it goes out the back of the car far away from the working parts. Sure, you could probably get it to work if you spend enough time cleaning the damn thing.

------------------
God made us in his own image.
Thomas Jefferson made us free.
John Browning made us equal.
 
badgerarms:

Sorry to get back into this so late...between office and contractors tearing up downstairs bath, it's been hectic.

I agree with you...the M16/M4 series is not up to speed with some Euro/Israeli/South African battle rifles. The fact that it has small parts (too many) and dumps gas/carbon directly back into the chamber area is not good and has always been known to be a serious problem. The new German rifle, FN's variants, the Israeli/SA AK variants are certainly superior from a design standpoint. I'm confident that the M16/M4 family of weapons will be replaced w/in the next 10 years. New weapons are being looked at and tested as we speak at Ft. Benning (The Inf School) which usually ends up as the de facto proponent for small arms testing and procurement w/in DOD.

The fact remains that something we do very well in the US Army, USMC, USAF, etc has enabled us to overcome the problems inherent in the M16's design: That something has three parts, equally important. First we train (depending on the unit, usually quite well); second we maintain; finally we have (for the most part) outstanding NCOs and junior officers who make sure that operator and unit level maintenance is performed.

I guess my point is, even though the M16 has serious design flaws, superior training, maintenance and junior level NCO and officer leadership has enabled US fighting men to overcome any foe on the battlefield at the tactical level. Engagements, battles and wars are not won by equipment alone.

All the Way,
Mike



[This message has been edited by Mike Spight (edited August 29, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top