Most military units issue handguns only to officers or specialist (machine-gunners, pilots, drivers, etc.) or to solders who's job is not front line combat while your typical front line grunt only has the rifle. Why is this the case? In reality is there a role for the handgun in combat by front line solders? If yes, what handgun do you think is ideal in this role?
Should Every Solder Be Armed With A Handgun?
- Thread starter taco
- Start date
- Status
I don't think that the Doggies need to be issued a handgun, but if they want one they should be allowed to carry one. Something like a (I hate to say this) S&W M-60 stuffed in a cargo pocket of their BDUs for those times a rifle is not in hand.
------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
Ned Roundtree
New member
Basic rule of conceal carry? Back up gun. Combat? I would definitely have back up gun. Pictures of my dad (Third Marines)from Saigon, 1967-68. .45s under each arm and sawed off shotgun strapped over his back.
Tasco,
I have some very strong feeling about DOD and firearms (as you can expect).
In my perfect world each member of DOD would be issued a .45 and an AUG and have to qualify with each every quarter.
However, the reality comes down to $$$. DOD has a hard enough time training all it's troops to use a rifle. I was RO & SO for many pistol requals... it was sickening the competency of those whose life may depend on the weapon they were trying to qual with. The majority of DOD are like LEOs… go to the range once or twice a year to get qualified.
Think of the cost of training everyone to be (semi)proficient with a handgun. How much do you spend on yourself? Multiply that by what?…. 1.5 million?
My blood pressure is starting to rise just thinking about this subject!
I have some very strong feeling about DOD and firearms (as you can expect).
In my perfect world each member of DOD would be issued a .45 and an AUG and have to qualify with each every quarter.
However, the reality comes down to $$$. DOD has a hard enough time training all it's troops to use a rifle. I was RO & SO for many pistol requals... it was sickening the competency of those whose life may depend on the weapon they were trying to qual with. The majority of DOD are like LEOs… go to the range once or twice a year to get qualified.
Think of the cost of training everyone to be (semi)proficient with a handgun. How much do you spend on yourself? Multiply that by what?…. 1.5 million?
My blood pressure is starting to rise just thinking about this subject!
I'm not in the military, nor have I ever been in the military. So I don't know what it's like out there.
However, if it were me, I'd say that every soldier should carry a handgun. While it would not be used as a primary weapon, it is the ideal backup. There will be times when a rifle may jam, or you may run out of ammo. Or you could drop your rifle in a lake or hole. Or you could want to leave your rifle somewhere if it was too bulky for a certain mission (ie, tight spaces, running fast, etc.). I'd rather have a handgun than nothing.
That being said, size is not really an issue, but weight may be. Glock 20 is always an excellent combat gun (although big for my hands). I think any solid 9, .40 or .45 would do. Another option is a pistol like the Carbon 15 which would take AR-15/M-16 clips and ammo.
However, if it were me, I'd say that every soldier should carry a handgun. While it would not be used as a primary weapon, it is the ideal backup. There will be times when a rifle may jam, or you may run out of ammo. Or you could drop your rifle in a lake or hole. Or you could want to leave your rifle somewhere if it was too bulky for a certain mission (ie, tight spaces, running fast, etc.). I'd rather have a handgun than nothing.
That being said, size is not really an issue, but weight may be. Glock 20 is always an excellent combat gun (although big for my hands). I think any solid 9, .40 or .45 would do. Another option is a pistol like the Carbon 15 which would take AR-15/M-16 clips and ammo.
Bulk, weight, training, expense.
Rifleman is already overloaded, undertrained, undergunned and undersupplied with ammo. Handgun expertise requires far more training than rifle. Wear the full field kit and show where to put the handgun and ammo.
Special work, like xxero said, has use for handgun.
Sam....COIN
Rifleman is already overloaded, undertrained, undergunned and undersupplied with ammo. Handgun expertise requires far more training than rifle. Wear the full field kit and show where to put the handgun and ammo.
Special work, like xxero said, has use for handgun.
Sam....COIN
I have never been in the military either, but I do my fair share of backpacking. Even if it were not a money issue, it would be a weight issue. Picture a company- 200 men I believe- each will carry 50 pounds. Now give them all a 92FS and 2 spare mags, that is about 4 pounds. So your company is carrying 800 pounds of handgun. I would rather my company drop the 800 pounds of handgun and carry 800 pounds of Shoulder fired SAMs, Anti-tank weapons, SAW ammo, claymores (sp?), or just more .223. Understand I am not saying each man would carry an extra Surface to air missile, just shift weight around and the company has an extra 800 pounds to work with if they leave the pistols behind.
I agree with Gunny Schmidt. In my twenty years of active duty, I saw very few personnel -- including guys like tactical aviators whose "personal bacon" might well depend on small arms proficiency -- give anything more than the slightest effort to honing their handgun skills.
Just to clarify one point, I would never issue (i. e., permanent custody) individual weapons to military personnel for other than strictly duty-related assignments. The idea of having a bunch of 18 to 20 year olds, with arms available, on a "payday Friday" makes my blood run cold. I could go blind doing nothing but paperwork associated with the various problems -- some gravely serious -- that would result.
Just to clarify one point, I would never issue (i. e., permanent custody) individual weapons to military personnel for other than strictly duty-related assignments. The idea of having a bunch of 18 to 20 year olds, with arms available, on a "payday Friday" makes my blood run cold. I could go blind doing nothing but paperwork associated with the various problems -- some gravely serious -- that would result.
Cowboy Preacher
New member
RWK I have to ask you if we issue cops a gun to carry all the time and remember when they star they are only about twenty years old. The men are trained as soldiers and have the responsiblity to handle those guns. I say let them pack heat all the time.
Having done my duty, I have to say that it is money, not the want to arm all the men with side arms. I spent 6 years in, and only got to go to the range 3 times, not shoot, go to the range for qualifications. Once was in boot camp, and the other two times were after months of writing special request chits to qualify on hand guns. Both times I was finally allowed to go was because of the ship needing to burn off some surplus ammo(probably from wwII, or the korean war), otherwise, I would never have gotten the chance. Now I must admit, my duties were not combat. Also, the Navy as a whole does not do a lot of hand held weapons type combat, so the Navy might be an exception to this rule.
With all due respect to Gunny Schmit and RWK I don't believe the average soldier or Marine wants or needs to carry a handgun. I've been off active duty a few years now, but not so long to have forgotten that the last thing I wanted was more weight to carry on a hump or another piece of gear to maintain in the field. Go train with the 2nd Mar Div at Camp LeJeune a few weeks and tell me you wanted more weight on your back and feet. Don't just walk around with it on your hip, do a few tactical river crossings, climb down the cargo net off the side of a ship, pack your squad into the back of an AAV, spend twelve hours prone with it in the sand on ambush, do an all night training march, and then tell me you really think you need it.
I carried both a rifle and pistol simultaneously only once during active duty and can't say I felt any better armed for doing so.
CF Sgt USMC
I carried both a rifle and pistol simultaneously only once during active duty and can't say I felt any better armed for doing so.
CF Sgt USMC
CapeFear has got it right.
Having spent 22 years in the Army I've been issued rifle, sub-machine gun, machine gun and pistol, but I damn sure NEVER wanted to carry more than ONE weapon at a time. WEIGHT people WEIGHT.
And unless you are in a combat zone whatever weapon a trooper is assigned should be LOCKED up in the Arms Room. As RWK said in his post....the last thing you would want is to have weapons in the barracks on a "Payday Night" cuz the booze flows like water.
Take care.
------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
Having spent 22 years in the Army I've been issued rifle, sub-machine gun, machine gun and pistol, but I damn sure NEVER wanted to carry more than ONE weapon at a time. WEIGHT people WEIGHT.
And unless you are in a combat zone whatever weapon a trooper is assigned should be LOCKED up in the Arms Room. As RWK said in his post....the last thing you would want is to have weapons in the barracks on a "Payday Night" cuz the booze flows like water.
Take care.
------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
Cowboy Preacher,
In the area of possession of sidearms, the differences between LEOs and military personnel mighty significant!
For example, LEOs live at home, while many junior enlisted personnel live in barracks or aboard ship. Have you frequently been in a barracks immediately after a demanding field problem, exercise, extended deployment, or on a "pay day Friday or Saturday night"? If so, you have no doubt observed considerable foolishness, some potentially dangerous situations, and even some minor injuries. Little -- if any -- of this is deliberate; almost without exception, this is well intentioned "horse play". Frequently, consumption of quantities of alcohol is an inflammatory factor. However, the fact -- proven over the generations -- is young troops sometimes do not employ sound judgment. Adding individually held (not in an armory) firearms to this situation would provide the potential for many of these relatively trivial incidents to become extremely serious.
In addition, can you imagine the public uproar when a young troop -- even the very best organizations occasionally have miscreants -- used an issued, but individually held, sidearm to assault his spouse, to commit a serious felony, or to threaten a fellow service member? Unfortunately such things would happen -- infrequently to be sure -- and the ramifications in the media, in Congress, and throughout the military chain-of-command would be exceptionally adverse.
I open this question to other career officers and NCOs: do you believe issuing sidearms to the troops makes sense? With great respect to our service personnel -- current and past -- and to their leaders, I am convinced this would be a grievous error.
In the area of possession of sidearms, the differences between LEOs and military personnel mighty significant!
For example, LEOs live at home, while many junior enlisted personnel live in barracks or aboard ship. Have you frequently been in a barracks immediately after a demanding field problem, exercise, extended deployment, or on a "pay day Friday or Saturday night"? If so, you have no doubt observed considerable foolishness, some potentially dangerous situations, and even some minor injuries. Little -- if any -- of this is deliberate; almost without exception, this is well intentioned "horse play". Frequently, consumption of quantities of alcohol is an inflammatory factor. However, the fact -- proven over the generations -- is young troops sometimes do not employ sound judgment. Adding individually held (not in an armory) firearms to this situation would provide the potential for many of these relatively trivial incidents to become extremely serious.
In addition, can you imagine the public uproar when a young troop -- even the very best organizations occasionally have miscreants -- used an issued, but individually held, sidearm to assault his spouse, to commit a serious felony, or to threaten a fellow service member? Unfortunately such things would happen -- infrequently to be sure -- and the ramifications in the media, in Congress, and throughout the military chain-of-command would be exceptionally adverse.
I open this question to other career officers and NCOs: do you believe issuing sidearms to the troops makes sense? With great respect to our service personnel -- current and past -- and to their leaders, I am convinced this would be a grievous error.
Cape Fear,
I agree. My point is SKILL THROUGH TRAINING is crucial. I never said "ground pounders" need multiple personal arms. However, I certainly stated that all personnel should be fully competent with any arms they might need to employ.
For example, during my decades in Naval aviation, aircrew members were issued .38 Special revolvers for combat sorties (incidentally, many substituted .357 magnums for the .38 Special). Marksmanship was not good and little effort was invested to become truly proficient with sidearms. Yet, if shot down in North Vietnam, that sidearm might provide the few additional minutes required to affect a combat rescue.
Again, my point was and is only professionalism requiring true proficiency.
I agree. My point is SKILL THROUGH TRAINING is crucial. I never said "ground pounders" need multiple personal arms. However, I certainly stated that all personnel should be fully competent with any arms they might need to employ.
For example, during my decades in Naval aviation, aircrew members were issued .38 Special revolvers for combat sorties (incidentally, many substituted .357 magnums for the .38 Special). Marksmanship was not good and little effort was invested to become truly proficient with sidearms. Yet, if shot down in North Vietnam, that sidearm might provide the few additional minutes required to affect a combat rescue.
Again, my point was and is only professionalism requiring true proficiency.
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
I think handguns should be optional.
While they are not provided to everyone - If you want one and are qualified with it, then its acceptable.
Same thing for private owned weapons in acceptable calibers.
While they are not provided to everyone - If you want one and are qualified with it, then its acceptable.
Same thing for private owned weapons in acceptable calibers.
> Go train with the 2nd Mar Div at Camp LeJeune a few weeks (snip)
I did and also with 1st Mar Div humping the hills of Pendleton and a 4th Div Recon Unit up in AK for three years.
Now, it may be just me being use to CCW, but the added weight of a pistol, 2 mags, knife and fire starter I can live with... both figuratively and maybe literally.
Of course the above things were not attached to my web gear. I had "tacitcal" holders that extended off of my web belt down the side of my leg. The way I figured it was that if for whatever reason I had to drop my gear (Amtrac sinking, etc) at least I'd have a firearm, knife and firestarter with me to defend with and (hopefully)survive.
Guess it all depends on choices on what you really want to carry.
I did and also with 1st Mar Div humping the hills of Pendleton and a 4th Div Recon Unit up in AK for three years.
Now, it may be just me being use to CCW, but the added weight of a pistol, 2 mags, knife and fire starter I can live with... both figuratively and maybe literally.
Of course the above things were not attached to my web gear. I had "tacitcal" holders that extended off of my web belt down the side of my leg. The way I figured it was that if for whatever reason I had to drop my gear (Amtrac sinking, etc) at least I'd have a firearm, knife and firestarter with me to defend with and (hopefully)survive.
Guess it all depends on choices on what you really want to carry.
- Status