Should Every Solder Be Armed With A Handgun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not just no, but Hell No, for many of the reasons listed above.

From my 4 years, 3 of which were in an Airborne unit, and the other in a track unit, my perspective is that money spent on handgun training and equipment and ammo would have been better spent on PDW's or long gun training. Give armored vehicle crewmembers something akin to the the HK UMP or other modern varient of the M3 grease gun, and leave the sidearms with the officers, MG's, and medics.

Otherwise there's no need for the footsoldier to have one - they are better off using their longarm for just about every situation.

Given the current state of loadouts, there isn't even a place to put a sidearm on most soldiers LBE - forget the thigh holsters guys, I'm talking about normal straightleg LBE or LBVs here. Unit SOP typically requires that everyone's LBE be uniform, heavan help the "odd man out". Between ammo pouches, canteens, protective mask, bayonets, compasses, E tool, butt pack, etc, your average GI neither wants, or needs more weight to hump around - much less clean! In my airborne unit, my typical loadout would be over 100 pounds, 70+ of it being in the rucksack - and this is before adding on the parachute.

Forget any "quick-draw" fantasies. The only time a sidearm is going to come into play is if the long arm is out of action through loss or damage or lack of ammo. Save for the last - at that point the soldier probably has access to an "unoccupied" weapon. Lack of ammo? The weight of the sidearm and spare magazines could just as well been occupied by more ammo for the primary weapon.

No thumb break holsters either - think flapped holsters with 2 or 3 securing devices - you don't want to watch your weapon go tumbling away from you when you step out into the propwash at 750 feet.

The long arm should always be present with the soldier - period. Usually it's dummy corded to the LBE, "just in case". River crossings, etc, doesn't matter - it's attached to you. Missions nonwithstanding, leaving it elsewhere, and trusting your sidearm is a bad habit and poor discipline for any soldier.

Each dollar spent on a sidearm is a dollar taken away from something else. The money spent on a sidearm, holster, spare magazines, spare parts, ammunition, targets, FMs and TMs all are much better spent on the primary weapon.

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com
www.bladeforums.com



[This message has been edited by Spark (edited August 22, 2000).]
 
Not only do I think that riflemen should not be issued sidearms but I'm very leary of specialists having them. Wait....don't jump on me!!! Let me explain!!

I would recommend the reader take the time to read EB Sledge's "With the Old Breed in Pelieu and Okanawa". Sledge was a mortarman who was in major combat, right up on the front lines, in two major battles.

Sledge is a bright guy (in his adult life he became a college professor) and quickly came to the opinion that the Thompson .45 smg was the ideal choice light weapon for specialists and officers. He carried one and found it most helpful in situations where he would have died if he had been carrying a pistol.

You can look at the Israeli Defence Forces for further examples.

I would equivocate on this stance were the military to come up with a good working machine pistol. But even a machine pistol is lighter and less liable to stand up to the strain of combat than a good smg.

Sorry guys, I'm a pistol afficiando too, but a pistol is a civilian weapon designed to protect us from thugs with knives, sticks and light weapons. :D
 
The hit average per shots fired by the average trooper in 'Nam was appaling...so you want to give them a handgun for each soldier? I don't think so.

In my unit, we wanted hits when TSHTF not spray and pray. If you asked each person, he would have picked a rifle as his primary weapon every time. The only time is if your primary weapon had a major malfunction, or you were in really tight quarters...in which case you'd prefer to have a CAR-15. The pistol was used by some of my buds who were tunnel rats during their tour, but most of the line doggies in our unit...rifles were primo. Use of pistol instead of rifle when rifle and ammo were readily available meant end of line time. Last ditch! You were being overrun and a fire mission was being called on your coordinates and the calvary was going to bomb,strafe, napalm,mortar, or send some serious fire power by howitzer on your position or "Puff the Magic Dragon" was going to saturate your position with mini-gun fire...at any rate...hunker down and start praying...or as the popular saying in 'Nam was, bend over, grab your ankles, and kiss your a**! goodbye.
Oh, yeah, if you survived the serious fire power, a pistol might come in handy for "insurance", making sure an enemy casualty couldn't shoot from being dead.

"War, Hell...it's the same thing."
 
I'll have to agree with Jeff Cooper's opinion on this. It's probably too costly and difficult to train regular troops to use the pistol effectively, but I sure would want to carry one.

What about letting troops carry if they already have the skill?

Surely the pistol has saved more than a few soldiers over the years. No?

------------------
Strength does not come from physical capacity.
It comes from an indomitable will. -- Mahatma Gandhi
 
I have never been in the military but I know I would want one. After reading everyone's posts on this matter, I think I would definately want a Glock 18 with 2 extra mags.
 
I note that the guys who favor carrying a handgun are "gun nuts" who have never been in the Army and maybe never want to be. The average GI with a pistol will a) throw it away to reduce the junk he has to carry, or b) shoot himself or someone else the first time he takes it out to play with it.

Jim
 
Speaking of weight.... I spent a few years in the Army, and it is my personal belief that too many soldiers are going to get killed trying to carry all that crap that they have to carry. When I think about how much faster I could shoot, move, and communicate without 100lbs of useless trash strapped to my back, I get pissed. There's just no need for all that garbage. Food, water, ammo, and a bedroll. What else do you need when you're getting shot at. With the air mobility we have in this day and age, there's simply no need to pack around everything you'll ever possibly need 24hrs a day. Isn't that what a base is for?
 
I've never been in the service, and won't be, and while I am a gun nut, I'm forced to agree with those who say "Hell no!" While my knowledge of all potential military scenarios is admittedly incomplete, I'm having a hard time imagining a situation in which a soldier would benefit from a pistol. When one considers that the weight and bulk of a pistol and magazines is equivalent to at least 2 30 round M16 magazines, or 2 grenades, or an extra canteen, etc., it becomes even less compelling. For REMFs, a P90 or SMG, or even an M4 would be nifty. Other than being an interesting relic of the days of cavalry, the only likely use of a pistol in modern warfare is for shooting balky enlisted men.

[This message has been edited by Cypselus (edited August 22, 2000).]
 
No. Too expensive and a waste of training time for regular combat arms soldiers.

Only soldiers in certain MOS's that require them to be qualified with a pistol (MPs are a good example) or of a certain grade (Sr NCOs or officers)need one.

At a personal level, I carried (and qualified) with both (and more) whenever possible, as often as possible.

Mike
 
h**l no !!!!

to reiterate previous posters (gunny schmit, cape fear, et al), the average soldier/Marine has to lug around 50 - 70 lbs of gear to conform to unit SOP. the average Marine would have not elected to lug aound 4-6 lbs of additional weight if he didn't have to (i sure as h*** didn't). at 5'6" and 155#(way back when)i detested each and every hump that came around the bend especially when i was designated a crew-served gunner whether it be a SAW(M249), M60, or SMAW, much less an a-gunner for a ma deuce.

the second concern would be proficiency. as a PMI i saw a few Marines (Staff NCO's and above)that couldn't hit the side of a proverbial barn. one particular one (until we figured out he what he was doing) couldn't keep it in the silhouette but consistently hit the sandbag below it.

i also agree with the fact that some barely post adolescent types shouldn't be carrying. there's always that 10%. one particular pair got into an discussion on whether an issue flak jacket would stop a knife when one of the dim bulbs pulls out his gerber MKii and proceeds to test the other ones's theory. it would've been funny if we didn't have to call in a medevac to take this guy to yukosuka. and all this when they were stone sober on a field op. i could only imagine what would've happened if a pistol had been involved.

Mind you. i'm all for responsible ownership, and wouldn't had minded being able to carry in some of the areas i deployed/went to (R.P. , Hong Kong, Haiti, Honduras).
 
From my 2cents as a medic and aerovac medic for 10 yrs and a scout the first two, I would not want the handgun unless I was in specific space limited duties ie flying, certain vehicle operators etc. A scout or grunt or gun bunny shouldn't be going anywhere without their primary personal weapon, although I do like the new shorter barreled m16's I have heard is out now. rule #1 DO NOT GIVE HANDGUNS TO OFFICERS
#2 Train officers on any weapons with other officers and by other officers least we enlisted have a good chance of being shot.
#3 If both is available, then those who rise to the top should be the only ones to carry regardless of the weapon.
When I have to grab another persons weapon at the range because they are incapablle of even keeping a weapon down range and of holstering it then that person need not have one. Working with many Air Force types I have found it does not matter if they have been exposed every year or two for 16 yrs, they still often are unsafe and completely inaccurate. I would rather have the best people be trained to do the jobs which require the additional training whether it is site security or what not.
 
Carrying junk is the curse of the infantry.
Read about newbies coming to Civil War units loaded down with crap from their home towns.

In a couple of days, they were down to the basics.

However, I did read that several liked having one those little SW 22 S new revolvers in their pocket.

Maybe a little tiny mouse gun! :)
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnochGale:
No.

This has been study ad naseum over the ages.
Handguns for infantry are for specialized purposes. Even for rear echelon troops attempts are made to find more compact long guns.

Backup is a fantasy not relevant to most infantry confrontations.[/quote]

I beg to differ. Hand-to-Hand combat during the Civil war most often involved fists, rifle butts, knives, and sometimes swords. The rare NCO or Officer who carried a revolver could be several times more effective than the standard foot soldier.

Don't kid youself that the times have changed. House-to-house combat is a key element in modern warfare. The standard battle rifle is useless in tight confines. If it were me, I'd ditch two grenades and carry a Colt 1911.

Also remember that our standard issue rifle has a gas tube that exausts into the action. I've personally experienced many jams in well-cared-for M-16's. What happens when your Black Rifle Jams? You feel free to die, I'll rely on John Moses Browning, thank you very much.
 
Originally posted by Bagerarms
Don't kid youself that the times have changed. House-to-house combat is a key element in modern warfare. The standard battle rifle is useless in tight confines. If it were me, I'd ditch two grenades and carry a Colt 1911.

I know from personal experience that the M4 is becoming, if not already, the standard battle rifle of the US Army Infantry, light infantry at least. I would consider the M-4 far from useless in the tight confines of an urban enviroment, in fact I can not think of a better weapon for CQB(SMG's not being appropiate for conventional infantry IMHO): size, range, recoil,magazine capacity, and relative stopping power. I personally would much rather clear a room with an M-4 than a 1911. I think the Army has gotten this one right, hard as that is to believe. Pistols are extremely limited on the modern battlefield, remeber those revolvers in the civil war were the only repeating firearm on the battlefiels for most of the war. Times have changed.
 
Okay, here's another opinion from a "gun nut" who has never been in the military...

This question made me think of another hobby of mine - SCUBA diving. I always carry a "Spare Air" when I dive. Its a small tank about a foot high and a couple of inches in diameter with a built-in regulator on top. I provides around 15 breaths of air - enought to safely surface from 130 feet or so (as deep as a sport diver should go). I've never really needed it, although I've used it a few times, mostly to make sure it worked. It is one more thing to carry (and scuba divers often have plenty of junk to deal with already). But I consider it insurance and worth the effort. Others may say that I should just watch my air carefully and make sure that my primary regulator is well maintained so it won't fail. Valid points. But I still like knowing that I have a backup just in case.

It seems to me that a light,compact, high-capacity handgun might also be worth carrying. The odds are you wouldn't ever need it. But if your rifle became disabled or lost, I don't think anyone would be sorry to have one. It might not make sense to issue handguns to everyone, but I think I might want to have the option of carrying a Glock or Kel-tec and a couple of extra magazines.

Doug
 
I think every front line soldier should have a handgun plus two mags, and a good blade in adittion to his rifle. I know it will add weight, and to be really usefull training must be very good, but in an ideal situation the soldiers will be trained and willing to make the necessary effort. I know I would!! By the way, the old leather flap holster for the 1911 was quite fast once you learned your draw. Cost should be no object, as the US military is testing now VERY expensive (and heavy, and cumbersome) high tech weapons.

[This message has been edited by Ruben Nasser (edited August 23, 2000).]
 
Pistols do make sense for "advisors" in far-away lands with US-supported fascist governments. A discretely carried pistol would certainly help out when political considerations dictate that one not carry a rifle, but personal defense is a pressing issue. El Salvador, Honduras, and the Philippines in the '80s are good examples, as is Colombia now. But for ordinary soldiers, the effort expended in learning to use the thing is all out of proportion to amount of damage one can do with it, and the opportunity cost of carrying it is far too high. Pass the C4!
 
While I find myself agreeing with the idea that it should not be required nor desired, but the stories of the Marines and G.I.'s passing pistols down from man to man in units to have with them in those foxholes, still haunt me. The combat vets of WW2 and Korea talked of how they would beg, borrow, and steal to have that warm friend on those cold lonely nights in close confined spaces of a foxhole just in case someone unwelcome came callin.
 
Just think about this certain situation when "X" would be usefull...Blah blah, blah blah blah!

Just think about all the times a personal GPS / NVG's / Claymore Mine / Satchel Charge / AT-4 / Mortar / SINGARS / M2 .50 would come in handy!!!! <Snort, giggle>

If you want to "what if" things, we can go all day. Soldiers are more likely to need fireteam / squad / platoon communications and night vision long before they'd need a backup pistol, yet you don't see them being issued on a individual level yet. Weight wise, either of those are equal to a good pistol, and take much less training to use. When it comes down to hand to hand, that M-16 is far from useless, and the grenades come in quite handy, thank you. I'd gladly trade in a pistol for 2 frags or 3 more magazines, thank you - even better, I don't want to be singled out as someone "special" because I've got a nice 9mm sniper reference point strapped to my side.

Hand to hand? That bayonet works very well. E-Tool will ruin your day too. Toss a frag in a trench, and they won't add you to any Christmas lists - and your basic M249 SAW makes a quite handy Room Broom, thank you. It's all about the training. Instead of adding one more log to the fire, teach them to better use the logs they have.

Again, forget about any quick draw contests. Long arms are much more accurate than handguns - and aimed fire is much better than point shooting. It's not rocket science...

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com
www.bladeforums.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top