[ultraNoob]

Was killing time at work and came across this:

http://futurewarstories.blogspot.com/2011/11/fws-armory-combat-pistols.html

A good read if you're not doing anything special. Enjoy.

...Contrary the their depiction in mass media, combat pistols serve most of their operation life in waiting. Most are only fired on a range, and left in their holsters during combat operations. This is due to the combat role of pistols, to be a backup or secondary when the primary weapon is out of ammo or disabled. Currently, some of traditional roles of the combat pistols, like being the personal defense weapon of armored vehicle crews and medics for example, have been replaced by weapons like the Colt M4 carbine, the FN P90, and the H&K MP7. This happened before, during the Second World War, when the US developed the M1A1 carbine (my Grandfather carried one) to be a more offensive and capability personal defense weapon than the Colt 1911 .45 ACP. Given the limited role and rarity of use, governments often do not replace the pistol as frequency as other pieces of combat equipment, causing the same pistol to be used for decades, like the Colt 1911 and the Browning Hi-Power....

 

[gonefirefightin]

maybe in the years back, but with the urban combat operations such as the middle east they are used just as much as the carbine. I used mine all the time on dogs and vehicles traveling too close to our elements.

 

[sanjuro]

I knew a lot of it already, and when the blog post got to a picture of Jack Bauer, I lost interest.

Really, there are two aspects of military sidearms: what's good for the mass of regular soldiers and what's good for Special Forces.

I would imagine the main issue for regular army is logistics, things like standardization, training, and production. Possibly having a sidearm is unnecessary for most regular army, with obvious exceptions like MP's.

As for Special Forces, I have no idea about their criteria. They shoot millions of rounds per month in training, and they don't just speculate about lethality or stopping power.

It is interesting there is a mix of 45's and 9mm in SpecOps. I guess those guys haven't decided either.

 

[chillindrdude]

meh, that blogpost wasn't so much insight as heresay and mishmash of stuff gleaned from the interweb.

not sure if NATO is still limited to FMJ ("ball") ammo due to conventional rules of war. if speaking strictly regarding FMJ, bigger the caliber (and mass), greater the kinetic energy. wound cavity of a .45acp FMJ is indeed greater than that of 9mm FMJ. however, when you start using hollow point (or other expansile design bullet), wound cavities between 9mm and .45acp is comparable.

i suspect (and this is civilian conjecture, not operational experience), that if the handgun is coming out in a military combat situation, this implies a defensive posture. and likely the mindset at the point is withdraw, much less holding a defensive position. i'd want a handgun that has the highest capacity possible (if deciding between 9mm vs .45acp vs .40s&w. not that i would be firing blindly, but i'd want enough capacity to keep offender's heads down while i make that withdraw.

if you're gonna wear armor, you'd be stupid to wear anything less than rifle rated, imho on the modern battlefield. and if you are wearing rifle-rated armor, ALL true handgun bullets are not gonna penetrate that.

pistols that are utilizing 5.7 or 4.6 calibers, if you look objectively at the cartridge, are really downsized "rifle" ammunition. that is, relatively higher powder to bullet weight ratio. thusly, you have a smaller grain bullet travelling at a much higher velocity, able to penetrate RIFLE rated armor and then yawing upon hitting tissue.

 

[JohnE]

In todays battlefield a pistol is still very valid and needed. The asymetric battlefield demands flexibility and options other then the carbine or rifle. One of the reasons the M4 was welcomed was the increased possiblity of close quarter battle (CQB) we face today...although it drives me nuts because troops are not as safe with the M4 due to its reduced size and ease of carry. Next troop I bark at for carrying an M4 around (In a non hostile environment...) I swear I am going to duct tape or staple it to his shoulder...

 

[JohnE]

...also factor in that in addition to being sidearms for medics, many pistols are carried by officers, pilots and aircrew and those in combat support roles...meaning its use is less likely. There is a stat about avg. combat engagement distance too (Being more rifle appropriate...)...let me look about.

 

[chillindrdude]

although it drives me nuts because troops are not as safe with the M4 due to its reduced size and ease of carry. Next troop I bark at for carrying an M4 around (In a non hostile environment...) I swear I am going to duct tape or staple it to his shoulder...

???
aren't safeties engaged? hammer down, chamber empty? or are they muzzle sweeping folks?

i don't think handguns are obsolete in a military/combat environment, but people (like me, a civilian) tend to over think things too much. also, civilian view of the handgun is skewed because in our environment, a handgun is usually king, because rifles are much less common place.

i think engagement distances in Afghanistan are longer than what they were in Iraq. Iraq was more urban/CQB, where as afghanistan has been more ridgeline to ridgeline/valley engagements. the modern 5.56 nato round requires the bullet to tumble/yaw upon entering flesh for optimal lethality. and for that to happen, it must hit above a certain velocity. out of a 14.5" barrel (standard M4), i think that distance is like 50-75yds. hence, the whole argument about a better round, yada yada yada. but that's another discussion.

 

[JohnE]

Yes, safeties are on, rounds not (normally) chambered, but you still get the occasional idiot.
All weapons are to be carried (under normal circumstance...) either shouldered or holstered...seeing a weapon off shoulder sends up alarms to us old guys. And inevitably, when sopmething dumb happens, the troop it happens to was not carrying the weapon correctly. It could be an accidental discharge, or something like a front sight to the mouth or melon requiring stitches or worse...and then we have to answer all the questions from the top down...how was he carrying, how was he trained, when was he trained, who trained him etc...

A few years back I read an after action report about 2 Navy 9545s who shot each other playing quick draw behind a warehouse at Great Lakes...nice.

 

[sanjuro]

Yes, safeties are on, rounds not (normally) chambered, but you still get the occasional idiot.
All weapons are to be carried (under normal circumstance...) either shouldered or holstered...seeing a weapon off shoulder sends up alarms to us old guys. And inevitably, when sopmething dumb happens, the troop it happens to was not carrying the weapon correctly. It could be an accidental discharge, or something like a front sight to the mouth or melon requiring stitches or worse...and then we have to answer all the questions from the top down...how was he carrying, how was he trained, when was he trained, who trained him etc...

A few years back I read an after action report about 2 Navy 9545s who shot each other playing quick draw behind a warehouse at Great Lakes...nice.

 

[DirtMcGirk]

I carried the Sig 226 as a medic. I liked how it shot, and I still wished it came in a .45. I've seen, up close and personal, the difference in those two holes, and the difference in soft tissue damage. If I am going to have to shoot someone in a defensive posture, I want the most damage per round.

That's why at Palace De Dirt the only 9mm you see is in a submachine gun.