Army training soldiers on new Sig handgun. Why?

Discussion in 'General 1911 talk' started by chuck.panoff, Aug 3, 2020.

  1. chuck.panoff

    chuck.panoff Well-Known Member Supporting Addict

    Feb 8, 2017
    During WWII our Army had GREAT success equipping many of our soldiers with the M1 carbine instead of 1911 handguns.
    The carbines were easier to use and easier to hit with than the 1911. Having learned that lesson, why is the present day army so obsessed with handgun training?
    Why don’t they learn from their own
    success and issue a long gun equivalent to the M1 carbine to those soldiers who could be more successful with a carbine-like weapon
    than a pistol?

    Just saying.....
  2. joz

    joz New Member

    May 6, 2012
    The M4 issued is already a carbine. Plus handguns are way cheaper and easier to source than rifles.
    Adam13, Mjolnir, Dub and 1 other person like this.

  3. pscipio03

    pscipio03 Fun O' Meter on FULL

    Mar 11, 2013
    Because today's warfare is rarely at distances of more than 100 yards. Most are MOUT and close. We no longer fight across fields, we fight in buildings.
    And unless something has changed drastically, everyone will still train on rifles more than pistols except maybe MPs and some of the SOF groups that are more prone to close up gigs.
    Finally, it's a new platform that you have to train on. The M9 is no longer the sidearm, and the Sig is new to many instructors. Hell, when I went through boot we still loaded the M9 mags up to 1911 standards and shot a shitton of half empty mags because the Army was too damn lazy and dumb to change the training SOPs.
    Guy Montag, Mjolnir, Jim PHL and 10 others like this.
  4. Dreadnought

    Dreadnought Well-Known Member

    May 5, 2020
    Some modern PDW would be better, yes. But the Sigs were almost free, so there you go.
  5. chuck.panoff

    chuck.panoff Well-Known Member Supporting Addict

    Feb 8, 2017
    Even if they were free, it’s much harder to develop handgun skills than to learn carbine-like skills. Dig could pay the Army yo use them....but if the soldiers can’t hit with them then pea shooters might be more appropriate.

    The M1 carbine was a replacement for the 1911. Meant for close in combat not shooting at distance.
    Songcatcher likes this.
  6. chuck.panoff

    chuck.panoff Well-Known Member Supporting Addict

    Feb 8, 2017
    Just one man’s opinion.
  7. Bradd_D

    Bradd_D Well-Known Member

    Apr 8, 2019
    And yet the 1911 outlasted the M1 Carbine.
  8. limbkiller

    limbkiller Pulling my hair. Supporting Addict

    Aug 18, 2011
    If you don't believe handguns can be an effective weapon at close range then why are you a member here? This is 1911 addicts don't ya know. We look at and love all weapons but pistols seem to dominate.
    Roehl, 5pt56, Spokes and 7 others like this.
  9. SW1911302

    SW1911302 Well-Known Member

    Jan 13, 2019
    Pistols serve as a backup to a primary and the M1 was meant to be a primary in less combat focused units (my grandfather was in logistics in north Africa during WWII and was issued one). It wouldn't make much sense to issue 2 rifle style weapons per person.
    JM44, FWoo45 and limbkiller like this.
  10. chuck.panoff

    chuck.panoff Well-Known Member Supporting Addict

    Feb 8, 2017
    Of course I believe that handguns are effective at close range.

    I was only positing that the Army was ignoring a great success that they had achieved. I thought that they would have built on that success rather than abandon it.
  11. Bradd_D

    Bradd_D Well-Known Member

    Apr 8, 2019
    What carbine would you recommend? Would it be in addition to or in place of the current carbine?
    Dub, JM44, FWoo45 and 1 other person like this.
  12. nikerret

    nikerret Well-Known Member

    Mar 2, 2019
    In tight quarters and up close fighting, a handgun can be better to have than a long gun.

    When the war kicked off, in the Middle East (early 2000’s), military units quickly realized they did not have the best skill sets for urban fighting and structure clearing. They turned to some of the premier LE agencies and SWAT, which eat, sleep, and breathe what is termed Close Quarters Battle (CQB), for the best methods and practices.

    After a few years, the military units involved, mainly SOF, got the CQB thing down to a fine art. Then, the LE went back to learning CQB from the military. While the busiest SWAT teams may clear a lot of structures, the military guys were doing much more and seeing “action” on a larger percentage.

    I was fortunate to receive relevant training from various sources, including members of big agency SWAT teams and SOF members. It was interesting how their tactics differed and what was similar. As an aside, it was also notable how differently the units from the east and west coast differed.

    In my LE time, I trained several people. One thing I quickly learned, when going over the basics of CQB, with new LEO’s (even after the Academy), was how much easier it was for them to move effectively and safely with a handgun versus a long gun. Sure, it’s better to enter a firefight with a long gun, but it doesn’t do you much good, if you can’t get or keep a tactical advantage.

    In a course I took, I was fortunate to be able to play the bad guy (using Simunitions). The lesser skilled “good guys” were much easier to disarm and shoot when they had long guns I could grab and shoot them or that would give their position away before they entered. If you’re fighting over your rifle, it’s handy to have a secondary weapon. Conversely, it sucked more when the good guys, who were skilled, had long guns. Long guns, in the right hands, are superior. This is also why I recommend a handgun, for most people, regarding home defense. Mistakes with a handgun cost less than mistakes with a long gun.

    As far as the military use, it seems to depend on the mission. I’ve heard of guys in Afghanistan say their pistol was just more weight they had to carry. Conversely, the guys who went to Iraq seemed to have more use, for handguns. One trainer, from an SOF unit, spoke very highly of the G22. He reported having used his, successfully, on multiple occasions. He was old enough to have been through several sidearms, starting with the 1911. He said the 1911 was his favorite handgun, overall, but the G22 couldn’t be beat for balance of effective cartridge and capacity.

    There’s a reason the handgun is referred to as a “secondary” weapon, in the military. If your primary goes down, it’s nice to have an effective secondary.

    I support our military being as well armed and well trained, as possible.
    Roehl, 5pt56, MrMcSimon and 11 others like this.
  13. Dallas Knight

    Dallas Knight Max Otto von Stierlitz

    Jun 22, 2015
    *Some* WW2 historians have effectively considered that to be the case, however that is "revisionist history". The fact of the matter is, the War Department (DoD's name during WW2) specifically and contractually specified a smaller, light weight carbine rifle be developed with an effective range of 300 yards. No handgun contract, as far as I'm aware, ever called for a sidearm to have a 300 yard effective range. So by design AND contract requirement, the M1 carbine wasn't envisioned to be a replacement for the M1911.

    What it was designed to do is provide a less cumbersome rifle for company HQ staff, cooks, radiomen and later, combat paratroopers.

    Now back to a question that's already been asked. The M4 of today is specifically the carbine version of the M16. Why do you think another/different carbine design is needed?
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020
    zChambers, Kip, mikegalway and 3 others like this.
  14. chuck.panoff

    chuck.panoff Well-Known Member Supporting Addict

    Feb 8, 2017
  15. chuck.panoff

    chuck.panoff Well-Known Member Supporting Addict

    Feb 8, 2017
    I don’t have an opinion as to what’s the best carbine. That’s above my pay grade
    I started this thread because it seemed to me that an inordinate amount of time was bring spent training with the new handgun as opposed to the carbine.

    When I was in the service (50+ years ago) I was a medic. I was never trained in combat. So I am a layman when it comes to combat.
    I was just surprised that so much emphasis seemed to be spent on training with the handgun given the great success the Army had with M1 carbine during WWII.

    Just an observation of one who is uninitiated.
    As I said before, just my lay opinion.
  16. Sapper

    Sapper Well-Known Member Supporting Addict

    Jan 25, 2014
    I'm not an expert on the Army, however in the Marines pistol training is not for everyone. For E-1 to E-5 pistols are not common. From E-6 to E-9 training and annual qualification are required.
    limbkiller and FWoo45 like this.
  17. Zero1911

    Zero1911 Well-Known Member

    Aug 21, 2019
    Our military should pick a handgun caliber and supply the ammo for the rare handgun training day. There should be a one time allowance for a service person to choose their own handgun or a reimbursement for bringing your own. Say $400.00 each towards whatever you want to carry.
    Rizzo likes this.
  18. neogirevik1

    neogirevik1 Member

    Dec 30, 2016
    Jeff Cooper has an excellent chapter on the topic of Military Pistols on page 80 of "To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth". He says modern armies probably don't need pistols, but if he goes to war, HE wants one. Great book!
    UBOATDOC, Rizzo, JM44 and 1 other person like this.
  19. Dallas Knight

    Dallas Knight Max Otto von Stierlitz

    Jun 22, 2015
    Chuck, apologies if I came off a little heavy handed in my earlier response. I too, date my first exposure to the Army on the order of 50 years ago, as a young artillery officer. No, I wasn't exactly a "volunteer" but I did manage to stay in college after student deferments were done away with... but of course, then there was 'payback'.

    Obviously I have a little different take on the M1 carbine than you. The reason a lot of historians consider them a "replacement" for the M1911 is because that's what a lot of GIs considered them at the time. And not out of respect or admiration. Compared to the Garand M1 (the only basis most GIs could make), it was more a criticism of the M1 Carbine. It didn't have the distance accuracy of a Garand and it shot a caliber that wasn't near as hard hitting - with lots of GIs making the comparison to a pistol round rather than a rifle round. Such dissatisfaction lead a lot of paratroopers to trading off their M1 Carbines for M1 Garands at the first available opportunity. They were great to jump with, not so great to fight with.

    Out of curiosity, what did you see or read that leads you to believe the Army is spending an inordinate amount of training time with pistols? Granted, as you point out things change after half a century, but my active duty time saw very little (virtually none) pistol training but considerably more M16 training. I could see the Airborne Division and Special Operation units, and perhaps MPs getting some serious handgun training time but I'd guess the regular average rank & file troops get very little, if any, handgun training.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2020
  20. monadh

    monadh Sapientiae Timor Domini Initium

    May 8, 2012
    I respectfully have to disagree. In a combat unit, uniformity of gear/weapons/LBE layout plays into how well things may go. If your buddy gets taken out and he has a pistol that is different from yours and you need magazines full of ammo, what good would it do you to have to quickly get used to the operation of a new pistol under adverse conditions?

    That said, if back in the day Uncle Sam had said, "Here, lieutenant, here's $400 to go buy a pistol but you still have to use what we provide", I would have been tearing up for joy. As it was, I had to pay for my S&W 4516 myself.
    Kip, limbkiller, Rizzo and 1 other person like this.

You need 3 posts to add links to your posts! This is used to prevent spam.

Draft saved Draft deleted