Army training soldiers on new Sig handgun. Why?

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

  1. RoverSig

    RoverSig Member

    Sep 27, 2019
    Besides the carbine, there is another weapon "between" the pistol and the rifle that challenges the role of the pistol -- the "personal defense weapon" (PDW). NATO wrote up a requirement for PDWs in 1989. A key feature of PDWs is enough muzzle velocity and an appropriate round to defeat body armor -- which is now prevalent among potential adversaries. NATO envisioned something for soldiers such as vehicle crewmen, staff personnel, etc., who might not have a rifle handy but might have to confront enemy SOF or partisans.

    Older submachine guns and the M1 carbine were sort of in the same personal defense role, but they have slower rounds that wouldn't meet the modern requirement of defeating military body armor. The 9mm pistol falls short of the PDW requirement for the same reason. But the FN P90 (5.7x28mm) was built specifically to meet the NATO standard, and the H&K MP7A1 (4.6×30mm) and some other updated SMGs fit the role too. Very compact versions of standard rifles, including some bullpups, come real close too.

    We don't generally issue anything in this specific category to soldiers -- although some U.S. SOF have MP7A1's and other modern SMGs for specific offensive tasks. We've never liked SMGs much -- despite keeping the WWII M1 Grease Gun around a long time, albeit in small numbers and only for specific units, e.g., Armor. PDWs, while being light and handy, are still harder to carry than a pistol and require the user to carry a lot of ammo... Going back to the original theme of this thread, I'd bet they require a lot of training to be used to best effect...
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020
    tac45 likes this.
  2. DAHoyle

    DAHoyle Member

    Sep 29, 2019
    nikerret likes this.

  3. Infidel4life11

    Infidel4life11 الواحد

    Apr 17, 2019
    I tried to leave this alone the best I could so here it goes.

    There is zero comparison of WWII to today’s Army literally zero. BTW the m4a1 is the standard individual weapon system across the board which is, smaller, better, more capacity than the m1 carbine ever thought about being.

    Pistols are side arms and not for every soldier. The soldiers that do get the capability have to train on that capability. If you don’t train, you die, the person next to dies or gets wounded trying to cover down on your untrained a$$.

    Now no one goes full Leroy Jankins in combat with just a side arm. That would be absolutely ignorant. However while deployed there are people fair enough away from the fun stuff that allows them the luxury to carry just a side arm on base.

    In my job in the Army I carried a pistol everyday. Depending on the mission I might not see a rifle for a year or two. My next duty assignment I might see a rifle everyday with my pistol.

    WWII casualties 446,000 in 4yrs

    GWOT casualties 7,000 in 19yrs
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020
    Rick McC., VanguardMP, 5pt56 and 2 others like this.
  4. Uncle Bob

    Uncle Bob Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2017
    The US and NATO have STANAG, or the standard for military ammo, etc. Last time we pushed hard it was for 5.56 after pushing 7.62X51. Push back was 9mm. No one will consider 38 super.
  5. Uncle Bob

    Uncle Bob Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2017
    Your American KIA figure for WW II is a bit high.
    Infidel4life11 likes this.
  6. Wake27

    Wake27 Active Member

    Oct 16, 2017
    I don’t know anyone besides maybe MPs that train on pistol more than the M4 so I don’t know where you even got that perception.

    That hasn’t been true for many years.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  7. Infidel4life11

    Infidel4life11 الواحد

    Apr 17, 2019
    It’s the number the internet gave me Uncle Bob. It’s probably the total number of US casualties during the war.
    5pt56 likes this.
  8. Uncle Bob

    Uncle Bob Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2017
    Wow it's on the internet, must be true. NOT. KIA figures were significantly less.
  9. nikerret

    nikerret Well-Known Member

    Mar 2, 2019
    I found this, from a Business Insider article. Their source is cited.

    5pt56 likes this.
  10. Newtm

    Newtm Member

    Dec 15, 2019
    I feel slighted. No one has mentioned the M2 Carbine I was issued, 30 round banana clip and all. :)

    Infidel4life11 likes this.
  11. Bradd_D

    Bradd_D Well-Known Member

    Apr 8, 2019
    The National WW2 Museum says 416,800.
  12. Col K

    Col K Member

    May 14, 2016
    If you were issued an M2 carbine and 30 round mags that worked reliably, I hope you brought them home in a duffel bag. :)
  13. Col K

    Col K Member

    May 14, 2016
    I think those are total US deaths and include KIA (180K - 250 K depending on the source cited), MIA, accidents, and natural causes. Whether they died in combat or not, they gave their all and their families suffered none the less for it.
    5pt56 and Rick McC. like this.
  14. Tom Corbett42

    Tom Corbett42 Active Member

    Aug 23, 2019
    I was kind of under the understanding that the M1 carbine was a lighter easier to tote weapon over the M1 Garand. Like you said for garrison troops, tankers, paratroops, etc the M1 carbine was designed. I never got to fire an M1 Garand, but did do range shooting with the M1 carbine (in the AF), then we switched to the M16, which in my opinion was not as good as the M1 carbine. Anything after that I had no experience with. The only side arm I toted in the AF was a S&W 38 Special when I was carrying the unit impressed fund ($50.00), though I had no ammunition.
  15. Col K

    Col K Member

    May 14, 2016
    Sounds like the Air Force when I joined. Even Barney got to carry one bullet in his pocket. By comparison, my Dad enlisted in '48 and was sent to Alaska. In those cold war days it was still a frontier territory and our closest landmass to the USSR. All the enlisted men were issued M1 or M2 carbines, while guards often toted M3 grease guns. The carbines and bandoliers of magazines were kept on racks in the barracks (two story wooden affairs). Officers and B-29 aircrews were issued sidearms (38s and 45s). The base operated on the assumption that Soviet paratroopers would descend on the field without warning, so each man was expected to fight until the Army troops at Fort Wainwright (20 miles away) could respond. Dad even trained as a forward observer so in a pinch he could call in supporting artillery fire from the Army. As luck would have it, some Hispanic kid from the southwest didn't much care for the cold of Fairbanks and decided the quickest way out was a Section 8 discharge. He walked into the barracks one day, pulled a carbine off the rack, loaded it with a 30 round magazine, let out a Mexican war cry, and cut loose. Bullets were flying everywhere as Airmen dove under beds, out doors, and through windows. When the weapon ran dry he began laughing and declaring himself crazy. Not sharing his unique taste in humor, the other Airmen proceeded to beat the living snot out of him before dragging his battered carcass to the Air Police. The base commander assessed the damage. Nobody was killed or even injured save for the aforementioned bandito, but the next edict to emanate from the commander's office was a requierment that all firearms be locked in the Air Police armory. Damn the Soviets, our own troops were proving to be a greater threat.
  16. Mjolnir

    Mjolnir New Member

    Jul 28, 2020
    Pistols ARE important!
    They are smaller than a small carbine. Yes, they tend to be last ditch weapons but that does not diminish the ability to have a weapon that can be used with just one hand.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  17. Mjolnir

    Mjolnir New Member

    Jul 28, 2020
    The range for our current conflicts in the Middle East are FAR greater than “just 100 yards.”

    Just sayin’. We have been engaged with 7.62x54R which has greater range than 7.62 NATO.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  18. pscipio03

    pscipio03 Fun O' Meter on FULL

    Mar 11, 2013
    We are talking two different things here.
    The sustained firefights vs the more common close range actions.
    Maybe things have changed over the past 10 years or so, but OIF/OEF was primarily city engagements where there wasn't long range fighting inside the cities.
    When I say this I'm saying frequency of engagement which was shorter range. Maybe not as intense or total rounds fired, but you were more likely to face an issue when clearing buildings than you were in a convoy. IEDs yes, but fortified or adhoc engagements, not as much.
    Again, I'm talking IFOR going to SFOR.

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

Draft saved Draft deleted