.45 combat pistol?

[csmsss]

If I'm planning for combat, the last thing on my mind is a pistol. If I'm being sent into combat with a sidearm as a primary weapon, I've got much bigger problems than which sidearm to carry.

That being said, should I find myself in that situation, I'd pick the 1911. I don't know (nor do I care) who Hilton Yam is, but neither do I care about armorers' problems. Somehow this nation made it through two world wars and numerous other major military events with the 1911 and it has certainly stood the test of time. Magazine issues? Guffaw.

[tirod]

The purpose of the sidearm in military combat is as a backup weapon when the rifle fails or runs dry and the soldier needs to put rounds downrange ASAP. It gives him time to get to cover and fix his rifle.

Nope, sorry, no such doctrine exists. Soldiers aren't issued a backup weapon, they are trained to maintain the primary weapon correctly, are given more training to correct stoppages due to their failure to maintain it, and given specific training to prevent being in the open to begin with.

It presupposes that the rifle is a problem at all. And that two magazines of pistol ammo will be enough.

The few individuals who are issued pistols are usually far out of harms way. "Combat pistol" is the misconception - in combat zones, pistols are turned in, and rifles issued. In the Marines, that goes for officers up to colonel, too. An individual only issued a pistol in a combat zone generally <---- hey, it's significant - has someone else delegated to be a heavily armed bodyguard. With a rifle. MP's get that job, it's part of the description.

Pistols are green zone backup for rear areas where the threat of being targeted at any given moment is decidedly downrated.

The average infantry company of 250 - 300 soldiers in combat carry M4's and M16's, with maybe a handful of M9's for Command and support. The same ration exists at Battalion, the larger HQ's has a few more M9s, but the ratio is still 1000 rifles to less than 40 pistols.

Combat soldiers don't transition to pistols, they are never issued any. It's the specific role of a sidearm to be symbolic - they are carried in administrative positions in peacetime by Military Police, and by officers working far from a front line. The general risk of terrorism has elevated their use in recent conflicts, but only where a carbine or rifle has been negotiated out of the circumstances due to societal or political issues. Otherwise, the pistol is shunned as being highly inadequate in warfare.

Spec Ops might have a place for pistol craft, Joe Snuffy isn't even trained on them. They can go two enlistments and never fire one for official purposes.

22 years Reserves, Infantry and MP, I never trained to be in a "combat zone" with anything less than an M16, and we were never trained to transition to the M9 as a backup. We kept our rifles running correctly and didn't practice standing in the open when a malfunction drill was needed. Too easy to get shot. If anything, our back weapon as a MP was the M249, M60, or Mk19. We didn't go down the escalation of force to a weapon we didn't have, we always move up to a larger one. Preferably with area coverage.

If there is any real combat pistol use, it's mostly in urban areas considered less than desireable to live because of lawlessness and gangs. Even the cops keep M16's in the cruiser for serious work there.

Oh, the survey. 1911. Sure, a fleet of them can be a logistical problem for an armorer, but the tradeoff as a single stack weapon is that it's easier to carry and use compared to the large doublestack duty guns. Shot placement counts more than capacity, where pistols are used, it's three shots, three seconds, three feet. That's the reality, and the other two guns are simply more than needed. Too many innocent bystanders are getting shot with large capacity duty guns to say that they are automatically the better answer.

[Madcap_Magician]

My .45 combat pistol would probably be in an intermediate rifle caliber with a buttstock, 16" barrel, and a 30-round magazine.

[BIG P]

Give Me the G21.Full size guys like Full size pistols.Big & thick & lots of bullets. That's ME right there.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

a G30

Really? A compact 45 for military service?

I don't like the choices either. But I will say this without reservation: any current model Glock will not be adopted by the military (that is not saying I don't think it's capable). The Sig 227 or the H&k would be most likely IMO.

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by tirod

Nope, sorry, no such doctrine exists. Soldiers aren't issued a backup weapon, they are trained to maintain the primary weapon correctly, are given more training to correct stoppages due to their failure to maintain it, and given specific training to prevent being in the open to begin with.

I think in general you are correct, and while you have more experience than me, my experience differs a little.

We issued M9s to M240 gunners as well, and they were pretty common in gun truck turrets in case of a situation where a threat was so close that the turret couldn't slew fast enough or the gun depress far enough. Of course, many of those gunners would keep an M4 for the same reason.

There was one NCO who came to us from 2nd ID who said when he was in Iraq as a turret gunner E-4, he had the turret gun PLUS an M249, an M4, AND an M9. This was back in the earlier days of the insurgency right when it was starting to heat up bad but before the MRAPS, 1151 humvees, and other uparmored vehicles started arriving.

[NWCP]

Since you don't list a HK I have to go with the 1911.

[kcub]

Since you specify 1911 (any brand) Wilson supergrade, the proceeds of which will equip me and the rest of my magnificent 7 with glocks

[EvgeniBG]

Voted for FN but the poll "Combat pistol" terribly lacks "HK" option!

[Strafer Gott]

Not much of a military without Sig or HK. 1911 is really the only choice here.

[simonrichter]

Just by the occasion: Does anybody know what the actual entrants on the Modular handgun System evaluations are? Apparently the project is still alive, yet there is hardly any new information about potential participants or if and how the whole thing develops...

[sigarms228]

Not much of a military without Sig or HK.

I would use this:

[iMagUdspEllr]

Glock only because others have manual thumb safeties.

[manta49]

Glock only because others have manual thumb safeties.

Others because Glocks don't have a manual thumb safety.

[iMagUdspEllr]

Simple is better because it is easier to learn. I suppose you will say, 'Complex is better because it is harder to learn.'

[manta49]

Simple is better because it is easier to learn. I suppose you will say, 'Complex is better because it is harder to learn.'

I will say if they can't learn to disengage a safety catch like they have to do with their other firearms they should consider another occupation, plus it will save the medics work removing bullets from their legs.

[jr24]

I will say if they can't learn to disengage a safety catch like they have to do with their other firearms they should consider another occupation

Same could be said about not shooting yourself in the leg while holstering...

Of course the OP was

which would you prefer and why?

Not which would you prefer your unit/army/whatever had. If it was for the unit I was in I might change my vote. But for me, different story.

Safety or not, its a toss up between ease of use (no safety) and probably a nicer, lighter trigger (safety, specifically cocked n locked). This week I'd go with no safety, I may change my mind next time I take my 1911's to the range.

[iMagUdspEllr]

@mantra49: If you draw a gun and point it at someone and it goes click instead of bang because in the heat of the moment your practice went out the window you won't be glad that you had a safety. And that safety is what prevented you from having a hole in the leg? I hope you know that it isn't good that you are willing to put more effort into using a safety than you are willing to put into trigger and muzzle discipline.

If you have a safety do you not practice trigger or muzzle discipline? If you do... then you realize the safety is pointless, right? If you don't, then you realize you will put a hole in your leg because, 'I thought the safety was on.'

[Gats Italian]

Lol.

Mostly the people who have never served want pistols issued to 18-22 year old GIs with no manual safety or visible hammer present.

I know I wouldn't want the typical Glock owner armed with their choice in the armed services. Too many "professunuls" among them.

Given the evidence of their generally low quality posts, there'd be an epidemic of lead poisoning after relying on their brains to be their safeties.

[iMagUdspEllr]

@Gats Italian: The people that don't do any fighting are ordered to not have a round in the chamber. So, that pretty much negates any need for a thumb safety, visible hammer, etc. Also, the fact that the gun spends its time in a holster precludes the trigger from being pulled anyway.

I would like to point out that this is standard practice despite the fact that M9s with manual thumb safeties and DA/SA triggers are issued. In other words, no amount of idiot-proof safety features can stop a negligent discharge... because you can always find a bigger idiot.

As far as the visible hammer... um... the gun is going to fire if the trigger is pulled... does it matter if the hammer is cocked or not or if you can see that it is cocked or not?

Those that actually go out of their way to learn more about how to use firearms better than an antigunner prefer to not be inhibited by their own firearm. I value my gun firing when I want it to over the gun compensating for my failure to practice trigger and muzzle discipline (which you will have to practice regardless when you inevitably disable all the safety features in order to fire the gun... which is its job).

Also, it is interesting that you consider people that can keep their finger off the trigger and practice muzzle discipline to be stupid. It would seem to me that people that can't practice those two things without help from their firearm are the ones lacking mental fortitude.

[Buckeye!]

Of the ones you have listed I picked the Glock 21 Gen 4 ...,I really like mine...

but my go to 45 acp is my Ruger P90DC...its had a bit of trigger work done and is xtra smooth

[jr24]

Ruger P90DC

Been too long since I've seen one of those, nice!

Mostly the people who have never served want pistols issued to 18-22 year old GIs with no manual safety or visible hammer present.

I wonder if there is data out yet on the British Armed Forces and their transition to Glock 17's in regards to negligent discharges. I remember reading they were excited to be able to "carry one in the chamber safely" now (as if the Hi Power can't do that? Apparently not).

Might be interesting to try to track down.

[Gats Italian]

@Gats Italian: The people that don't do any fighting are ordered to not have a round in the chamber. So, that pretty much negates any need for a thumb safety, visible hammer, etc. Also, the fact that the gun spends its time in a holster precludes the trigger from being pulled anyway.

Is that your experience from serving in all four branches? Not everyone carries pistols like the Big Army does.

Visual means of telling a pistol is not being carried or deployed safely is especially meaningful to trainers in the services, tasked with supervising many shooters simultaneously.

Lol at you inhibitions. I said I mock the idea that the finger safety guys and gals out there are infallible. That hasn't yet been the experience with Glocks in police service.

[iMagUdspEllr]

@Gats Italian: I don't need to be in every branch to talk to other people around me that are in other branches. I also don't need to be in every branch to have friends in every other branch.

Carrying a cocked pistol is not unsafe (1911s, Glocks, etc.). Also, your statement assumes and implies that a gun isn't being carried/deployed safely unless the hammer is visibly decocked. The ROs don't care about the status of the hammer unless the material they teach tells them they need to care. You are putting the cart before the horse. If the ROs had to instruct a pistol with a different manual of arms they wouldn't care about the hammer being cocked or not or if it was visible or not. 'Wait, is your Glock cocked?' Does that matter? The gun will fire when you pull the trigger... so don't pull the trigger unless you want to fire the gun.

Nobody is infallible. Which is why we have negligent discharges even with M9s. Trigger and muzzle discipline must be practiced regardless and the firearm will fire if you fail to practice trigger discipline (even with safeties and DA/SA triggers). I have never seen a drop-safe gun fire unless a trigger was pulled. Negligence is still the user's fault not the gun's fault. There is always a bigger idiot. No need to handicap everyone else because of the ignorant minority.

[tony pasley]

The question is which I preferred. I will have to go with the one that brought me through the dance a long time ago, 1911a1.