View Single Post
Old February 14, 2013, 10:20 AM   #20
Senior Member
Join Date: May 11, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 758
Handgun training is primarily for officers, platoon Sergeants, and squad leaders and from what I understand it is purely marksmanship oriented.
In the military, a handgun is largely a status symbol of little practical utility on the battlefield (unless you're a in a high-speed unit). Usually it's carried as a primary arm by guys who never leave the FOB just so they have a weapon. I carried an M9 in Iraq as an Infantry PL on top of an M4, but always figured it was a weapon of last resort or my walking around the FOB weapon.

The Army's "pistol training" is a Death-By-PowerPoint Preliminary Marksmanship Instruction, then you're basically handed a weapon and expected to qualify with it without a Familiarization Fire (unless you're a new cherry 2LT, then you'll often be told to go to Range Control and ask for the M9 Zero Range..... ).

Also, what some claim as "inferiority" of the 5.56/223 round on the civilian side is not so much a big deal with the Military because they are supplemented with 7.62NATO, 50BMG, Grenades, Grenade lauchers, and Full-auto capability.
Yup. Most people I hear bitching about the 5.56 or 9mm are arm-chair commandos who don't understand the trade-offs between carrying lots of ammo (5.56) vs. a heavy hitting round(7.62). As you said, there's certain situations where a more powerful round is needed (such as Afghanistan or as a DMR), but I'd take more ammo over more power most any day.
"Our contract called for 16 cases of rifles and ammunition for $10,000 dollars, not a machine gun...........That is our present to the General"-Pike Bishop

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Beretta686 is offline  
Page generated in 0.03941 seconds with 7 queries