Why do militaries still issue handguns, when their role is primarily to serve as a back up for a primary arm?
Why not just arm troops with a PDW similar to a PLR-16 with a wire stock?
>takes the same mags, and ammo as primary
>substantially more powerful than a conventional handgun
>when engineered from the ground up, partially parts compatible
Even though the size is a bit larger than a conventional handgun, it's still compact enough to be handy. Weight wise at 54 ounces it's only twice as heavy as a Glock 17. The weight difference would likely be made up by not having to carry separate handgun mags, or ammo.
Not too much larger than a normal handgun, especially with a flush 10 round magazine.
>Not too much larger
It's fuckhuge and only semiautomatic.
It would be better to arm them with a cutdown smg like the mp7 than that shit.
>not too much larger
Confirmed for never having had to lug around infantry bullshit.
LOOK at the goddamn picture. Would you really want the extra weight when you're already carrying everything from plated to extra batteries?
Pistols are for last ditch "oh shit my rifle's dry/fucked up/gone" or for room to room clearance where a rifle would be awkwardly long. Given their relatively limited use, there is no real need to make them xboxheug and it would be foolish to make them heavy.
I absolutely approve of all soldiers being issued a pistol sidearm. I think it should be mandatory to have a service pistol with a couple of mags. I don't approve of this bullshit... it's neither a good rifle or pistol. Kel Tec has some great ideas but I'm not keen on this one. Check out the SU-16C, you might like it better.
Maybe one day a beefed up P90 will replace AR style rifles, but not today.
I like my SU-16 but I can't figure out the point of the PLR-16
Why? Nobody who is legitimately doing combat operations does this.
How about accounting for the extra unwieldy bulk when getting in/out if vehicles or clearing rooms?
I'm done. This thread was created by an inexperienced teenager who thinks COD is an accurate portrayal of combat.
I know that.
That's why I said my opinion is that they should carry them. A pistol with two spare mags is just an extra pound.
Like >>28651165 says, it's just for shitty situations.
It's true that no soldier should have to use a pistol... but how often does everything go right?
This is a bait thread? Also some militaries did/do issue machine-pistols, PDWS, and subguns to vehicle and other crews which is fine since they're not lugging them around much. However to suggest that all handguns should be replaced by PDWs and other small full auto guns is retarded. Some people are perfectly fine with a handgun and it's not like a rifle or carbine is far away from reach if you need it anyway.
I remember a story someone told me about a marine saying the Beretta was a shit pistol because he tried removing kebab 200 yards out with one.. lol it didn't work so he didn't like the pistol.
Carry it in place of a rifle, like a PDW. It has the advantage of having common mags and ammo with the primary service rifle.
The PLR-16 is just an example of the concept, something purpose built could be slightly lighter and more compact.
I've seen enough AR-15 firing pin's break, and lugs shear, that I wouldn't want to solely depend on it. Especially one that's been thrown around, and has 15,000 rounds through it.
Try your "logic" somewhere else.
I was apart of a 72 hour clearing operation of a town in northern Iraq. A buffalo was hit by an IED so we had zero water resupply. Someone died as a result. Guess what, nobody was like "dur better carry two camelbacks just in case, better to have the extra one and not need it" etc. etc.
It's not even close to realistic.
Fuckin thought about it...
>man died from not having water
>you don't think it's a good idea to carry extra water in the fucking desert
Do they even teach basic boy scout principles anymore?
You're right though, it's not realistic. What's realistic is soldiers dying from stupid shit that's easily preventable.
Imagine hadji with a knife coming around the corner and grabbing your rifle while you clear their tiny shitty adobe huts. Imagine trying to quickly unholster the monster from the OP-pic while being engaged hand-to-hand.
>Not too much larger than a normal handgun,
This. Saw gunners and M240 gunners in our light unit got the M9 as their back up. Normal squad/platoon soldiers got their M4 and that's it unless you had a 203 attached to your rifle. Other than that, it was Officers and some random people if they had extras to issue out. I'm not talking Scout platoons, SF, Rangers, this or that because I don't know much about what they carried for the most part. But just normal LI platoons..that is all that got it. Then the PLT SGT and PL got a handgun and my PLT SGT's M9 spent most of it's time not ever being carried so he didn't have to worry about it ever. If you were to add in the extra weight of whatever OP posted to our normal gear, we would have people falling out left and right and bitching and morale would suck. It's bad enough when you have a cherry LT saying he wants us to carry our rucksack around on top of our LBV, kevlar, gloves, eye pro, knee pads, elbow pads, body armor, 7-10 mags, cleaning kits, batteries, NODs, paq 4, spread the machine gun ammo around to every one, smoke, flares, 203 rounds, chem lights, extra radio batteries, this that everything under the sun. You see grown men fall over like turtles stuck on their backs and god forbid you have to take a shit on patrol. But don't worry, only walking 16 miles around the town today to meet with this retarded fuck and no you guys aren't allowed to wear those non issued boots that are 1/3 of the weight!
Why don't troops and veterans petition the Pentagon for an equipment revision? Aluminum cartridges, aluminum mags, polymer ammo links, lighter boots, all gear uses li-ion batteries, shit like that.
Hikers watch ounces, why wouldn't the military?
It would do no good, honestly. Nobody listens to joe. Plus there is the stigmata of not wanting to seem like a puss so you suck it up and ruck on. The people that make those decisions don't usually know much about real life. Not to mention the manufacturing, testing, fielding and supply of anything new is outrageous.
Weight is not high on the list of important things when writing the specs.
Durability and function are more important.
All I want is kit that works as it should and is hard to break.
Cost is a consideration. A hiker may not balk at paying an extra ten dollars to save an ounce but when you have to buy one hundred thousand items saving ten dollars each is important.
ITT people who don't realize that PDWs as a concept began life as a service weapon to be issued to support troops who may need to maneuver their weapon in a vehicle, such as a truck driver/88Mistake.
>Confirmed for never having had to lug around infantry bullshit.
OP your thread is retarded and you should feel bad for asking such a dumb question.
Also if you make the kit lighter they will just add more shit to make up for the weight.
It's not a "here's a packing list of stuff, if you make it physically lighter that's cool."
It's "oh you made your packing list lighter? That means you have more room here's some more stuff!"
>It's "oh you made your packing list lighter? That means you have more room here's some more stuff!"
People talk about high tech polymor telescopic blabla ammo and are like ''that means they get to carry less''
Nope, it means that they will just carry more ammo instead. The weight will stay the same and nobody is going to care if you carry 100 pounds or more.
That is actually EXACTLY what the MP7 was intented as: A sidearm with more effectiveness than a 9mm pistol with military ball.
Where militaries and agencies are fucking up is trying to use it as a primary weapon.
Yes. That or they're 60+ year old stories from Vietnam.
Also any uniformed military that "rides their rifles hard and puts them away wet" deserves to lose. And the US military, not even the POGest of POGs, does that.
I bet you also carried either an M240 or an M249.
>yes I know the Marines for whatever faggot retarded reason has a separate distinct MOS for machine gunners, but I also know that only about 1/3 of people stuck with an MG are machine gunners by MOS
Rifles issued in training are as shitty as possible without being dangerous on purpose in order to convince soldiers they can't afford to scrimp on maintenance.
Most soldiers never carry a rifle to war or shoot as much as an infantryman, so they never learn how reliable the gun actually is.
Because the Air Force needs a couple thousand new fighters that will never fight and the Navy needs another dozen $4bn littorals to blow up sandniggers and their $500 rowboats.
Also because all flag officers need their own private Lear jet.
It's also select fire and the ammo weighs significantly less.
>inb4 you're already carrying 5.56 AR mags
7 to 10 of them. Add in a 5.56 AR-mag compatible sidearm and automagically policy will be to carry 11-15 of them. On top of the added weight you literally don't have enough room on your kit for 15 fucking AR mags.
I think POG's like myself are better served by handguns and PDW's or PCC's.
A staff NCO human resources guy would do just fine with an M9, but an Intel guy like me who likes to go outside the wire to do my job well would be better off with a PDW or PCC.
Guess! You're no fun at all!
35L? 35F? 35M?
Just trying think of who has a legit excuse for a pistol to be a better option. 42A came to mind.
There's people in combat arms, combat support, and service support that could use a pistol.
OP, I sort of get your idea, but I think issuing troops this AND an M16A4/M4 isa bit much. If non-frontline troops got one (Arty, Intel, Supply and Logistics) in place of their pistol as a PDW then it could gel. Kinda like the same way the M1 Carbine got issued to some dudes INSTEAD OF their Garand or 1911
Not him, but all three have the potential to leave the wire depending on the specific deployment (analyst in a CIST, HUMINT collector in a THT, CI Agent also in a THT or doing site exploitation).
That and to be a good analyst it really is advantageous to get a feel for where you're working.
But the military is really bad about thinking that intel weenies should be shut in a dark room and given SIPR/JWICS access and then just point at things to shoot and blow up.
But when your function is as a hammer everything is a nail etc.
Oh and I forgot Tiger Teams.
It's a 7-8 man team of one or two all source analysts, a GEOINT/IMINT analyst, a SIGINT analyst, two HUMINTers, and one or two CI Agents deployed as a team that can just "plug in" to a slot with a unit that needs direct intel support. The idea is that you can take a Tiger Team and send them on a 3-6 month TDY wherever they're needed, CONUS or OCONUS, and then rotate teams out as needed with a small footprint.
Unfortunately it's not a popular concept. My unit was originally organized this way, but it was too effective for the CoC so they decided to scrap it in favor of putting all the analysts in one company, HUMINTers in another, and CI Agents in another.
>comments are about how the mud isn't "normal mud" and that's why the ak failed
>muh european mud
>muh romanian ak
>muh modern ak
>muh 50 years of history
>"The 'myth' of the unreliability of the AR platform has cost many a solider their lives."
i'm gonna puke make the laughter stop please
>sounds wicked, are there any others that GEOINT/SIGNINT gets to go outside the office?
Well with SIGINT there are SIGINT collection systems, but IIRC that's a separate MOS or is part of one of the two SIGINT MOS that are being rolled together into SIGINT analyst.
With GEOINT/IMINT you're analyzing collections from very specialized GEOINT/MASINT platforms more often than not, so not really.
If you where to go with G you should look for going to FMV (Full Motion Video) or MASINT (Measurements and Signatures INT) courses.
FMV can lead to good money as a civilian and MASINT used to be an additional skill identifier. One of the 35Gs in my unit went to MASINT course and got the identifier, but that was almost 8 years ago so things could have changed since then.
SIGINT is good too.
Honestly I usually suggest 35F (All Source) only because there are a lot of different things you can end up doing as an All Source Analyst, and that can change depending on the unit or deployment. So there is a lot of variety in the products you will work on and the subjects you will cover. And you're expected to be a SME even as a junior enlisted.
When I was deployed to Iraq in the J2 I worked on a lot more short term products and concentrated on a specific AO (Baghdad city).
When I was at the G2 level I was working on regional products for MENA. So instead of just documenting SIGACTs and creating daily products (or products for SIGACTs that were pretty significant) I was writing papers, working on long term strategic and operational products etc. In both cases though I was trusted to actually know what I was talking about and some products I worked on were part of high level daily briefs and effected policy in Iraq and the MENA region.
My impression from being deployed with 35Gs and 35S/Ns is that they are subject to a shit load of micromanagement and are always doing pretty much the same thing.
I will admit that I do have some bias here though.