Honest question. Why are pistols only widely issued to officers

>>34903658
Officers take pistols from the arms room because they are small, light, and officers don't really fight. There's no practical reason.

File: military gf.jpg (48KB, 383x576px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 383x576px

>>34903658
>only widely issues to officers in the military
everyone gets a sidearm, wiseguy. at least in my unit but we were rangers so

They're weak weapons with low range that only people who can't use rifles are issued. Officers need them for summary executions.

>>34903658
>then how does that not apply to officers as well?
officers could be unarmed and exactly as effective in combat. that said they still need a gun.

>>34903682
>rangers

I mean, they're SF, so that doesn't count. Babby's first SF by comparison to other units, but still SF.

Also, post Ranger tab.

Pistols should be as fancy and detailed as officer's sword of old so they are more prestigious than enlisted fodder

>>34903658
Pretty much its locations that have mandatory carry at all times. So of course Officers being officers, don't want the big heavy rifle and instead take the pistols, leaving the rifles for the enlisted.

>>34903709
>post ranger tab

That's not how it works...

>>34903658
they're status symbols. they are what the sword was in the day of muskets and single shot rifles.

Centcom makes everyone carry a rifle these days when deployed in their area.

File: FLAME ON.webm (2MB, 400x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x224px

>>34903709
>Also, post Ranger tab.
implying if that was possible that i'd do that. opsec ;)

>>34903658
For anyone having a rifle more mags makes more sense. Officers doent really carry rifles in every day duty so a handgun is fine.

>>34903658
Issuing PV2 Snuffy an M4, nods, AND a pistol? Are you trying to get the whole company put on lockdown for a missing sensitive item? Because this is how the company gets put on lockdown!

File: P320-compact.jpg (772KB, 1200x754px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 1200x754px

>>34903733
>>34903716

So the US government is forking over 580 million for a weapon who's purpose the vast majority of the time is to be a status symbol for officers, and to get them out of carrying heavy shit a grunt would normally have to lug around in areas of mandatory carry?

>>34903682
>I was in a snowflake unit, let me respond to a question that doesn't apply to me

>>34903792
Yup.

>>34903792
yep.

now pilots, air crew, medics, MGunners, MPs, and other vehicle crew can benefit from having a pistol. though with the M4 being the common service rifle these days. Some of them can and should have that instead.

>>34903792
You make it seem as if government budgets make sense

>>34903658
>real answer
officers of all caliber are issued a sidearm to defend themselves against an immediate threat; think marine nco's and their fucking swords. modern officers' sidearm is a symbol of their authority. if you've seen it, think back to band of brothers. the german officer tries to give his sidearm to maj. winters as a sign of ultimate surrender of his command over his troops.
>bullshit answer
it's so they don't have to carry their m4 to the dfac for chow on the fob.

>>34903805
Most of those are better off with a PDW.

>>34903742
Funny way of saying you aren't a ranger.
Stolen valor

>>34903806
the goal is to make everything lighter so you can force soldiers to carry more

>>34903815
M4A1. maybe special 10 inch uppers for them.

just so we don't have to buy and issue SMGs outside to SOCOM land.

>>34903815
Why have them carry a completely different platform with special ammunition when you can hand them a carbine?
T. Pentagon

>>34903792
The Air Force spent over $1 billion over 6 years to modernize their logistic computer systems and then scrapped it without ever using it.

File: Kelsey-Grammer[1].png (109KB, 270x270px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 270x270px

>>34903840

>>34903686
>Officers need them for summary executions.

Name literally once instance where an officer in the US has had to do that with his sidearm after WWI.

>>34903905
>US

Who said anything about the US?

>>34903855
If there is one thing the modern military knows how to do very well it's waste money.

>>34903905
The military executed 160 soldiers and other members of the armed forces between 1942 and 1961 (these figures do not include German prisoners of war, war criminals, spies, and saboteurs executed by U.S. military authorities between 1942 and 1951). There have been no military executions since 1961 although the death penalty is still a possible punishment for several crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of these executions, 157 were carried out by the United States Army. The United States Air Force conducted the three remaining executions, one in 1950 and two in 1954. The U.S. Navy has not executed anyone since 1849. The United States Army had previously executed a total of 36 soldiers during the First World War, all taking place by hanging between 5 November 1917 and 20 June 1919. Eleven of these hangings were performed in France while the remaining 25 were carried out in continental United States.[7][8][9]

Of the total, 106 were executed for murder (including 21 involving rape), 53 for rape and one (Eddie Slovik) for desertion.[10]

>>34903953

None of those sound like summary execution with an officer's sidearm, famalamadingdong.

>>34903815
PDWs are pretty much useless nowadays. You're either going to be shooting some unarmored jihadi, in which case a PDW round is an active detriment, or you're going to be shooting at some dudes wearing brand new Russian or Chinese armor plates in which case a PDW round isn't going to do a goddamn thing. Might as well just rack a short-barreled rifle so it actually works on the unarmored guys.

Guy inside the armory room always had a pistol, and he was like an E4, far from officer. I was issued a pistol as a tank commander, and I was E6. Without thinking to hard about it, I am sure plenty of other roles got sidearms.

>>34903975

The point of PDWs with armor-memeing rounds like the P90 and MP7 was to be issued to SF guys as a counter to the proliferation of cheap soft body armor that can defeat most pistol and SMG rounds.

The problem is that proliferation never really happened in most active insurgent-riddled warzones nowadays. Hell not even police officers or SWAT run into armored baddies for the vast majority of cases.

>>34903724
What do you mean? It's literally just a velcro tab you buy at clothing and sales. If he actually had one, there'd be nothing stopping him from posting it, or his scroll.

>>34904015
That's just an armorer thing. They have a loaded pistol in case of a security failure.

>>34903709
> Babby's first SF

Ranger Regiment is second only to CAG and DEVGRU in most categories, and there are individual Rangers qualified for literally anything you need done in Regiment.
Also
> SF
Confirmed neverserved

Because privates are stupid and leave pistols and other small SI in latrines or the middle of the desert.

>>34903816
you know nothing jon snow

Why did the 1911 remain in service for as long as it did while the M9 is already getting replaced?

>>34904146
the m9s wore out and needed to be replaced.they have to buy more.
with the 1911s huge amount of production from ww2 they could pull barely used or never issued 1911s out of storage and send them out.

File: 1471096017669.jpg (69KB, 545x369px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 545x369px

>>34903792
Never underestimate what a military will do for "muh tradition".

>>34904146
because the 1911 is a damn good gun

>>34904146
On a related note, why does the army always choose a crappy gun to be their official sidearm? First the M9, and now the Sig p320.

>>34904362
The M9 is a good gun though, the magazines they used were just garbage

>>34903682
that woman looks a mess

File: m9.jpg (662KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 3000x2000px

>>34904362
>m9
>bad gun
shh

>>34903658
Giving an officer a pistol is for three reasons: a symbol indicating the position of command, a means to protect ones person should those under their command die or otherwise fail to protect them, and as a means to enforce the ability to command should someone fail to comply with an order.

>>34904526

And he can't do the latter two of those things with an M4A1 for what reason?

Anyone know when during the aviation pipeline I'll get handgun qual'd?

For Navy btw

>>34904424
I would still do terrible things to her

>>34904362
Post your glock

>>34904585
He can, it's just usually the officer is also communicating with hq or to the members around him with the radio or doing some other task as a primary function. His role isn't combat primarily, it's ensuring that his squad/team/unit complete the task. He can't coordinate if he's engaged, so giving an M4 adds extra weight and removes the ability to use a radio at the same time.

Front line troops who do go into combat give officers long guns, because the environment requires more firepower, but again, the officer's job is to make sure the team does it's job, not to do the job for them.

>>34903658
Because officers are a priority target and need a weapon on them for personal protection. A full sized rifle is unnecessary and cumbersome particularly while in an office setting. Pogs, pilots, vehicle crews and MPs all carry sidearms for similar reasons. In fact until we fight an enemy who regularly wears body armor, most people in the military are better off carrying a pistol day to day.

>>34904585
Officers prefer handguns for the same reason people on this board prefer them.

>>34904623
During officer school.

>>34904648
g20 beats anything else on the market.

>>34904781
. . .except for firing full house, hotter than FBI 10mm.
I want to like the 20, I really do.

File: 2010-07-06-Strip_49_Myths_and_Legends_1_web.jpg (140KB, 700x355px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 700x355px

>>34903682

well shit, since we're asking, why don't we issue SAWs to security guards?

>>34903658
Antiquated belief that pistols are "swords" for officers only while rank and file use spears and axes in the form of rifles.

Personally, a single stack compact pistol for enlisted...basically a Makarov type pistol then that might work.

Find it fucking hilarious when Officers would take just an m9 for JRTC/NTC. They might as well just not have anything at all

>>34907250
Rah

>>34903658
Most officers are not combative, and if they were they are as hell not very good at command.

>>34903832
Can't put it in a holster. MP5Ks, MP7s, and regular handguns can be holstered and carried around a hell of a lot easier than even a 10.3" or 10.5" M4.

>>34904146
There's also the matter of a lack of advance in sidearms during the period between adoption of the 1911 and Beretta. With the exception of the hi power(lol 9mm) there wasn't anything significantly better until the 70s-80s. The army has a huge boner for modular shit so the p320 was seen as a large improvement by them. We'll see if it turns out to be...

>>34903682
>>34904424
She looks like she's done enough meth to permanently forget English.

Is anyone in the military ever allowed to use their personally owned handgun rather than an issued one?

>>34908719
There was a thing a few years ago where guys in the Army were allowed to carry personal handguns with their commander's approval. A lot of special forces carry personal sidearms (really weird ones, like SEALs carrying .44 Magnum Ruger Blackhawks).

>>34903805
>>34903815
So pilots have a handgun?
Could you not have a compartment in the flight seat or a strap on it to hold a carbine? So I'm event of ejection they would have something a bit better than a handgun?

Though I'm assuming this has been thought of and there's a reason why it isn't the case?

>>34908746
I also met a guy getting discharged from Fort Benning in 2011 who told me tankers in his unit were allowed to carry P250s if they purchased them on their own.

File: 1371519489012.jpg (80KB, 600x322px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 600x322px

>>34908746
>SEALs carrying .44 Magnum Ruger Blackhawks

>>34908748
They tried that back in the 60s. It's just too much to cram into a cockpit full of instruments and stuff. If you survive ejection in a warzone, your main worry is actually shooting small game for food, not engaging in firefights.

>>34908757
I honestly think Ocelot should have had .44 Blackhawk instead of SAAs in MGS3. .44 Russian ammo was probably a lot more common than .45LC in the Soviet Union.

File: car15005.jpg (13KB, 717x220px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 717x220px

>>34908762
pic related.

>>34908770
The SAA is the greatest hand gun ever made.
Ocelot doesn't need to settle for less, he would have literally no problem acquiring .45

>>34908770
Maybe, but using a Colt SAA kind of ties into the fact that his mother was American and he's secretly working for the CIA.

>>34908748
weight might be an issue as well, even though a carbine doesn't weigh much when your talking about a fighter jet every little bit counts.

>>34908797
He did a pretty shitty job on that OP

>>34908770
You mean a Mosin revolver? 762x38 with a more sealed chamber, in a russian round, with a 7 rd mag... I mean sure speed loaders, but

>>34908824
er... cylinder*

>>34903658
>Why are pistols only widely issued to officers in the military?
Executions.

>>34903658
>Why are pistols only widely issued to officers in the military? Why not issue them more to enlisted men as backup weapons?
you never engage at a range where pistols, let alone backups, matter

real life is not Call of Duty

>officers
they dont get "issued" anything different than anyone else.

>>34908797
>expecting Kojima to make sense
THIS WAS YOUR FIRST MISTAKE

>>34908824
>Mosin revolver
the worst trigger and loading system ever devised

>>34903682
You weren't a ranger, nor were you in the military, if you were you would understand why a SOF unit gets pistols.

>>34908841
what you don't think higher muzzle velocity and the ability to be suppressed are worthwhile?
Sure it's a little finicky, it's got character lul

>>34908824
>You mean a Mosin revolver? 762x38 with a more sealed chamber, in a russian round, with a 7 rd mag... I mean sure speed loaders, but

First off, the Mosin Nagant was designed primarily by two different people separate from eachother, after which both designs were merged. It was a Russian military guy named Mosin and a Belgian civilian designer named Nagant.

But Mosin has nothing to do with Nagant revolvers.

Also, it is IMPOSSIBLE to use a speed loader on a Nagant revolver because it has no swing out cylinder. The swing out cylinder is impossible due to the gas seal system used in the revolver. You use a ram rod to eject spent casings one by one. It's very fucking slow.

>>34903905
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Speirs#World_War_II

Does the 2nd paragraph count?

>>34903673
This is true, were being taught not to engage directly in firefights cause we have squad leaders to delegate that job to, it's only if absolutely necessary and last resort

>>34903658
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlRWaWC5xl0

The military choosing a pistol or who gets a pistol isn't a problem; the problem is that regulations don't allow individuals to bring their own personal pistol along if they really want to.

>>34908776
That thing looks great. Cheers for the info

The only time I've ever seen a pistol carried in a field environment was our ammo tech carrying one instead of a rifle. Even our BC carried an M4 around instead of a pistol.

Really a pistols only use is in Garrison, by armorers when they're at the armory, and the OOD/AOOD on duty.

>>34904638
Make her bath?

File: IMG_20161225_235207988.jpg (2MB, 2432x4320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2432x4320px

>>34908850
In any practical sense, no. However, still my favorite pistol I've ever shot.

Literally the oldest thing I own.
Has functioned perfectly without error.
Trigger is comically heavy.
Bullets are uncut dicks.
Can be silenced.
Already a subsonic round.
Aesthetic as fuck.
Cheap as shit.
Piece of history.

It's certainly not the best anything. However, things don't have to be the best for us to enjoy them.

>>34909060
You have a shit taste in games, and a shit taste in revolvers.

>>34909125
What's bothering you Anon? You seem more upset than usual.

>>34908991
I'd like to bring my mk23 or a usp

>>34903682
Pioneer square portland.

File: 1489108617100.jpg (337KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1920x1080px

>>34909362
>I'd like to bring my mk23

The Mk23 was only popular with divers at SOCOM, because they were not bothered by the weight.
For troops most frequently on land, they were considered too heavy and cumbersome to be worth the hassle. On land, you'd be way better off with a lighter and smaller pistol, since it'll never be your primary firearm.

>>34909386
What about for pilots?

File: 1463942612313.jpg (782KB, 1350x984px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 1350x984px

>>34909393
>What about for pilots?

Have not heard of any SOCOM related pilot using it, but yes, it's possible since they would not be bothered by the weight and might be helped by its suppressor during escape & evade scenarios.
Probably helps for pilots that it looks beefy and cool, because the rule of cool plays a lot more for pilots. ;)

That said, I'd expect pilots flying for SOCOM to have carbines or at least SMGs. But that doesn't mean some other pilots might not have carried the Mk23.

>>34904362
>m9
>bad gun
>m9
>bad gun
>m9
>bad gun
>m9
>bad gun
>m9
>bad gun
>m9
>bad gun

m8. no. what people see in the military are terrible examples of firearms because they're beat to shit for most people who have to use them. find a new M9. It's a damn good firearm. Maybe not cz75 good, but still damn good.

>>34904065
Why not just use ap ammo?
Literally that's it.
Nice steel hardened steel core anmo will punch through body armor.

>>34907459
Fuck that. Go big or go home. If gate guards don't look like Brotherhood of Steel knights carrying M240s, they aren't properly prepared.

>>34908746
>be ahmed
>make clocks for hakim and his friends for a living
>make some especially big clocks for Ramadan one year
>start seeing American planes more than usual
>one day, hear loud bang in the living room
>then more banging
>silence
>giggling and someone saying something about a castle
>my door breaks down
>last thing I hear before getting tackled by some faggot wearing Oakley gloves is a bang and some ringing
>look over
>see hakim's friend, kumar
>his head is mostly gone
>see some dude playing with a cerakoted revolver the size of my arm
>mfw the cowboy stereotype is real

>>34908762
shit, there are full length ARs now that weigh 5lb loaded. you can't tell me we couldn't outfit some pilots with skeletonized titanium receivers or some shit.

>>34903658
status weapon, and why should I bother carrying a rifle, there are enlisted to do that for me

>>34903658
Important to note that it's only the US Military that ignores pistols so much.

Most other militaries give every single soldier a service-pistol.

>>34909662
No they don't retard.

>>34909437
>maybe not cz75 good

kek where do these cz75 is handcrafted by angels meme come from, they are not that good of guns... the beretta platform is generally better and the exceptions with the cz line are all from heavily customized versions eg czcustom shadows

>>34907077
>never shot a Glock 20

it works fine with underwood loads including the hardcast lead 220 gr anon, stop with the memes

Shot a CZ-75 yesterday .... Never again!
Glocks, Beretas and even the Makarov (Bulgarian one) was more enjoyable to shoot. Why is this thing even considered a wonder nine?

>>34909967
Lol, yes they do.

I just wish the Army hadn't picked the P320. They should have picked something with a little more substance and history...not a Gleck though.

>>34909386
>>34909406
The Mk23 actually weighs less than a 1911 when it's unloaded. It may be ungainly for some people, but it's not all that heavy. Pilots in general carry P228s or M9s. Some Air Force pilots in Desert Storm took their Glock 19s flying with them but got in trouble for it, and there was some regular Blackhawk pilot I read about who somehow traded in his M9 in for an M249 and a standalone M203.

>>34909662
>>34909967
>>34910295
You have that backwards. Most other countries don't issue handguns to normies. The US issues handguns to a lot of enlisted infantry. Handguns were used a lot to clear houses in Iraq.

>>34910364
>Some guys carry an M9 just in case the choppa goes down
>Some guys take a P228, maybe to be a little different from the average grunt
>some guys even smuggle in their own handguns, hell who knows if someone had a Desert Eagle once?
>but me?
>I put a 249 and a grenade launcher under the seat

>>34903709
>rangers
>they're SF
Wrong.
They're SOF.
There is a difference.

This will seem an odd question, but do officers always carry a pistol?

I heard that on deployment at sea, naval officers have to carry a pistol on deck even without any particular need.

Or is it only when issued from armoury?

>>34908879
Wow so pubg actually had it right with the reload on the revolver

>>34903816
Stfu um a navy seal

File: 454 blackhawk.jpg (57KB, 590x291px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 590x291px

>>34908757
Why not .454 Casull Ruger Bisley Super Blackhawks?

>>34903658
Because a couple extra mags are cheaper than a handgun

>>34909393
https://youtu.be/XAPQjL3638M?t=169

>>34903658
because a soldier armed with a pistol is entirely ineffective as a soldier. pistols are not combat weapons.

>>34911206
lolol

>>34910406
https://youtu.be/vYohLg1Uzds
The pilot at 0:50 is shooting an m32 grenade launcher since went are they allowed to carry that Kek?

>>34904722
I did NROTC. I never got any weapons training. In primary right now.