![601px-GGlock26[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FtK1RLG.jpg "601px-GGlock26[1].jpg")
Why don't armies issue very small pistols as secondary weapons? Isn't the whole idea behind them to "fight your way to a rifle"?
If they serve as a tool to only be used in the most dire of consequences and only at very close ranges, why would the marginal difference in ballistics and accuracy matter?
Before you say it, yes I know most soldiers don't carry sidearms.
"yes I know most soldiers don't carry sidearms."
In what country ? Every Belgian soldier gets issued the FN 5-7.
>>29273318
The US, UK, Germany, Canada, and others I've personally seen in the middle east.
>>29273318
Here in the US only a few MOS get issued pistols, and officers do. Oh, and SOF obviously get sidearms.
With our budget you'd think we'd get sidearns, but we don't :/
>>29273318
Dude, soldiers really do not carry pistols.
>>29273266
I really don't know.
>>29273266
For the most part sidearms are issued to people who dont carry or use a rifle just to cover the tick in the box of "be armed so the other servicea dont laugh at us."
This means there isnt a lot of pressure to change the standard service pistol designed in the 70s and issues in the 80s since literally NO ONE has lost a battle or fight due to the pistol they were carrying.
In short, The people who care dont know and the people who know dont care.
Can you carry a personal sidearm while deployed?
>>29273266
It's all about the money man. Too exspensive to give every soldier a rifle and a pistol as well. Also let's face it...it's hard enough to teach most dumbasses how to be safe with a rifle
>>29273421
It was more a question of why armies don't give small pistols to the people they give large pistols to.
>>29273506
Small pistols are for civilians who want to concealed carry. Soldiers are better off with a "full-size" handgun that they can use while wearing gloves.
>>29273552
>better off
Why? If they're just as accurate as well as smaller and lighter (not op by the way).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ddP7IHHnM4A
>>29273552
Id have to agree there. If they only have pistol why worry about if it's compact or not? If anything it needs to be big and soldier proof
![question_everything_by_j_bob-d68uade[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HwJqiCE.jpg "question_everything_by_j_bob-d68uade[1].jpg")
>>29273615
>why worry
It's not about worrying. It's about reducing weight...at least slightly...and reducing the amount of shit it could get caught on. If the pistol is there just because you maybe, MAYBE might need it, then why not make it better to carry?
>>29273604
Because the LT's M9 gets used as a hammer more than a weapon.
And because we already have millions of the things with corresponding spare parts, magazines, and holsters and ZERO reason to upgrade because pistols dont matter.
>>29273659
>they're already in circulation
That's really not a reason for not deciding on a subcompact pistol for issue.
>>29273655
I see your point and I agree it's a reasonable argument to make but at the same time, at least the US military doesn't do ANYTHING before considering logistics. There aren't any standard issue holsters for compact-subcompact pistols. My point is that most militaries are content giving thier soldiers a pistol for which magazines and parts are easily sourced and replaced and for which holsters already exist. Rather than hassle with new magazines, parts, as well as training your armorers to repair the damn things
You have a good idea anon I'll admit but it just would never really happen
Pistols are more compact than they used to be.
The capacity, sight radius, full grip, and barrel length are worth the six extra ounces. It's concealability that makes the trade off worthwhile for subcompact pistols, but concealing while in a military uniform would generally be silly.
>>29273347
For the weight of a pistol you could probably carry another two mags of 5.56, so the logic goes.
>>29273791
Eh, I'd take a subcompact. Hickok45 can shoot it like a full size easily.
See:>>29273604
>>29273412
no.
the SOF dudes get a lot more leeway, but even then they go through the unit armorer from what i understand.
>>29273840
cool.
i'm not Hickock45.
also i don't have to worry about concealability
>>29273266
Unless you are SF or in some other specialized role a pistol is a pretty useless weapon against someone who has something bigger (AK).
When we were rolling around DurkaDurkaStan we were issued pistols but most of us just ditched them at the FOB. Just extra kit to lug around.
Think about it this way, if we are doing a Platoon or Coy level attack will a pistol ever really help me? Not really.
Again, if I was SF and doing room clearing as my job I would have one but as a regular knuckle dragger, I only carried my pistol when I was hanging around the FOB and didn't want to carry around my rifle.
>>29273876
Cool, you wouldn't have to worry about concealability and, based on the video, you wouldn't have to worry about any meaningful difference in accuracy either.
>>29273894
or tankers or pilots. and no, i can't fit a rifle in the cockpit.
>>29273920
except i can't shoot my Shield nearly as well as my G17 or my P320 full size or my 1911s or...
point is, since concealability or weight aren't huge concerns, there's no reason not to have a full size pistol
>>29273876
>i'm not Hickock45
Yeah, his point is the gun can be shot just as well, so it's really just the shooter, not the small pistol.
>>29273949
>since concealability or weight aren't huge concerns, there's no reason not to have a full size pistol
Since match grade accuracy and length of grip aren't concerns, I'd say there's just about no reason to opt for a large pistol.
>>29273994
other than the fact that a G17 or P320 holds 10 more rounds per magazine than my Shield? or that even a M9 is double the capacity of the Shield?
>>29273994
Yeah, yeah. Why should you chose a full size?
nofun yurocuck checking in and i have some question altho not totally related to topic
i'm assuming here the us military have ap rounds for 5.56
how/when are these issued ?
were they issued during the whole " i shoot sandniggers " thing ?
what is the plan if there is an armed conflict with forces wearing level 4 body armor ?
pls no bully
>>29274018
>>29274018
Oops, yes I meant to respond to>>29273949
>>29274069
since when has having more ammo ever been a bad thing?
>>29274015
>15 rounds out of a G19 will save your life
>10 rounds out of a G26 will not
>>29274112
Since when has carrying smaller and lighter shit been a bad thing?
>>29274126
out of a gun that's easier to shoot well?
yeah probably.
>>29274141
when it doesn't work as well because full size pistols are easier for people who aren't as good with pistols as Hickock45 to shoot well.
I forget where I read this, but basically
>Combat Medic is given a pistol for reasons after asking for one
>SSgt says "Doc, if you have to use that thing we're dead already"
>>29274149
Yeah, dude we went over this. There's no goddamn difference.
>>29274149
>out of a gun that's easier to shoot well?
Yeah, that's irrelevant when we're talking about real engagement ranges for military sidearms.
>>29274162
What I just said.
>>29274184
The fuck..are you me?
>>29273266
Pistols are fairly limited role sidearms, for house to house they're indispensable especially for someone who's carrying something lumpy like a SAW or one of the longer rifles. For the most part our MP5's and M4's where enough to get the close in jobs done and they're reliable enough you're not going to worry inordinately about them getting a stoppage. Realistically though, they just aren't really a primary means of offence in a conflict zone, at best they're for last ditch personal defence if someone's shooting at you with rifles and even then your chances are pretty bad if the other guy even has half an idea of what they're doing.
The other thing to consider is that you're not really an 'individual' either, you're part of a team and that team looks after you, as much as you look after them. At the smallest, you'll have a battle buddy that'll look after you and never going alone is your best chance of survival.
>>29274185
>>29274184
>>29274201
except for the part where i've never shot a subcompact as well as a full size in my life.
>>29274222
Hmmm...how does any of this apply to the larger sidearms defense?
>>29274112
This.
26. There is no such thing as too much ammo, only too much to carry.
>>29273318
>In what country ? Every Belgian soldier gets issued the FN 5-7.
Coming from the country with no tanks.
>>29274279
15 rounds or 10, what the fuck does it matter at that point? You are in a world of shit and chances are you will not burn through 15 rounds while engaging an enemy at the average distance of 7 meters.
>>29274279
Did you say you'd go for the 26, but want more ammo too?
>>29274307
so why not carry a larger, slightly heavier (4-6 oz) pistol that's easier to shoot well and holds more ammo?
there's literally no reason to have a subcompact in "issue" military use since the major advantage of the subcompact (smaller and easier to conceal) isn't something you care about. a full size pistol is superior or equivalent... so why not use one?
>>29274243
It means you're pretty much fucked if you're dragging out a pistol mate. Big, small, shiny or black- you're probably in some really deep shit.
How much clearer does it need to be?
>>29274359
>so why not carry a larger, slightly heavier (4-6 oz) pistol that's easier to shoot well and holds more ammo?
Because you won't even use it. And even in the extremely unlikely off chance that you maybe use it, the marginal difference in capacity and accuracy won't make a difference.
So, what have we gained? A pistol that takes less materials to manufacture, is lighter, is less bulky on a soldiers equipment, and zero change in performance. That's why. If you can come up with a defense for currently issued full size pistols other than "hehe why not" I'll pay attention.
>>29274377
>ou're pretty much fucked if you're dragging out a pistol mate. Big, small, shiny or black
You're right, so why not issue a small one that isn't shiny if, for no other reason than to increase versatility?
>>29274469
because in my experience, the difference in capacity between subcompacts and full size pistols isn't marginal.
sure, if you spend your day shooting pistols all day, you can make anything work. but for most of us who are issued pistols, we spend our day doing paperwork, or flying a jet, or driving a tank, or whatever. not being OPERATOR. a pistol that's slightly easier to use is worth it since we're not all experts.
>>29274552
>because in my experience, the difference in capacity between subcompacts and full size pistols isn't marginal
Eh, fair enough. In my experience it is.
So explain this pic if us soldiers dont get a side arm.
Unless females are just special snowflake soldiers.
>>29273375
This. Canada is still using the Browning Hi-Power.
>yfw the entire Canadian military counts as fedora-tier
Nah, I kid. It's a fucking solid pistol afterall.
>>29274761
Not an expert on US insignia, but the patch looks like she's a nurse
>>29274761
somebody pointed out that's the medical service's patch. so she's likely a doctor or nurse going through the "how to Army" officer course.
Why don't they issue desert eagles?
![gold-plated-desert-eagle[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JnwrYnL.jpg "gold-plated-desert-eagle[1].jpg")
>>29274845
You mean Deagles? They're way too awesome for just regular soldiers to have.
