![GGlock26[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/riT04e2.jpg "GGlock26[1].jpg")
So it's pretty much commonly accepted that using a pistol in a rifle fight isn't very wise. Militaries don't take them seriously for infantry use. Sidearms are only sometimes carried for the unlikely off chance that someone's rifle suffers a catastrophic malfunction and cannot be put back into the fight. Because of that, I'm wondering why they issue full-sized pistols to soldiers. Subcompact pistols are only slightly less accurate and have a marginally shorter sight radius. They are lighter, smaller, and lethal. Why carry a full size (sometimes even larger with extended barrels and higher combat sights) pistol when you can opt for something more maneuverable and lighter?
>>30211368
I hope you aren't expecting a good reason. The army just does shit out of habit.
>>30211368
A glock 26 is probably just as good for a backup as a glock 19, I'll give you that. The beretta and all the other pistols they've issued until now don't have smaller versions that have been proven to be just as reliable.
Literally because the army already has Beretta's
The army doesn't give two shots about us.
>>30211368
Because pistols go in aircraft compartments, along with a carbine if there's room. If the aircraft crashes in unfriendly territory IE one of a pistols few serious battlefield uses, you're gonna want as many rounds as you can get, and as much out of each as you can get.
>>30211711
>The army doesn't give two shots about us.
But I thought the Pentagon got all of their advice from Filipino Flipbook fan forums
>>30211773
I don't get this joke.
>Why carry a full size (sometimes even larger with extended barrels and higher combat sights) pistol when you can opt for something more maneuverable and lighter?
Sure is /v/ in here. You wouldn't happen to believe a snub nose python is more accurate than a 6" would your
![StrawMan2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/V0Cfasv.jpg "StrawMan2[1].jpg")
>>30211975
>>30211975
Guy, it's a legitimate question. There is an argument there.
>>30211975
>You wouldn't happen to believe a snub nose python is more accurate than a 6" would your
No...and I never implied as much. In fact, if you spent a couple of seconds to read the original post for the thread that you are replying to, you would see that I said that subcompact pistols are less accurate than larger ones. Are you literally retarded?
>>30212141
Idk maybe because of extended barrel and more maneuverable bit.
Anyway,the logic behind the M1 carbine is a pretty good indicator of why going to anything smaller than a compact sucks. Why would you go to a weapon that's going to fit fewer people well and generally requires MORE training to use effectively when question why the Mil even bothers with pistols
>>30211975
>Comparing a 2" .357 with a 6" is the same as comparing a 4.5" 9mm with a 3.5"
Are you legitimately retarded?
>>30211682
There is a compact beretta as well as commander 1911s. The military is just not interested in either.
>>30211682
I like my 26 more than my 19. The 19 is fun to shoot but I prefer to shoot the 26.
>>30211368
a pistol is my primary small arm in the military since a fighter cockpit is far too cramped for a rifle. i have no reason to conceal it. therefore i have no reason not to carry a full-size. the weight penalty is negligible.
if a subcompact is almost as good as a full size in practical accuracy (sight radius absolutely is a factor and it's easier to practically shoot rapidly), magazine capacity is inferior in a subcompact, and i have no reason to conceal it, then there is no reason to carry a subcompact.
>>30211753
>>30212442
>pilots
Pretty sure op was asking about infantryman...
>>30212688
an extra rifle magazine or two is more useful than a subcompact pistol in terms of weight and space
>>30212762
Yeah, but the idea is redundancy with extra weapons. In the case your rifle explodes, an extra magazine is worthless.
>>30212688
Pretty sure infantry aren't issued handguns, period, unless they're an officer, senior NCO, or have some specific job that mandates it.
>>30213179
>In the case your rifle explodes, an extra magazine is worthless.
Maybe don't equip your soldiers with a rifle prone to exploding.
>>30213471
Obviously, nobody issues rifles that are prone to catastrophic malfunctions. They still happen.
>>30211958
Don't worry, fall will be here soon.
Not many people are issued pistols, and of those that are, they don't have any need to conceal it, making the smaller size and magazine capacity fairly worthless tradeoffs. I don't see how this is a difficult concept to grasp.
>>30214213
I'm realizing that I'm pretty much with OP on this one.
>there's no need to conceal it
Yeah, but there's no need for it to be openly visible either. That doesn't mean anything.
The magazine capacity on a Glock 17 is 17 rounds, which is fine. But the 26 can carry 12 with an extended baseplate. Not only does it carry plenty of rounds, it also provides as stable of a grip for the shooter. It's lighter and smaller, which is objectively better if there are no really important losses in function. I haven't seen anyone give good reason for large pistols.
>>30211368
I'll say this, they definitely shouldn't issue the "full size" handguns of old. The "compact" pistols from any of the major distributors are plenty comfortable for 99% of shooters. The M9 is fuckheug
>>30214341
Lighter and smaller means harder to aim and control especially under rapid fire >>30214213 is right
>>30211368
Is the army now worried about conceal carry?
There is literally no reason to go with a subcompact unless you are concealing it. Concealing army equipment is going to do nothing but make it easier to steal and possibly pose a greater security risk. In terms of combat there are only disadvantages.
This whole conversation is dumb.
![d7e19fa6-a1c0-43c9-9a45-3d1b972081f5_zps420bd602[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5Na6Q03.jpg "d7e19fa6-a1c0-43c9-9a45-3d1b972081f5_zps420bd602[1].jpg")
>>30214503
>Is the army now worried about conceal carry?
Nobody said this.
>There is literally no reason to go with a subcompact unless you are concealing it.
This is wrong. People carry subcompact pistols when weight saving is a priority. For example, when backpacking.
>Concealing army equipment is going to do nothing but make it easier to steal
Seriously? How much of a size difference do you think there is?
This whole post is dumb.
>>30214503
How did you get...any of that from the op?
>>30214555
Okay, so for someone who parachutes in with a weight limit and then hikes to destination, you're talking about keeping their load out under the weight limitations?
That's a specific application where your questions is a valid consideration. My counter argument to you is that they should just port the slide instead and carry a lighter grain ammo if the small difference is that big of a concern. A Glock 19 is a superior combat weapon to a Glock 26, period. Longer barrel, longer sight radius, easier to hold onto, more ammo and close enough to the same dimensions. If it was a problem, the better way to save weight would be to look at the construction of the slide.
You're whole stance is fubar.
>>30214636
and yes I are know about the typo.
>>30214555
The thread is dumb, what is the weight difference between a 19 and 26?
Is it really worth a lower capacity (+2 plates and other aftermarket add one won't be popular with the military and putting pressure on the mag increases risk of malfunction) and the decrease in sight radius?
>>30211368
They should just issue the Glock 19. Plenty of rounds, pretty light, and not needlessly large. I get what you're saying about big heavy pistols for no reason though. The Glock 19 isn't too big and is lighter than full metal frames pistols.
>>30214654
>Is it really worth a lower capacity
For me? Yeah, fuck yeah. I'd take just about the smallest lightest pistol that the army would issue. This is coming from a guy that carried an M9 when carrying a 240 and wearing an IOTV in Afghanistan though. Infantrymen carry way too much bullshit.
![5608567[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZEhey0p.jpg "5608567[1].jpg")
>>30214654
>Is it really worth a lower capacity?
>asking someone who's been over the hills and through the woods oversees
Yeah it is.
>>30211711
what is berretta model 84/85?
