Sidearms in military
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
So I've heard that frontline troops usually don't carry a sidearm. Are they still issued a sidearm, or not? And under what circumstances would they be carried, if not in frontline?
My country's soldiers still use sidearms, they also switch to it every time their enter enclosed spaces
>>30330762
What country's that?
>>30330762
Training to switch to a pistol doesn't seem all that common, if done by any military for regular riflemen.
>>30330767
his house he's trying do declare sovereign land
>>30330753
Sidearms are for officers on FOBs to carry. They get the prestige of having the pistol plus it's not nearly as uncomfortable as carrying around a rifle or carbine. Corpsmen will also sometimes be issued a handgun but the ones I talked to always preferred having a rifle or carbine.
Think about the weight of the current standard issue sidearm for the U.S. or most countries for that matter. For the weight of the handgun and a spare mag or two it makes a alot more sense to have more 5.56 mags loaded up if you're already carrying a rifle.
Now as polymer wonders become more and more prevalent MAYBE we'll see a decision to give troops in combat arms a side arm by around 2025.
Right now there's just no need.
When I wus in the SEALS, I carried a tiger striped DEAGLE along with my Barret 50mm.
>>30330753
Sidearms are for officers on FOBs to carry. They get the prestige of having the pistol plus it's not nearly as uncomfortable as carrying around a rifle or carbine. Corpsmen will also sometimes be issued a handgun but the ones I talked to always preferred having a rifle or carbine.
Think about the weight of the current standard issue sidearm for the U.S. or most countries for that matter. For the weight of the handgun and a spare mag or two it makes a alot more sense to have more 5.56 mags loaded up if you're already carrying a rifle.
Now as polymer wonders become more and more prevalent MAYBE we'll see a decision to give troops in combat arms a side arm by around 2025.
Right now there's just no need.
I can assume that you can use it if you have a sniper rifle that makes you uncomfortable in close combat
But like most of the people said
Its heavy and it would just bring you down
Extra mags would be better desu
>>30330753
The only people who carry sidearms and aren't sof are officers and lmg guys
>>30330762
No they don't.
>>30330945
Clearly he meant to use they you retard
>>30330753
The Netherlands just started issuing sidearms to all front line troops within their army.
In doctrine they are used when your primary goes down and you still have targets within 25ft.
>>30333904
>25ft
Should be 25m / 82ft
Sidearms are for officers when they need to enforce their rule over enlisted personnel.
Sidearms weren't meant for the enemy (they could be used against the enemy in times of desperation), they were meant for an enlisted male who got out of line and who could possibly lead a mutiny.
>>30330823
>Think about the weight of the current standard issue sidearm for the U.S. or most countries for that matter. For the weight of the handgun and a spare mag or two it makes a alot more sense to have more 5.56 mags loaded up if you're already carrying a rifle.
True; but if your rifle gets fucked so do you.
I like the Beretta M9; but you're right its heavy enough that most infantry don't want the weight.
I've been thinking that something really light and dinky like the Ruger LCP custom might make a good infantry sidearm simply because its small enough that you might feel like carrying it.
