Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
I don’t get why people are still paying attention to pistols in a military context.
They’re fine for MP and for security against civilians when troops march outside their barracks with guns but without ammunition (both are peacetime examples only). That’s it.
tsz52
Let’s hope that they don’t end up with an increase in NDs with the Glocks; especially the ol’ ‘NYPD Glock leg’.
I’ve had a good search, but to no avail; has anyone come across any docs about what other weapons were included in the competition, or any other info about the competition itself?
Observer
Airmen who ejected from their plane?
Tank crews after their tank has been disabled?
Snipers?
Naval boarding crews?
All Politicians are the Same
The Browning was quite an easy pistol to ND though normally whilst unloading. We were routineluy using Sig 226 over the last few years but maybe they were more expensive.
Sven
Pistols are seen as less threatening and when you are training or mentoring especially if you are inside the trainees base/HQ. They can also be carried routinely inside the wire, carried concealed and are far easier for when onboard a Ship and may want to have a personal weapon handy.
S O
“Airmen who ejected from their plane?”
Are almost all lost if they don’t succeed at hiding. Running away from civilians as a downed pilot is better than threatening them. To fight against an AK-armed patrol with a pistol would be insane. A folding shovel and a camo net would be better emergency equipment than a pistol. Also, suppressed varmint calibre takedown rifle.
“Tank crews after their tank has been disabled?”
Will not fight with a pistol against a squad armed with actual weapons of war.
“Snipers?”
Even bolt-action sniper rifles of smaller than .50cal are useful at short range. All you need to have are backup iron sights and voilà, firepower of a World War infantryman. 2nd sniper team member can use semi-auto DMR.
50cal snipers are meant to shoot from afar and can have a security fire team nearby that’s much more helpful than a pistol. Also, heavy sniper rifles don’t equip all members of a sniper team, but one. The others can have semi-auto DMRs.
“Naval boarding crews?”
The preferred weapon for these are submachineguns. There are several SMG or “PDW” types with single hand operation available.
Observer
SO, I always thought that your analysis were lacking in many things. Balance for one, objective analysis for another. This is just another of your knee jerk rants without serious thought.
Sir_Humphrey
“I don’t get why people are still paying attention to pistols in a military context.”
Pistols are very useful in a range of contexts. When I was on HERRICK I carried both a Sig and an SA80 when operating outside the wire (which ocurred regularly).
I found the pistol far more pratical to lug about, and in a 4z4 vehicle far easier to grasp and hold in an emergency if I’d needed to draw it – whereas the SA80 was very bulky and slower to put into position.
Pistols are very, very useful – and in the worst case, mean you won’t be taken alive.
I am not joking, nor being hyperbolic when I say that I saw my pistol as a means of ensuring that if things had gone very badly wrong, I wouldnt be taken alive. Most of my peers had the same view.
S O
Still missing your list of arguments or similar.
Like, show me a sniper team which cannot carry a semi auto DMR.
Show me a naval boarding action in which pistols were the primary weapons.
Show me an incident of a pilot getting rescued thanks to him using his pistol and doing something he couldn’t have done with a takedown survival rifle.
Show me a tank crew which abandoned its tank and then fought successfully with pistols (on a battlefield which took out their tank!).
Have fun researching this.
Phil
A pistol is a self defence weapon. It’s there to give you some confidence and to give you something of a chance in a tight spot. They’re also as pointed out excellent inside the wire weapons. Our sniper and GPMG gunners carried pistols because their weapons are no good at all close quarters. Try swinging a bolt action sniper rifle around to shoot folk at close range.
Grim901
As I recall SO, the reason that so many pistols were sent to Afghan was so that you always had a weapon on you inside the wire, so that when an Afghan went rogue everyone could still put up some kind of defence. Not useful against an AK armed patrol, but against one AK armed man at close range, its certainly better than nothing.
Monty
@tsz52,
I believe the competition included the SIGSauer P226, the Heckler & Koch P30, FNP-9 and Walther P99. Of these, the H&K P30 and Glock 17 would have been the best performing weapons, but the Glock would have been cheaper. I would have chosen the H&K P30 because it is better made and because I prefer its Combat Defence Action. The CDA ensures that the trigger pressure is the same for all shots fired. With most pistols the pressure required to fire the first shot is much greater than the second and subsequent shots, because the weapon is only semi-cocked for safety reasons. Since the second pressure is very light, you often get accidental discharges with a second round – H&K overcame this problem in a design that is very innovative. The Glock offers the same benefits, but it is a Hyundai to H&K’s Audi.
Pistols are a reality of Green-on-Blue incidents in Afghanistan. We need every soldier to carry a side-arm as a back-up in case a soldier is caught without his / her rifle, or in the event that the rifle experiences a stoppage. Side arms are already routinely carried by SF personnel for the same reasons.
There’s also a book review that several posters on this forum could usefully pay attention to.
tsz52
Cheers Monty for the info – I’ll do some good reading up on those. I’ve got a pretty good theoretical knowledge of the peculiarities of the Glock’s trigger, but haven’t come across CDA.
From what I read, the Glock has the reputation for being one of the least choosy pistols out there, in terms of what ammo you feed it? Might that have been part of the decision? (For some reason you have to use the cheap and nasty local ammo – the Glock’s got more chance of being able to fire it reliably than most?)
I know that the Glock’s fairly light DA-only trigger and no safeties (not counting the one on the trigger) gets discussed a lot, but I was reading something the other day about a US copper whose coat drawstring toggle worked into his holster and trigger guard as he was driving about, which ended up shooting him in the leg as he went to get out of the car (that’s the official story anyway). The tale troubled me a bit.
I don’t get why people are still paying attention to pistols in a military context.
They’re fine for MP and for security against civilians when troops march outside their barracks with guns but without ammunition (both are peacetime examples only). That’s it.
Let’s hope that they don’t end up with an increase in NDs with the Glocks; especially the ol’ ‘NYPD Glock leg’.
I’ve had a good search, but to no avail; has anyone come across any docs about what other weapons were included in the competition, or any other info about the competition itself?
Airmen who ejected from their plane?
Tank crews after their tank has been disabled?
Snipers?
Naval boarding crews?
The Browning was quite an easy pistol to ND though normally whilst unloading. We were routineluy using Sig 226 over the last few years but maybe they were more expensive.
Sven
Pistols are seen as less threatening and when you are training or mentoring especially if you are inside the trainees base/HQ. They can also be carried routinely inside the wire, carried concealed and are far easier for when onboard a Ship and may want to have a personal weapon handy.
“Airmen who ejected from their plane?”
Are almost all lost if they don’t succeed at hiding. Running away from civilians as a downed pilot is better than threatening them. To fight against an AK-armed patrol with a pistol would be insane. A folding shovel and a camo net would be better emergency equipment than a pistol. Also, suppressed varmint calibre takedown rifle.
“Tank crews after their tank has been disabled?”
Will not fight with a pistol against a squad armed with actual weapons of war.
“Snipers?”
Even bolt-action sniper rifles of smaller than .50cal are useful at short range. All you need to have are backup iron sights and voilà, firepower of a World War infantryman. 2nd sniper team member can use semi-auto DMR.
50cal snipers are meant to shoot from afar and can have a security fire team nearby that’s much more helpful than a pistol. Also, heavy sniper rifles don’t equip all members of a sniper team, but one. The others can have semi-auto DMRs.
“Naval boarding crews?”
The preferred weapon for these are submachineguns. There are several SMG or “PDW” types with single hand operation available.
SO, I always thought that your analysis were lacking in many things. Balance for one, objective analysis for another. This is just another of your knee jerk rants without serious thought.
“I don’t get why people are still paying attention to pistols in a military context.”
Pistols are very useful in a range of contexts. When I was on HERRICK I carried both a Sig and an SA80 when operating outside the wire (which ocurred regularly).
I found the pistol far more pratical to lug about, and in a 4z4 vehicle far easier to grasp and hold in an emergency if I’d needed to draw it – whereas the SA80 was very bulky and slower to put into position.
Pistols are very, very useful – and in the worst case, mean you won’t be taken alive.
I am not joking, nor being hyperbolic when I say that I saw my pistol as a means of ensuring that if things had gone very badly wrong, I wouldnt be taken alive. Most of my peers had the same view.
Still missing your list of arguments or similar.
Like, show me a sniper team which cannot carry a semi auto DMR.
Show me a naval boarding action in which pistols were the primary weapons.
Show me an incident of a pilot getting rescued thanks to him using his pistol and doing something he couldn’t have done with a takedown survival rifle.
Show me a tank crew which abandoned its tank and then fought successfully with pistols (on a battlefield which took out their tank!).
Have fun researching this.
A pistol is a self defence weapon. It’s there to give you some confidence and to give you something of a chance in a tight spot. They’re also as pointed out excellent inside the wire weapons. Our sniper and GPMG gunners carried pistols because their weapons are no good at all close quarters. Try swinging a bolt action sniper rifle around to shoot folk at close range.
As I recall SO, the reason that so many pistols were sent to Afghan was so that you always had a weapon on you inside the wire, so that when an Afghan went rogue everyone could still put up some kind of defence. Not useful against an AK armed patrol, but against one AK armed man at close range, its certainly better than nothing.
@tsz52,
I believe the competition included the SIGSauer P226, the Heckler & Koch P30, FNP-9 and Walther P99. Of these, the H&K P30 and Glock 17 would have been the best performing weapons, but the Glock would have been cheaper. I would have chosen the H&K P30 because it is better made and because I prefer its Combat Defence Action. The CDA ensures that the trigger pressure is the same for all shots fired. With most pistols the pressure required to fire the first shot is much greater than the second and subsequent shots, because the weapon is only semi-cocked for safety reasons. Since the second pressure is very light, you often get accidental discharges with a second round – H&K overcame this problem in a design that is very innovative. The Glock offers the same benefits, but it is a Hyundai to H&K’s Audi.
Pistols are a reality of Green-on-Blue incidents in Afghanistan. We need every soldier to carry a side-arm as a back-up in case a soldier is caught without his / her rifle, or in the event that the rifle experiences a stoppage. Side arms are already routinely carried by SF personnel for the same reasons.
The most interesting link from last week is missing, the Bagehot column in The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21569699-armys-prowess-owes-much-military-culture-hardware-treat-it-care-slimming
There’s also a book review that several posters on this forum could usefully pay attention to.
Cheers Monty for the info – I’ll do some good reading up on those. I’ve got a pretty good theoretical knowledge of the peculiarities of the Glock’s trigger, but haven’t come across CDA.
From what I read, the Glock has the reputation for being one of the least choosy pistols out there, in terms of what ammo you feed it? Might that have been part of the decision? (For some reason you have to use the cheap and nasty local ammo – the Glock’s got more chance of being able to fire it reliably than most?)
I know that the Glock’s fairly light DA-only trigger and no safeties (not counting the one on the trigger) gets discussed a lot, but I was reading something the other day about a US copper whose coat drawstring toggle worked into his holster and trigger guard as he was driving about, which ended up shooting him in the leg as he went to get out of the car (that’s the official story anyway). The tale troubled me a bit.