What would be a perfect military sidearm. Even include "impossible" things

Something which is as compact and light as a pistol but as easy to fire accurately as a rifle!

Pistols are simply too difficult to hit anything with in combat, except in the hands of highly-trained experts.

Most military handguns seem to be used as personal defence weapons by troops with other things to do, so they have to be easy for people to use. This implies some kind of additional support - either a folding stock or at least a two-handed design.

In WW2 the US Army fielded the M1 Carbine to meet this need; certainly more useful than a pistol but maybe a bit big.

ISTR an interesting device some decades ago, called the Scamp or something. It was effectively a 'bullpup pistol' with the action and magazine lying across the user's forearm, where it was braced by the other hand.

Of course there is the FN P90, but that may be a bit bulky for the purpose.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Think of the H&K P7M8. Now think of it chambered for 10mmAUTO with a 5 inch Barrel. Launching 8 rounds of 180 grainers at 1200fps+. All steal construction, night sights, 1911 style magazine release. Use a P220 if you want a more conventional platform.

If a troop complains about recoil send him/her off to the FBI academy.

Kristofer

[ 07-23-2003, 11:03: Message edited by: KBGuns ]

The hand phaser issued by the United Federation of Planets seems to fill this requirement rather well....

The perfect military sidearm was and still is the .45 auto.

In today's type of warfare, a pistol is a poor choice of individual weapon for all but the highest ranking officers(those with personal security details).

Historically, pistols have been issued to personnel not really expected to find themselves actually involved in firefights. That philosophy is related to linear warfare, with somewhat secure rear areas. Modern warfare is non-linear, and there is no such thing as a secure rear area.

I believe all personnel, except maybe General grade officers, currently issued pistols, should be issued an M4 carbine.

I have personally been involved in combat in Iraq recently, with Task Force Tarawa during the invasion of Iraq. I felt woefully inadequately armed with my M9 pistol

Given my choice, I would have preferred to have an M4 or M16.

If I had to carry only a pistol into combat again, and could choose my own, I would carry a Glock 20, 10mm. Loaded with 180gr bullets at 1250-1300 fps, and 15 round magazines. But again, an M4 carbine would be my preference.

MM
Active duty USMC artilleryman since May 1979.

I don't disagree that some sort of carbine would give the best results, but if minimum size and weight was the determinant, I'd be inclined to look seriously at the Steyr Tactical Machine Pistol. This is essentially a 9mm pistol, with selective fire and a fixed or folding foregrip, thereby giving the minimum of extra support required. It only weighs just under 3 lbs, but should pose more of a threat than a conventional pistol, because of the added controllability of the foregrip and the auto option.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

MontanaMarine: Gotta hand it to ya, TF Tarawa did some really good things, here. Not to contradict or debate, but the Special Ops guys are doing some great things with pistols as primary weapons. It just goes to show that there is more than one kind of "modern warfare."

If I were sent into a built-up area or woods, at night, with the modern night vision, I'd carry a 10mm pistol, with IR laser sight. Night vision acquisition and targeting with a rifle, except at relatively long ranges, sucks. In built-up areas, I like a powerful pistol, like a .357 mag, 10mm or similar.

The army's problem with pistols runs deeper than the POS M9; it has everything to do with doing ABSOLUTELY NO pistol marksmanship training. I have successfully engaged man-sized targets with nearly every design pistol made at ranges exceeding 100 m. and would feel comfortable, especially at night, with NODs going pistol on rifle in most any range under that.

My piece.

I would want:
1. Light and compact
2. Very high capacity yet small grip
3. Reversible for left-handers. (Like me!)
4. Made of something stronger, yet lighter than titanium (say 1/1000" can take 200,000,000 psi.)
5. Cartridge that is very small, yet can peirce light armor but have a 100% kill rate
6. Full-auto and burst capabilities
7. extremely light recoil. (think .22 CB Cap in a 12 lb. pistol)
8. X-TREMELY reliable and self cleaning

i was never in combat or a combat area, but in training exersizes as a navy corpman a pistol would be prefered to a carbine. the HK usp tactical 45 and adequate training with it would be my choice. if i am going to carry a large bulky pistol, like the beretta 9 mm, i want the psychological advantage a 45 gives.

With any weapon, the performance in combat is on average well below that achieved in practice, because of the extra stress and other factors involved. This is magnified in the case of pistols because any nervous tremor will send the bullet flying wide. ISTR reading once that soldiers in combat have rarely been shot with pistols at ranges greater than about ten feet.

The recent posts have all been about the use of sidearms by well-trained infantry or special forces, which is fine. However, in practice, most sidearms are carried by people who have different jobs and who don't use guns unless they have to in self-defence. They will not be well-trained or practiced in their use, so their guns must be easy to shoot accurately with - which pistols are not.

Pistols in inexperienced hands are probably more trouble than they're worth. A British General of WW2 was once quoted as saying something to the effect that he only knew of 33 occasions when people had been shot with pistols, and 32 of them were friendlies shot by accident.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

120mm,

Had some interface with SpecOps in Nasiriyah and Kut. The guys I met and worked with all carried M9 pistols, and M4 carbines with all the bells and whistles. Even better, they had AC130 over their shoulder. Great bunch of professionals.

MM

Montana
With the possible exception of the Corps, the military needs to expend more time and money to train the troops to use the weapons they currently have.
If the troops don't know about cleaning the weapon, can only hit the floor with the weapon one out of four tries, then it matters little what equipment they carry.
I'm a dinosaur, the M-14 and the 1911a1 did a fine job of putting the bad guys down and they stayed down, with one shot. Maybe it's my sense of enviromental awareness and neatness that having to shoot the bad guy so many times he whistles in the wind and there's all that brass laying on the ground. Messy, messy.
Jim

M1911A1

MM-You shame me. I'm an army recon guy, assigned to V Corps REAR!?!? for some reason beyond my comprehension. I share a cell with a UDT and Army UXO guy and frustration would be a weak word for what we feel.

Tony-I agree with the carbine thing. For some strange reason, the carbine is perceived as an "elite" weapon by the Army, so it only goes to "special" people. In fact, the rear echelon types are dangerous with long rifles, also, as they become cumbersome and I think they are more dangerous than a shorter barrelled carbine (how's THAT for flying in the face of convention) You have to see a REMF struggle to enter/leave a building/tent/vehicle with their M16A2 to understand how truly dangerous to themselves and others they are.

However, I disagree on the pistol as a viable weapon issue. I think accuracy CAN be trained, and that the pistol can be an effective offensive weapon, especially with night vision. When hearing quotes from high ranking officers, I assume they know jack shit about weapons. High ranking officers generally get that way by kissing ass and having a good golf game. They are spectacularly unqualified to evaluate and comment on weapons.

120mm and Tony Williams.I agree with you both. What has surprised me a great deal is the frequency I see on the news US troops either on trucks in convoys or in a potential riot situation with pistols drawn and standing alongside riflemen. Is there a shortage of rifles in the US military?

In my own military career which spanned from enlisted infantryman to staff officer (SO2) I would not have dreamed of not having a "long" in my hands if there were a chance of the shooting starting.

Agreed also that the effectiveness of pistols increase with practice but in my experience with Browning HP, and Sigs, you need to practice hard and often to see any improvement, making this the domain of SF who have the range time and cash to become useful with a short.

The best the rest of us can do is concentrate on not shooting our comrades!

Make my space saving sidearm a HK53, The short 5.56 with the telescopic butt. Used it as the civi car gun in Northern Ireland.

[ 07-25-2003, 14:08: Message edited by: Deerdogs ]

I see your point, Tony, and agree with it completely. The M4 should be universally issued to all support troops, imho.

The reasons you see so many M9s is that the army has this fetish with "one man, one weapon", which only MPs and bodyguards appear to be exempted from. All the Air Force guys that are operating with us have a) a completely "tricked out" M4 carbine with all the bells & whistle, b) an M9 or better on their hips, and c) a complete set of competent load bearing gear, which is issued.

Army personnel must personal purchase pistol holsters, magazines, (if you want one that actually works) and most of their "competent" web gear.

Here is toward the army adopting a competent pistol and caliber as well as a realistic fielding and training program.

(Myself, I'm hoping for a 10mm. Range plus power. What a deal!)