# What is a combat handgun?



## gunslinger (Feb 15, 2008)

Im no fan of the M9 but this guy makes some valid points.

http://kitup.military.com/2008/02/what-is-a-comba.html?ESRC=dod.nl


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 15, 2008)

The huge problem is that they are looking at the military for research of a combat handgun, when the military doesn’t conduct combat with handguns (especially the USAF)!

Yeah yeah yeah SOF guys use them, and transitions drills (blah blah blah) 

Being honest how many people here have ever used a freaking pistol in combat? If you used one, what were the circumstances? Is there any real doctrine out side of the CAG for use of a pistol as an assaulting weapon?  Where is the reality? Why are we not looking for information from the people who do use pistols in combat (LEO’s)??? 

M9 takes too long, and cost too much to train a soldier to be proficient. There is not much difference in cost and time for a HK USP. Why would we even give a pistol to a soldier who is not proficient with it? Well what about the SOF community? Well most SOF soldiers are a lot more proficient with pistols than conventional, but in past course I have taught. SOF personal did not perform to the proficiency I expected.

My major point is that the US Military needs to stop worrying about a pistol. If we are going to have pistols, pick one easy to train with and even easer to operate. (GLOCK, S&W MP, SIG, SA XD) Something that performs, works, and requires less training.

:2c:


----------



## The91Bravo (Feb 15, 2008)

I think the definition of a combat handgun has two answers:

1 (For SOF) It is a platform that the user can use to perform many essential tasks. Such as sentry elimination(suppressed or not), CQB, and the other missions that may 'actually' regularly come up in their duties.

2 (For conventional) It is a platform that can be used to defend yourself when your primary weapon fails, or has expended all ammunition.  Or to defend yourself when the use of a long rifle is not acceptable.

In either case the user HAS TO BE PROFICIENT!!!  In either case above, if you cannot shoot it worth a damn, it is just extra weight to hump around...

My .02


----------



## Cabbage Head (Feb 16, 2008)

A combat handgun?  That could be just any handgun that us used in an offensive nature. 

Is there a need for one, sure there is.  Just which one? That is the million dollar question.  We issue Glock 22's.  Some people love em, some cant shoot em for shit and some just dont care at all.  

Whatever is picked has to fit not only the shooter but the environment to be used it, fit the roll its needed in and be of sufficient caliber to get the job done.  

That then opens the other can of worms.  Just what caliber? 9mm, 45ACP, .40 or something else.  Hell, wasnt too long ago that supressed .22's were being used.  I wouldnt be suprised if they are not still being used.


----------



## The91Bravo (Feb 16, 2008)

Cabbage Head said:


> Hell, wasnt too long ago that supressed .22's were being used.  I wouldnt be suprised if they are not still being used.



They still are... regularly, if I am not mistaken... (BTDTs please correct me if I am wrong)


----------



## irnbndr (Feb 16, 2008)

First of all, there is no SOF guy alive (with half a brain) that does not agree that drawing his pistol is the last thing he wants to have happen.  That means your primary weapon is not working... bad day.  Pistols are not great combat weapons as they have no standoff capability. They are secondary weapons for close in failures.  I have noticed a great shift in training tactics within SOF from transition drill focus to mastering the mag change and tactical mag change.  Those units that focus on close quarters combat should, and do, give the pistol alot of training time due only to the nature of their mission.  The rest need to focus on what the primary mission is and stick to that... training focus!  Not everyone in SOF is a direct action guy... in fact most are not!

The SOCOM boat anchor is still in the arms room and there it will stay except for some of the guys who think it looks cool.  It is far too large for wear anywhere on the body.  Most guys want something compact that does not remind you that it is there everytime you move.  
What is the purpose of a suppressed pistol?  I know that K-9 magement is a viable excuse but that is why we have the MP-5.  It is no good for anything else and has no range.  Why not use a rifle with a can?  Hollywood movies created that pistol.

Why are we "developing" a new weapon?  That is absurd!  There are so many reliable, economical, dependable, ready to go out of the box weapons out there. (Glock, Springfield XD)  Let's be a little more fiscally responsible than that.  And I agree that the trainability of the weapon is of most importance, not every unit has the time or ammo to dedicate to pistol training.

We should be focused on improving the primary weapons rather than the secondary pistol.  
Our military is so well equipped that our soldiers have become spoiled rotten brats!!  Including me!  We just want new stuff, it doesn't matter what the purpose.  New pistols should be introduced to those units with direct action focus, they truely now how to use them... everyone else will just get themselves killed trying.  Pistols cost money that can be used to train the force.  SOF is expanding.  How are they going to manage that if they have no money?
As for the article, this guy is not very knowlegable.  He is clearly limp-wristing his 1911, causing a stove pipe.  The ejection port has nothing to do with that. Mag capacity and NATO uniformity were the reasons for the change.


----------



## varsity (Feb 19, 2008)

irnbndr said:


> Why are we "developing" a new weapon?  That is absurd!  There are so many reliable, economical, dependable, ready to go out of the box weapons out there. (Glock, Springfield XD)  Let's be a little more fiscally responsible than that.  And I agree that the trainability of the weapon is of most importance, not every unit has the time or ammo to dedicate to pistol training.
> 
> We should be focused on improving the primary weapons rather than the secondary pistol.



Boy you hit that one on the head.  All we ever hear is " we need a new pistol", "we need some more kit", "I need a super duper, level three, backstrap, Highdef, metrosexual holster!!".  Yes the M9 sucks, but yes I have seen some well trained bad motherfuckers shoot it too (razor_baghdad).  We call it a secondary for a reason.  

We need to spend the money on training and "useful" technology.  By training I mean, teaching our soldiers how to master, not just do the basics such as IMT, CLS and how to function in a combat theater and use their power and brains to wage some influence.  We need to get unwrapped from the axle.  

By the way, the SA XD is an outstanding simple and accurate "Combat" pistol.  :2c:


----------



## x SF med (Feb 20, 2008)

Cabbage Head said:


> *A combat handgun?  That could be just any handgun that us used in an offensive nature. *
> 
> Is there a need for one, sure there is.  Just which one? That is the million dollar question.  We issue Glock 22's.  Some people love em, some cant shoot em for shit and some just dont care at all.
> 
> ...




Agree - and the reader's digest version is - Does it kill bad guys?  Are you well versed in it's use?  Does it fit your hand?  Can you get bullets in sufficient quantity?

Hi-Standard made a fine .22 -  close work demands a close work pistol.  'nuff said there.


----------

