# Why the ADF handgun is an ethics issue.



## CQB (Jan 14, 2014)

The state has a clear duty of care to ensure that its armed servants are as well equipped as possible to face the dangers of combat and prevail over their adversaries. On the whole, the ADF  goes to considerable lengths to fulfil that duty of care, from equipping frontline troops with quality armoured personnel carriers, to ensuring top-notch medical treatment for those injured in the line of duty. But there’s a blind spot when it comes to handguns. Outside of the special forces community, very few members of the ADF are issued with pistols, and most of them are in support rather than direct combat roles. Contrast this with the British Army’s commitment to rushing its newly-acquired Glock pistols to its frontline units deployed in Afghanistan, where pistols have been credited with saving the lives of several soldiers...

...The current ADF handgun belongs to an era when bolt-action rifles were king of the battlefield. We wouldn’t send our troops into harm’s way with a .303 Lee Enfield rifle today, so why do we send them out with vintage handguns—or none at all?

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-the-adf-handgun-is-an-ethics-issue/


----------



## pardus (Jan 14, 2014)

What's wrong with a .303!? 

I didn't realise you guys were still using the Hi Power.  It would be better to get a newer pistol, I guess, but it would be more important to have them as general issue as opposed to the support guys only. After all is said and done, you are still replacing a 9mm with another 9mm.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 15, 2014)

I was chatting with a guy on another forum about the US and the M9, and the fact that a particular modern pistol manufactured by a CONUS company was found to be lower in cost to replace, maintain and train the entire US Mil with, was turned down b/c more or less pistols are not important (the reason given anyway). Although I tend to agree that a pistol is not really as important in the modern battlefield, I also hate how we spend billions on bullshit gadgets, but fail to stay a head of the curve in modern technology and training with the most basic of equipment, the personal defense weapons.

That said, the Hi Power, is not a horrible service pistol, neither is the M9, but at some point, you really have to look at the advantages of staying modern (cost of maintenance/servicing and training/retraining).


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jan 15, 2014)

The overwhelming majority of the people carrying those Hi-Powers are not gun people.  I think they were the #1 cause UDs in Iraq amongst the Aussies was the guys carrying Hi-Powers.

We had the same problem, they were staus symbols for people with bird shit on their shoulders, to lazy to carry a rifle around the FOB.  I'd love to see their contribution to the defence of said FOB against an Enemy that out ranged our rifles.


----------



## digrar (Jan 15, 2014)

Agreed, rare as rocking horse shit and given to pouges and officers who were to lazy to carry around a rifle. Side arm training is next to non existent as well.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 15, 2014)

digrar said:


> . Side arm training is next to non existent as well.



^this, shooting a pistol is difficult, and takes a lot of rounds to master. Maybe they are not ready to spend that kind of money.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 15, 2014)

Browning Hi-Powers are dangerous implements of questionable manufacture that can be expected to cause all kinds of havoc.  Please, immediately divest yourselves of these poor quality Saturday Night Specials; they are unfit for professional soldiers to possess and their use will only result in disappointing marksmanship results and spectacular displays of ballistic field-stripping.

Please send all the pistols to me for safekeeping.  I will properly store them.  As a gesture of international friendship I will pay for shipping.

Please, for the love of God…think of the corrupting influences these shoddily made and famously misshapen hunks of metal can have on your troops (and their children! think of the children!) and abandon them posthaste.


----------



## AWP (Jan 15, 2014)

policemedic said:


> Browning Hi-Powers are dangerous implements of questionable manufacture that can be expected to cause all kinds of havoc.  Please, immediately divest yourselves of these poor quality Saturday Night Specials; they are unfit for professional soldiers to possess and their use will only result in disappointing marksmanship results and spectacular displays of ballistic field-stripping.
> 
> Please send all the pistols to me for safekeeping.  I will properly store them.  As a gesture of international friendship I will pay for shipping.
> 
> Please, for the love of God…think of the corrupting influences these shoddily made and famously misshapen hunks of metal can have on your troops (and their children! think of the children!) and abandon them posthaste.



If you have too many to store I can help with your problem. Together we can solve our long international nightmare.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 15, 2014)

I wish there was a study that could quantify the amount of EKIA (or shootings anyway)by a pistol vs negligent discharges resulting in injury or death. A study like that could: 1) put the pistol importance to rest, and 2) reinforce what everyone knows, in how lacking pistol training is.

I'm obviously talking about conventional forces and not SOF here.


----------



## AWP (Jan 15, 2014)

What kills me about pistol training is that if you're drawing your sidearm, chances are that you're having the worst day of your life. I'm not speaking about LEO's where the pistol is the primary weapon, but those where the pistol is your GTH solution because your primary has a problem.

To put it into perspective, think of jump school where deploying the reserve was only discussed in broad terms, rarely practiced, and barely looked at by JM's or riggers. Would you exit a plane under those circumstances?

Yet we deploy tens of thousands with minimal to no pistol training.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 15, 2014)

JAB said:


> I wish there was a study that could quantify the amount of EKIA (or shootings anyway)by a pistol vs negligent discharges resulting in injury or death. A study like that could: 1) put the pistol importance to rest, and 2) reinforce what everyone knows, in how lacking pistol training is.
> 
> I'm obviously talking about conventional forces and not SOF here.



I've never bought the oft espoused theory that if a soldier needs his pistol he's totally buggered so why bother training or issuing him with one at all.

I do think the person who NDs with a pistol would be equally likely to do it with a rifle.


----------



## pardus (Jan 15, 2014)

I've qualified maybe half a dozen times with a pistol and have NEVER been given a single lesson or even practice with a pistol by the Army.
Rifle training hasn't been much better come to think of it. 

p.s. In fact thinking about it. Ive ended up giving people lessons on the pistol several times, a weapon Im not very good with and dont know much at all about. I was a small arms instructor (rifles and LMG's) many moons ago and no one was helping people who were failing so I stepped up. 

HOOAH!


----------



## CQB (Jan 16, 2014)

digrar said:


> Agreed, rare as rocking horse shit and given to pouges and officers who were to lazy to carry around a rifle. Side arm training is next to non existent as well.


Interesting, no-one gets side arm training now? That, I know sounds nieve but fuck me drunk...


----------



## digrar (Jan 16, 2014)

My time was a while ago now mate, but back in the day I didn't get any time on them, some others did, they weren't in the majority in my Battalion though. I wouldn't like to say that represents the whole Army, or even the whole Regiment. Just my experience, but I've heard of more than a few others saying the same thing.


----------



## CQB (Jan 16, 2014)

I was lucky I guess with a progressive Pl. commander who would sneak things past the boss.  We did a bit + a range day. But it was nothing compared to the TAG guys.


----------



## 0699 (Jan 16, 2014)

In the Corps (unless it's changed) there is little to no pistol training on the enlisted side unless you are in certain units.  At boot camp, two full weeks are spent just shooting the rifle, and a lot of other time is spent in and amongst other skills working with your rifle (snapping in, field firing, etc).  But when I was promoted to SSgt (the rank at which most enlisted Marines T/O sidearm changed), I just went to the armory, turned in my rifle and was issued a pistol.  A few weeks later, I was scheduled for the range, went, and qualified.

I've always felt much more comfortable shooting the rifle.  Both my deployments (as the deployment's chief pogue) I made sure I was issued and carried a rifle in addition to my pistol.

AFAIK, the Corps has now changed the T/O weapon for Marines.  I believe that unless you are a colonel or general, the primary T/O weapon for all Marines is a rifle.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 16, 2014)

Back in the old days of Army EOD, when there were 22-man companies, every tech got a sidearm. I can't testify go how often they got range time, but if it was anything like demo time, then it varied unit to unit but it did occur.

Fast forward to the 44-person "super companies," and there were only enough sidearms for the team leaders and some senior team members on a 3man team to get one stateside, and no real pistol training to speak of. I know when I got downrange, I fell in on a 9mm (shady shit for beer-thirty, but it was a widespread happening), and managed to create the opportunity to actually shoot the damned thing on a range. 

Just another example of piss poor Army planning.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 16, 2014)

policemedic said:


> I've never bought the oft espoused theory that if a soldier needs his pistol he's totally buggered so why bother training or issuing him with one at all.
> 
> I do think the person who NDs with a pistol would be equally likely to do it with a rifle.



IDK, I don't personally know anyone who actually used a pistol in combat, that couldn't have used a rifle. Personally (and I'm a pistol guy) I wouldn't want to carry the extra weight, I would rather carry an extra frag or couple of magazines for a rifle. I know a lot of guys who wanted a pistol, most wanted it so they didn't have to carry a rifle around the FOB, the only one in a rifle platoon who I think the argument can honestly be made for is the 240 gunner, but even those guys normally opt for a M4 as a secondary.


I've seen more people ND with pistols than I have rifles. Also I know of a few incidents where soldiers have ND in vehicles, into their own leg, one who actually shot his own hand. I've never personally seen some ND with a rifle and hit another person, although I know it happens, I would imagine its far more common with the pistol (as far as injury or death due to an ND).

That all said, if I had not served as a TF SARG instructor, my pistol training in the Army would have been nothing but take or apart, clean it, put it back together and check its function.

After serving as a SARG instructor, I get really pissed that the big Army can't even enforce its own standards. The combat pistol FM calls for 12 hours of PMI prior to steeping on a range, and the entire marksmanship table, including fam-fire, is 120 rounds. This is supposed to be conducted yearly, at a minimum for anyone who is on the unit TO/E for a pistol. Which is actually more than most law enforcement is required by most states. However, it never actually happens in the Army, which is wrong on many levels. Another thing that really pisses me off, was that the combat pistol fm is actually a well written training program (not the best, but not horrible by any means) but yet no where invthe whole fm does it cover drawing a pistol from a holster, and all of the marksmanship training starts with the pistol in your hand. I tried hard to get that changed, even authored and submitted a whole chapter on the subject, and of course it never made it anywhere.

Outside of AMU's CQM course and the advanced pistol/rifle marksmanship course from the SARG, I haven't seen a good pistol program in the conventional army.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 19, 2014)

CQB said:


> Interesting, no-one gets side arm training now? That, I know sounds nieve but fuck me drunk...



As you said later, unless you have a good command who recognizes the need to train with the pistol, not much training.  There is more if your MOS has the pistol as your primary weapon....MP..CID.  But even that is not very much....


----------



## policemedic (Jan 19, 2014)

The fact is that if PV1 Snuffy needs to--or maybe chooses to--transition to a pistol then he's either going to be skillful or dead.

Even when offered low-cost training ie a drill day, movement and ammo costs many units say no.

Big Army needs to pull its head out of its ass; it's not a hat.


----------



## 21C (Jan 20, 2014)

CQB said:


> Interesting, no-one gets side arm training now? That, I know sounds nieve but fuck me drunk...



Yeah apart from what you're taught during IETs, you might be lucky to see range time with them on a yearly basis, and even then it's mostly just static yippee shoots - definitely nothing like teaching proper transition drills or actually being taught how to shoot the damn thing effectively.


----------



## dirtmover (Jan 23, 2014)

I know when I was the company Land and Ammo NCO we weren't allocated enough ammo for the M9 to do the all the tables for the combat pistol.


----------



## Centermass (Jan 23, 2014)

dirtmover said:


> I know when I was the company Land and Ammo NCO we weren't allocated enough ammo for the M9 to do the all the tables for the combat pistol.



^^This^^

Unfortunately, even with units that have an MTOE allocated with side arms assigned, this has always been an issue since I can remember. Seems Operations Officers can't wrap it around their heads to factor in round counts during allocation forecastings, so the ammo guy (Person) gets beat up whenever someone is requesting range time later on down the road, and their request gets rejected, because the units have nothing on hand to draw from at the ASP's.

It's always been a matter of FY budgets, allocations and priorities in the Big Army. And this one is usually at the bottom of the totem pole. 

SOF types don't fall into this category unless someone is flat on their face.


----------



## dirtmover (Jan 23, 2014)

Our issue was the Big Army didn't think that is was important.  My battalion shifted all available ammo for the M9 to us and it still wasn't enough and we only have 30 M9s on the MTOE.


----------

