OK, educate me here regarding pistols and the US military.

[AdAstra2009]

Originally Posted by Clutch

One thing I've never fully understood about the military is why only officers above a certain rank (Sergeant, I believe, though I might be wrong) are issued the M9/92FS or M11/P228. Don't all recruits and trainees go through weapons familarization and training with handguns and rifles/carbines alike? And if so, then why not issue them those weapons from the start, especially if they're going to be sent into a combat zone? Or do they and I'm just reading wrongly into things here?

It depends on what your Military Occupational Specialty is. I'm straight up Infantry and when I went to boot the only thing we were taught about the M9 is that it sucks.

Originally Posted by Clutch

(Sergeant, I believe, though I might be wrong)

nope... the issuance of a sidearm doesn't have anything to do with rank really, more with your position.

P.S. Sergeant's aren't officers, they're enlisted

[Nyles]

In the Canadian military, pistols are issued to infantry officers, signallers, MPs, aircrew and naval boarding parties. Overseas they often issue them to people who are working mostly on a large base so they can fulfill the requirement for always being armed without constantly carrying around a rifle.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by Nyles

In the Canadian military, pistols are issued to infantry officers, signallers, MPs, aircrew and naval boarding parties. Overseas they often issue them to people who are working mostly on a large base so they can fulfill the requirement for always being armed without constantly carrying around a rifle.

You do realize that the OP specifically asked about the U.S. Military, right? Though interesting, answers based on the Canadian military will be confusing. From what I've gleaned over the years, there are tons of little details that are different and very specific to the country and it's military.

[Nyles]

Well, based on my fairly extensive experience working with the US Army, the scale of issues for pistols is pretty much the same. The only US infanteers I saw carrying pistols in Afghanistan were commissioned officers.

[Markost]

In our army the pistols are issued to sub-officers, commandos and second line troops.

[Clutch]

Originally Posted by AdAstra2009

It depends on what your Military Occupational Specialty is. I'm straight up Infantry and when I went to boot the only thing we were taught about the M9 is that it sucks.



nope... the issuance of a sidearm doesn't have anything to do with rank really, more with your position.

P.S. Sergeant's aren't officers, they're enlisted

OK...so if you're a front-line infantry soldier, then you're getting a M9 and M4/M16, regardless of whether you're enlisted or NCO?

[Nyles]

Generally no. Infantry don't really have much use for pistols, it's just one more thing they have to carry when they have too much already. The purpose of infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy, pistols aren't very useful for that.

[Excalibur]

And not all infantry would get the M4.

[Mazryonh]

I remember reading once how "pistols are among the hardest kinds of firearms to aim, thanks to how many lack a buttstock, another full place to grip with the off-hand, and the short sight radius," so it's not a surprise that rifle form is emphasized first in the regular Army.

Originally Posted by AdAstra2009

I'm straight up Infantry and when I went to boot the only thing we were taught about the M9 is that it sucks.

So, what would it take to make the first steps towards replacing the M9 with something like the Glock 20? Same magazine capacity of 15 rounds, much better stopping power in FMJ, flatter bullet trajectories and better range, along with more compact options (such as the Glock 20SF, the Glock 29, or even a Glock 29SF) should the need arise for those with hands too small.

[AdAstra2009]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

I remember reading once how "pistols are among the hardest kinds of firearms to aim, thanks to how many lack a buttstock, another full place to grip with the off-hand, and the short sight radius," so it's not a surprise that rifle form is emphasized first in the regular Army.



So, what would it take to make the first steps towards replacing the M9 with something like the Glock 20? Same magazine capacity of 15 rounds, much better stopping power in FMJ, flatter bullet trajectories and better range, along with more compact options (such as the Glock 20SF, the Glock 29, or even a Glock 29SF) should the need arise for those with hands too small.

Well like Nyles said before Infantry don't really have a use for sidearms. I was told in Infantry School that M240 gunners are supposed to be issued M9s as a personal defensive weapon. I'm assuming because the M240 can be very unwieldy and awkward to fire when not in the prone in addition to the lengthy reloading process when compared to a M4(though by this logic SAW gunners should get them also).

Complications I imagine with adopting the Glock 20 would be for example the non NATO standard round of 10mm in addition to the fact that it has no manual safety would probably be a problem with it's adoption.