I've browsed around this forum for a while and after reading the thread a few pages back about SMG's, it got me thinking about another weapon often said to be useless in combat, the pistol. I've honestly never understood why they were useless because IMO a handgun's the perfect thing to carry as a sidearm, conveniant to carry, doesn't get in the way, and it's there when you need it. I know they were generally issued to officers, tankers, machine gunners, airborne, etc etc. but I know for a fact that several conventional soldiers sought out pistols so they could have a sidearm. A small back-up gun is great in the event that your rifle decides to run out of ammo or jam just as your friendly neighborhood enemy decides to charge you. Now the question is, are pistols really useless as previously said, and if so why do militaries continue to use them.
Pistols are sexy. And you can carry it concealed, a bonus in some situations. I'll still take a Dillon mini-gun if I have my druthers, but it's nice to have a back-up.
There are now, and were in the past many times in which a pistol was the weapon of choice. Certainly not "useless", in the circumstances where they were needed, but also not the weapon of choice in many other circumstances.
A .454 Webelley rewallawah is always jolly good when one needs to repulse the fuzzy wuzzies. But, in modern military combat a pistol is largely a paperweight. You have realistically maybe 30 to 50 yards of accuracy, probably less with one. If the baddies are that close use a grenade.....
A pistol is only useless if you expect too much of it. It goes bang and dispenses lead and can be used to gain a more effective lead dispenser. Given the choice between a pistol w/ ammunition or nothing I would take the pistol everytime. The first rule of gunfighting is to bring a gun. The second rule, of course, is to have your friends bring guns as well.
Why pistols - cos they make you look cool and feel important. On a more serious note - it is better to separate modern use with WWII. Nowadays soldiers have lightweight, fully auto weapons with big mag capacity and are easy to reload quickly (think M4s). In WWII most soldiers had either bolt action or semi-auto rifles with small mag capacity and not easy to reload very quickly, so a rapid-fire back up weapon was handy. There was also "the naked factor" if you are working on a crew served weapon where carrying a rifle is not practical, going into battle with no weapon makes you feel vulnerable. So carrying a pistol, even if you never use it, makes you feel less exposed.
If any of you have ever been to a firing range to shoot pistols, think about how long you have to focus, aim, steady your hand, line the sights up just right, and pull the trigger only to find out you've pulled your shot a lot over anticipation of the BANG. Apply that to a combat situation, where more then likely you are reaction-shooting, not in the best firing stance, probably with only one hand on the pistol, with virtually no time to focus on your breathing/steady your hand etc. Unless you are highly trained in its use, it probably isn't a very effective weapon most of the time. For those tunnel-rats, I don't think they had any other options as far as weapons given what they were doing, but they're certainly more accurate and easy to use in a very confined space.
Looking at the evolution of battle, when fighting was at close quarters, the pistol came in handy. As time moved on, soldiers were able to hit the enemy at farther distances due to better rifles and ammunition. The hand to hand fighting did not take place as much. Therefore, the pistol was becoming obsolete. Now, I would still carry one because you never know.
Here is a link that explains my opinion of how most people (today) base their opinions on pistols/ weapons in general *Caution Coarse Language if you are offended by the letter "F" don't click the link* : Terminal Lance - Terminal Lance #4 “Modern Warfare”
Pistols are always good for short distance self defense and at some circumstances better than any rifle. Regards Ulrich
Pistols will never be completely useless in war. That much is safe to say. There have been, and will continue to be, many times when fighting gets up close and personal, as in the hand-to-hand type. Obviously a pistol would usually be preferable to fists or a bayonet at such times. The pistol's primary function in war was usually as a badge of rank. Also giving an officer a pistol was preferable for practical reasons, than giving him a full size rifle to lug around, since an officer's job usually involves everything BUT fighting. But unless you've spent hundreds of hours practicing, and have a very accurate weapon - most pistols, and pistol shooters, are terribly inacurate at anything over 10 yards. And there's nothing to be done about it.
I am going to have to diagree with the entire premise of this thread and your statement inparticular. I have qualified women and men to shoot both the M9 and the 1911 with only a one day class in both army and Marine Corps courses of fire. These were people whose only previous experience had been the Basic Rifle Course in their respective Basic Training or familiarization fire in A school. I am also of the opinion that anyone who wears a shoulder holster has a Tarzan complex.
I too must disagree. My oldest son, who had only shot pistols on the farm as a kid growing up, using my wheel guns and my old 9mm Browning Hi-Power on occassion went into the USN and made Expert Pistol on his first try. He didn't even know he was in competition for anything but first qualie rounds until the "range master" had everybody else step back and he shot alone. He was at first terrified that he had done something wrong, then slightly amazed, but in the end very proud. Got a nice little ribbon, a medal, and a wall poster for his area. He hadn't spent "hundreds of hours" practicing, nor had he ever shot the military's Beretta M9 before, and he did it both strong and weak hands (he is left-handed), with re-loads and re-shot positions. So don't "jump to conclusions" about how "hard it is to shoot a pistol" with accuracy and very little real concontrated practice. Of course he had grown up shooting rifles, but the pistols not too much. Just now and then if you know what I mean. Still you wouldn't want he nor I shooting at you with a pistol inside of 50 yards.
And I wore a nice Biannci shoulder holster for my Browning Hi-Power when I rode my FXE down to Texas to visit my little sister. Nice place for the 9mm when you are sleeping in a bag, or riding a scoot.