Question for soldiers: why doesn't the .mil let you carry a personal pistol?

[Todd.K]

Because a handgun takes up that much space? My Beretta is roughly about the size of a laptop!

Seriously...if an extra. 2lbs is what prevents you from moving you have issues

Perhaps you lack infantry experience. There are dozens of things more useful in combat than a pistol that get left behind or you wish you could carry more of.

I also don’t feel like I have properly communicated how useless a pistol is in combat.

[Arik]

Perhaps you lack infantry experience. There are dozens of things more useful in combat than a pistol that get left behind or you wish you could carry more of.

I also don’t feel like I have properly communicated how useless a pistol is in combat.

No...no infantry experience. I do have experience dragging heavy gear up hill on my back and a handgun was never something that broke the Camel's back.

I don't see how a pistol takes up that much space that it takes up the space of something useful. It's not like ....damn I could have grabbed 12 extra AR mags but didn't have room due to this pistol.

I understand how useless a pistol is in a rifle fight. Right up until your rifle is out of ammo. Then a handgun becomes pretty good idea. Does it happen often? Probably not but there were a few times it has happened

[Wake27]

No...no infantry experience. I do have experience dragging heavy gear up hill on my back and a handgun was never something that broke the Camel's back.

I don't see how a pistol takes up that much space that it takes up the space of something useful. It's not like ....damn I could have grabbed 12 extra AR mags but didn't have room due to this pistol.

I understand how useless a pistol is in a rifle fight. Right up until your rifle is out of ammo. Then a handgun becomes pretty good idea. Does it happen often? Probably not but there were a few times it has happened

One of the highest performing enlisted members of my organization said he ditched a pistol and mags for extra grandes every time, so maybe just accept that your experience doesn’t mirror everyone’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ron3]

Perhaps you lack infantry experience. There are dozens of things more useful in combat than a pistol that get left behind or you wish you could carry more of.

I also don’t feel like I have properly communicated how useless a pistol is in combat.

Maybe a compromise between having no sidearm or a large sidearm is a compact sidearm? Like many did in from 1900-1950 or so.

"Hey, Franz, wanna a model '96 Mauser with holster to back up your rifle?"

"I'm not carrying that thing! I'd rather carry more water, rifle ammo, or a grenade."

"Well, how about this 7.65 mm Walther PP with holster and extra mag?"

"Hm...yea I can put that and a couple extra rifle chargers on my belt. Hand it over..."

[sidewaysil80]

Interesting about the customs stuff. All four of my deployments were as a platoon, every-time we packed four or five pallets. One with weapons, one with gear, the rest with misc and everyones bags/pelicans. Two or three guys would fly out with the pallets in advance and stay with it until our arrival. We would fly mix of commercial/military with just a carry on. We and our carry on went through customs, but our palletized gear never did. Same for return trip.

FWIW active duty from 2004-2012 (dual armed with pistol and rifle too btw)

[Uni-Vibe]

After I originally posted I asked a Vietnam vet about pistols. He responded to the effect that if he had needed one, it just would have meant he should have brought more M16 magazines and more frags. That squares with some of the comments above.

[Steve Shannon]

I don't see how a pistol takes up that much space that it takes up the space of something useful. It's not like ....damn I could have grabbed 12 extra AR mags but didn't have room due to this pistol.

I understand how useless a pistol is in a rifle fight. Right up until your rifle is out of ammo. Then a handgun becomes pretty good idea. Does it happen often? Probably not but there were a few times it has happened

I’ll be laughing at the logical disconnect between these two statements all day. Thanks!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[The_War_Wagon]

As per usual, I'm guessing this order DOESN'T apply to General officers?

[Slater]

When the British Army adopted the Glock 17 Gen 4 back in 2013, one of the intentions was that every infantryman in Afghanistan would be issued one. This was under the idea that it would just be a backup weapon in the event that the primary weapon (SA80) failed. Of course, their doctrine is a bit different than ours.

[MA2_Navy_Veteran]

Guys, it's not rocket science. It's simply about responsibility & accountability.

Most officers (as well as some senior enlisted team leaders) have the ability to authorize the use of... call them "alternate arms or weapons", but won't do so simply because they (understandably) don't want the added responsibility or accountability of improper & accidental or intentional misuse of said arms/weapons.

As well, there are several levels of state, federal, and international rules, laws, and treaties regarding the use of arms & weapons for both as citizens & as members of the military. Being such that it is far easier to avoid any of the legal conflicts by simply not authorizing individual, personally-owned or obtained weapons within the AO.

All that beings said - Even nowadays, it still mostly boils down to both what & more importantly WHO you know in determining what you can actually get away with.