Why don't they assign the M9 pistol (or a sidearm, in general) to everybody in the military?

Question

Doesn't everyone have the right to have a backup weapon?

Answer 1

It's to prevent the soldier from going for his backup weapon instead of unjamming or fixing his primary weapon. Most combat is between 100 and 200 yards, which would only make the best pistol shooters effective. The M5/10 is a sub machinegun (with semi auto capabilities) that has an effective range of 200 meters which would probably be a better backup weapon.

Answer 2

A lot of times they do; it depends on what kind of mission you will be doing. I deployed with about 100 people and we all had to qualify on the M9 before we left for training. We have to carry both weapons.

And I don't know what weapon that other poster mentioned, but the only sidearm I've seen since I've been here has been M9s... (Sigg and Beretta). The majority of the people here have them (don't know why everyone is posting "oh no, no one ever gets sidearms!")

EDIT: And we wouldn't lose them, geez. We are issued holsters (groovy thigh holsters are the norm, they look hot! but we also have hip and shoulder ones) and lanyards that we attach to our belts.

And I don't know what they mean by "all the psychos"... if someone is going to shoot someone they can just as easily do it with their rifle. Everyone is required to carry a weapon and ammo at all times in Iraq, so if they really wanted to do it, they could. Carrying a sidearm isn't going to make a difference.

EDIT: RIch, as I said, we carry a weapon 24/7 here in Iraq. Even if we are on the base, we are required to have it at all times.

Answer 3

i think of you permit out comprehend the term "nicely-known subject sidearm". very few squaddies carry m9s. MPs carry them in garrison yet swap to the m4 or m16 while deployed. line medics get m9s if their unit has extras, on the grounds that as quickly as we are treating sufferers its less demanding to shoot lower back with a million hand and cope with with the different as quickly as we've an m9 (any medic rather worth his weight additionally will carry an m4). in maximum gadgets, in elementary terms 1SGTs and above and business enterprise XOs and above carry the m9...everybody else gets the m4/sixteen/240/249/wahtever you're issued on your fit in the squad. and no, you are able to not deliver your man or woman firearm on deployment.

Answer 4

Clearly none of the people to answer this question are infantrymen. You are already carrying so much stuff that the additional weight of an M9 and spare magazines is not offset by the amount of additional protection it would get you.

Additionally, like one of your early commentors said, the M9 has got squat for stopping power. If I'm going to carry a pistol it will be an M1911 (.45 Cal will put you on your butt).

Answer 5

not everyone needs a backup weapon, and by my experience, if a rifle dosnt do the job, an M9 isnt going to do too much, might as well have a sling shot. being a tanker i need to be qualified with the pistol but its just an amped up pellet gun. let the AF and officers keep their pistols, at least I have more range and lethality to keep me safe

Answer 6

No. The only people who should be issued M9s are the people whose duties require a pistol.

Besides what would a sailor working in the engine room of a ship need a weapon for anyway?

Answer 7

Assining everyone an M9 would cost alot of money (besides some branches are switching to different ones anyway) and most people in the military rarely use a side-arm.

Answer 8

The M9 is issued to those who need it and when they need it. Not everyone in the military needs to carry a gun 24/7, that is overkill.

Answer 9

It is very expensive to train and equip soldiers with sidearms. Giving them to those who do not need them is a waste of money.

Ranb

Answer 10

Cost, training time, shorter effective range, less power, to name a few.