What is a Combat Handgun?

Read this article the other day about the Air Force’s $90 million request for new pistols getting nixed and instead they were granted $5 million to “study” joint combat pistol needs with the Army. This, in turn, reminded me of a piece I’d written several years ago on the H&K Mk. 23 Mod 0 SOCOM.

A lot of money was invested in building that state of the art pistol, and there’s no arguing that it is in fact, one hell of a handgun; but you don’t see too many of them around. Of all the SOF personnel I saw in Iraq, none had anything other than the M9 Beretta, and of the several I spoke to about the .45 SOF pistol, none had ever seen one.

To be sure, I’m sure there are more SOF folk than there are SOCOM pistols, and there might be some sort of SOP regarding the use of the SOCOM, but if that were the case, why go through all that trouble to make such a superlative firearm and either not issue it in greater numbers, or restrict the use of the ones you do have?
Now, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I am not a “gun” guy. As a soldier, I use firearms as the tools of my trade. I can take them apart and put them back together, and I know how to troubleshoot them when something does not work right.

What I can’t do is quote chapter and verse on muzzle energy, knockdown power, stopping power, fit, feel, or functionality of any particular firearm or bullet. This having been said, however, I think, even given my own limited “gun” knowledge, I could come up with a replacement for the M9 for less than $5 million dollars.
Take my experience with the M1911A1 .45 pistol and the M9 Beretta. The thing I liked best about the M1911A1 was the fact that it was made out of forged steel; You could drop it, kick it, crawl on it, you could do anything to it short of melt it, and you wouldn’t affect it’s reliability. Moreover, properly blued or parkerized, the M1911A1 was very forgiving of the elements.

Not everything on the M1911A1, however, was perfect. I thought the ejection port on the slide to be too narrow and I remember that “stove piping” was a constant issue, where the spent casing would extract from the chamber, but would not eject clear of the slide. Now I don’t know if this issue was the result of the small ejection port or some other issue, but it was something I noticed with the pistol. The lack of removable or adjustable sights seemed to me to be a viable point of improvement.

While I understand that the inclusion of such features would obviously drive up the price of the weapon, I would have, at a very minimum, liked to have seen replaceable sights on the pistol. Many, many of the .45s I saw had mangled front and rear sights, no doubt the result of decades of service. Adjustable sights might have been something of a luxury for a strictly “defensive” weapon, but I believe replaceable sights would have been an improvement.

Finally, some complained about the recoil from the .45, that it was too powerful, or that the weapon, being made from steel, was too heavy. I personally thought the recoil was manageable (more than the M9 to be sure, but not alarmingly so) and when compared to all the other gear I was hauling around, the extra 2 pounds from the M1911A1 was hardly noticeable (not to mention a loaded M9 weighs almost the same.)

As for the M9 Beretta, it fired well, it was easy to take apart and put back together, and since it was made of a non-ferrous alloy, it was again very tolerant of the elements. Moreover, it did have a nice big ejection port (right out the top of the slide.) On the downside the M9 was made of a non-ferrous alloy, which made it significantly more susceptible to damage from what I would consider routine exposure to the combat environment. I’ve seen M9s crack when dropped off of vehicles, suffer significant gouging, and pinching of the frame.

With the M1911A1 if I could get the slide to work I had faith that the pistol would work, and work safely. Not so with the M9. Moreover, the M9 was a SA/DA (single action/double action) pistol, which meant that you didn’t need to thumb cock it like you did with the .45 or rack the slide to cock the hammer, you could just pull the trigger and the hammer would cock itself and fire. However, with the Beretta the trigger, in DA mode (hammer down) was WAY out there and for some folk, reaching all the way out there with one finger was literally quite a reach (I’ve even seen folk “double pull” the trigger where they pull the trigger partway and then readjust their finger position to complete the process.)

For me, coming from a M1911A1 background, I always thumb cocked my M9 during qualification. This may not have been the standard, but it was how I “grew up” and I didn’t see the need to go to a different method simply because TRADOC said so. Others have also complained about the “fat” double stacked, 15-round magazine, but again, with my big hands, that wasn’t an issue.

Finally, as with the M1911A1 the M9 does not have removable or replaceable sights, though again, in the grand scheme of things, this isn’t really a deal breaker as much as it would have been means of maintaining the accuracy of the pistol over its service life.
(Now, before anyone mentions it, I intentionally did not address the physical characteristics of the bullets themselves. Over the course of my military career the only thing I’ve ever “killed” with my pistol was paper and plywood, so I can’t comment on the combat utility of either the .45 ACP or the 9mm Parabellum. But bullet lethality is a whole ‘nother can of worms, which we will get to shortly.)

My question before the court is this. What is a “combat handgun” and what is it that we really need and what do we want it to do. I would think that really what we’re talking about here is a defensive/back up/bail out weapon, not one that you would use as your primary offensive arm (yes there are many situations where a pistol is superior to a long gun in offensive operations, like searching confined spaces, vehicles, or what have you, but I don’t think a pistol would be my first choice for assaulting an enemy position or defending my perimeter.)

Again, I’m not a gun guy so I’m not going to tell you what that ought to be, but let all of you take the ball and run with it. To better organize the discussion, though I thought it might be helpful to break down the discussion into a couple of functional areas.
Automatic or revolver? Yes, it seems a bit antiquated to ask the question, but it’s as good a place as any to start.

In terms of sheer reliability I would thing there would be nothing more reliable than a revolver. Up until the introduction of the M9 in fact, aviators were still issued a .38 revolver. They were small, easy to operate, and very reliable. On the down side however, I would think that, unless you trained regularly with one, reloading one under combat conditions would be something of a disaster waiting to happen (I have visions of Stanley Baker as Lt. Chard in Zulu trying to reload his revolver with shaking hands) but the same could be said of any weapon I suppose.

Something else to consider is action type. Should the pistol be SA (single action) only DA (double action) only or SA/DA? Many law enforcement agencies are adopting DA only pistols for liability purposes, but should this be a consideration for military personnel as well?

Construction. Steel or alloy? As I said, I grew up with the all-steel M1911A1 and then transitioned to the alloy M9 and now there are “plastic” polymer handguns, of which I have only very limited experience with (while deployed in ‘05 I carried a Glock Model 19 9mm compact.) I like the durability of the steel over the alloy M9, but the Glock also seemed to hold up well (it had a steel upper on a polymer lower.) Furthermore, what kind of finish should the pistol have? Blued? Parkerized? Stainless steel or some other exotic metal?

Size. How big should the pistol be? Full size (4+ inch barrel) or compact (2 inch) barrel? Should it have a double stacked magazine or single stack? Over the years many folk have complained about the weapons they were issued, that there were certain aspects regarding them that they didn’t like, but I’ve never heard any say that they couldn’t use a weapon. Another question along these lines is, should the services field different sizes of the same caliber, or just a single unit? Should we have a pistol with a single stack or double stacked magazine? More is always better, but as would be the case with a double-stacked .45-style pistol, you’re talking a lot more (in terms of grip size, that is.)
I think there is a tendency now a days to look for a “satisfy everyone” approach (the XM-8 with it’s golf bag of mission flexible barrels, for example) rather than a “satisfy the requirement and learn to deal with it” approach (here’s your M1911A1, have a nice day.) We don’t have his and hers M-16s or M2s or M249s, so coming up with five different flavors of handgun so that everyone can pick the one that “feels” best to them is, in my opinion, a waste of resources.

Cartridge. Ok, here comes the can of worms. Traditionally, this discussion tends to degenerate into .45 v. 9mm. Again, I have absolutely zero experience with actually using either cartridge for anything more than killing qualification targets, a task for which both are more than adequate. What I do know about them is they have both been around FOREVER, and their ballistic characteristics are well known. At a purely visceral level, when it comes to bullets, I tend to believe that bigger is better, so I like the .45, but is that really a proper basis for selecting a cartridge? Moreover, while the 9mm and the .45 are proven, they’re also old. There are many new (relative to the .45 and the 9mm) cartridges out there, such as the .357 SIG, .40 S&W, 10mm Auto, just to name a few. Should we consider one of those?

Economics. While talking about guns is great and wonderful, buying them is a completely different experience, and the bottom line here is, regardless of what the services decide to adopt as their service handgun, economics will play an important, if not THE most important, roll in the process. We currently have a lot of 9mm pistols in our inventory, and a lot of 9mm ammunition to go with them. So do our allies. Complain all you want about the 9mm, but it will require big bucks to replace the Beretta and its legacy (ammunition, spare parts, etc…) But it can be done. The Coast Guard did it just recently when they dropped the M9 and went to the SIG-Sauer P229R DAK in .40 S&W while the USSS (United States Secret Service) went to the SIG-Sauer P229 in .357 SIG, siting its armor penetrating qualities among others (that’s something else that has advanced significantly since the introduction of the .45 and 9mm; the proliferation of both soft and hard body armor.)

Finally, there is the question of going custom or COTS (Commercial, Off The Shelf.) Every couple of years someone will write in to ARMOR magazine about the need for a PDW (personal defense weapon) for tankers and other armored vecicle crewmen. The M4/M16 are too large they say, the M9 is too small – what tankers really need is a custom weapon that is sort of M9ish, and sort of M4ish, but completely unique to their needs.

Rubbish. If tankers really needed a “bail out” gun, and there is a compelling argument for such a need, especially with all the urban action going on (though seriously, unless the tank’s on fire, you’ve lost turret power, none of your MG’s work, or your stuck in front of an enemy ATGM factory, you are generally safer inside the tank than outside) there are plenty to choose from.

Yes the M4 (or the full auto version, the M4A1) will work just fine, but if you want something more “exotic” then go with something from the Heckler&Koch MP line, such as the MP5K-PDW. I thought it sadly humerous that the Army announced the development of a “combat shoulderbag” after claiming that they couldn’t find a suitable bag on the civilian market. To say the same about a handgun I think would just border on criminal insanity.

The bottom line here is there are enough guns out there that surely we can find one that meets our needs (you’ll notice that there isn’t a member from any law enforcement agency in all of America walking around without some sort of duty weapon) and I don’t think it would take $5 million to figure out which one we need.

-- Eric Daniel

Ka-Bar None

To me, knives are tools.

They are to be used and abused, to accomplish the mission or die trying.

I’ve been through several multi-tools (on average I break one a year) and pocket knives come and go (they get loaned out, lost, or break) but the one knife I have always had unwavering faith in (up until the time I had to quit using it) was the Ka-Bar USMC fighting knife.

As I mentioned in a previous post, a good utility knife is indispensable in the field. Pocketknives like the Buck 110 are great for light work, but sometimes you need something with leverage. Whether it was cutting open MRE cases or prying the wire off of crated ammunition, my Ka Bar took it all in stride. In a perfect world a bayonet would have done just as well for most things, had I been able to draw one from the arms room when we went to the field, but sadly this was not the case, which made the Ka-Bar all the more valuable.

Moreover, the Ka Bar’s design alone made it superior to the bayonet. The all-leather grip worked wonderfully wet or dry, hot or cold. The blade was thick enough that you could pry with either the point or the flat without undue fear of it snapping, and the big steel endcap, combined with the knife’s own mass, made for a fair field expedient hammer.

It didn’t bother me in the least that I was in the Army and I was using a Marine Corps knife. That Ka-Bar was a tool, and one I deemed best available to do the jobs I needed doing. I reasoned that since the Marine Corps used the same rifles, ammunition, artillery and armor that the Army did, it was perfectly acceptable to use “their” knife.

Silly me. Eventually, someone vastly more knowledgeable in trans-service etiquette than I explained to me the magnitude of the military faux pas I was committing. No, it simply would not do to be caught out of doors with such an icon of Marine Corps tradition prominently displayed on my LBE. As a Soldier and an NCO, I should have known better. Need to bust open those crates of MG ammunition? No problem – smash them on the ground or kick them, or use a stick (a good NCO always carries a good stick with them for just such a situation.)

The bottom line was that Ka-Bar was a Marine Corps “thing” and it simply had to go. No amount of pleading, reasoning, or rationalizing could resolve the situation. I just had to learn to do without.
Of course, ten years later I’m back to carrying a non-issue “fighting” knife, but now it’s made in Nepal, not Olean, N.Y. so I guess that makes it ok...

-- Eric Daniel

Barn Busting, Remington Rand Style

In 1990 I was issued an M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol that had been manufactured by Remington Rand during WWII.  Though a stout and reliable firearm, my “Colt” had one limitation. 

Its accuracy. 

To put it mildly, I was surprised the bullets ever hit the ground.  At 25m I had a shot group of around 2 feet. 

Now, I was (and still am) by no means an expert on firearms, and stories abound regarding the inaccuracy issues of the M1911A1, but the one thing I did know was the .45 was, and still is, used extensively in pistol competitions, so I knew the weapon design was not the issue, nor was the ammunition, but I was at a loss as to why I literally couldn’t hit the target right in front of me.

This went on for a year or so until we got a new Platoon Leader in our company who also happened to be something of a shade-tree gunsmith and a Colt collector.  What he said was, no the weapons aren’t bad, and the ammunition, while not match grade, wasn’t the cause, but rather, the Army’s level of “tolerance” in key components.  Bottom line, all my troubles centered on the barrel and barrel bushing.  Upon further inspection it was noted that when fully seated (slide all the way forward) my barrel was still capable of movement, a LOT of movement, as was explained to me, which obviously was having an effect on my accuracy.  Unfortunately, as the LT explained, that “slop” was still within Army tolerance, so technically there was nothing to be done.

Well, the next day what should appear but a Brownell’s catalogue, listing all the parts I would need to ‘fix” my .45.  I purchased a barrel, barrel bushing, barrel link and pin (as well as a plastic deadfall hammer and some lapping compound to fit the barrel and bushing to the slide) and then spent the next field problem hammering the slide back and forth the fit them.

The results, however, were immediate and satisfying.  My shot groups had collapsed to about 5” (good I thought, considering I was still shooting a stock slide and receiver.) The Lt., on the other hand, was shooting VERY good groups, but then he’d gone the extra step to get a complete fitted slide assembly, to include adjustable rear sight; after qualifying he’d just remove his slide, re-attach the Army issue one, and turn the .45 back into the arms room (which would explain why folk who checked his .45 out to qualify with didn’t do so well.)

Anyway, that small investment on my part not only dispelled all those accuracy issues surrounding the .45, but also improved the quality of my shooting.

-- Eric Daniel

In the Weeds With Eric (Gunsight Edition)

In the realm of combat shooting the standard rule of thumb is, “he who hits first wins.” Consequentially, for the last couple of hundred years, the focus in firearms training has been sight alignment -- the faster you can align the front and rear sights on your target, the faster you can put lethal fire on your target.

Unfortunately, until recently, darkness presented a significant challenge to this theory. If it’s too dark to see your sights, you can pretty well guarantee that you aren’t going to be able to align them very well and your accuracy is going to suffer. While there are a number of ways to overcome this condition (illuminate the battlefield with flares, illuminate your sights with tritium or similar material, or illuminate your fire by using tracers) none has been universally effective.

Electro-optical “reflex” sights have changed all of that. These sights are battery powered, non-magnified, single sight optics that not only allow the shooter to rapidly acquire a good sight picture and alignment in all conditions (day or night) but also provide the shooter with better situational awareness since they need not be totally focused on aligning their sights, but rather need only put the dot on the target, literally.

The first of these sights was the Aimpoint M2 which the Army designated the M68 CCO (close combat optic.) It was driven by a watch-type battery and had a single on/off rheostat on the side to adjust reticle brightness.

While the sight did perform as advertised, I had issues with it. First, the on/off knob was easy to accidentally bump, which could either cause your sight to turn off or go to max power, which not only reduced your battery life, but also produced a visible red glow out of the back of the sight. Furthermore, the aiming dot was visible, at high power, through the front of the sight, which could reveal your location to an NVG equipped enemy (I am told this has been addressed though I can’t confirm it.)

The sight I liked, and what in addition to the ACOG seems to be the one being currently issued, is the EOTech model 550. The 550 is a non-magnified EO sight which displays a 1MOA (minute of angle) dot in the center of a 65MOA circle. Reticle brightness is regulated by up/down buttons on the back of the sight, and the newer versions are equipped with a NVG direct button that automatically dims the reticle for use with night vision devices. The 550 is powered by a pair of standard AA batteries, has a reticle life of 1100 hours, and is waterproof to 1 ATM (33 feet).

What I liked about the 550 over the M68 was the battery choice (AAs are much easier to get) the fact that there is no forward projection of the beam, even on max power, and that there was more positive control of the reticle brightness. The 550 is also mil-std 1913 rail compatable and works well with weapon mounted NVGs such as the AN/PVS-10.

While I’m sure that there are certainly more modern CCOs out there with many more bells and whistles, the 550 does everything I need it to and it didn’t cost an arm and a leg.

(See much more "beyond standard issue" advice and tricks over at Kit Up!)

-- Eric Daniel