Personally owned sidearm to qualify?

2015-03-12T14:09:52-04:00

Should officers someday be allowed to qualify with their own sidearm, as long as it is within the same "family" as the issued weapon...i.e.,semi-auto, size, etc?
Personally, I would jump at the chance to use my Glock 23. Heck, I'd pay for the ammo.

Response by Cpl Michael Strickler made Mar 12 at 2015 4:17 PM

2015-03-12T16:17:37-04:00

If the personal weapon is going to be your service used firearm (stateside or deployed) go for it. If not you should avoid it in my opinion. While you may prefer your weapon or find it "functions" better you should always use whatever weapon you will actually be working with.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 4:24 PM

2015-03-12T16:24:45-04:00

I wonder about this every time I go to the range. Famous Service Members were recorded in WW II carrying a personal weapon. Gen Patton was not the only one.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 12 at 2015 4:30 PM

2015-03-12T16:30:47-04:00

No.

When you are qualifying, you are qualifying on a specific weapon system, or group of weapon systems. In the USMC, that is the M9 (Berreta 92FS) for pistol, and the M4/M16A2/M203 (AR15~) for rifle. As that standard changes, and additional weapons are added, the qualifications are updated.

But a Glock 23 is a single action Strike Fired weapon. A M9 is a single action, double action, hammer fired weapon. They are not comparable, other than the fact that they are both pistols. Just because they are both 9mm, doesn't mean they will fire the same in combat, nor will you be able to shoot them equally.

I am a VERY good shot with my 1911 .45. I am mediocre shot with an M9. If you look at the grips on the two weapons, there is a significant difference, which changes my hand placement "at the draw."

In other words, we need to qualify with the weapon (class) which we are actually going to use in combat.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 4:49 PM

2015-03-12T16:49:55-04:00

No.

I would reflect what Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS said. You need to be proficient w/ the firearm of service. This is for uniformity on the battlefield. That way you can pick up a sidearm from a comrade (for whatever reason) & continue firing w/ no change.

I remember when my police dept changed from the M9 to the S&W M&P. Our collective qualifying scores dropped due to the fact that we were no longer firing from a lead weight. It took some getting used to. Imagine going from a sidearm that weighs what a Glock or M&P weighs, then trying to immediately return accurate fire from an M9.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Mar 12 at 2015 5:54 PM

2015-03-12T17:54:02-04:00

Other then my though of no for reasons that SSgt Private RallyPoint Member, Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS and Cpl Michael Strickler mentioned. If it is going to be "buy your own ammo" why not just let anyone qualify on any weapon as long as they are buying their own ammo?

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 12 at 2015 5:58 PM

2015-03-12T17:58:07-04:00

After almost 30 years of service, I've learned that a day on the range is value added, the more range time you can get the better you are and typically the more disciplined that unit is. I would support a unit range day where the entire unit (not just officers) could qualify with their personally owned sidearm, that is during the normal duty day!

The value in having a specific weapon across the unit is the familiarity of the weapon as well as common ammo, magazines and etc. So, qualification and use in a tactical environment are two different things.

Allowing different weapons across unit does happen at times with some of our most specialized units insomuch as having individualized weapons, I take no issue with this as these professionals spend so much time perfecting their craft that the weapon is typically an extension of themselves!

Response by SSG Rob Cline made Mar 12 at 2015 6:18 PM

2015-03-12T18:18:11-04:00

Gonna go with a big, fat NO on this one. Train with the firearm you are issued. I did and never shot below 40/40 or 199 on the old point system.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Mar 12 at 2015 6:19 PM

2015-03-12T18:19:25-04:00

It was not so long ago that certain individuals (usually senior officers) were allowed to use their personally owned sidearms as their service weapon. I wouldn't mind bringing my own pistol to war. It's pretty tricked out and in a lot better shape than the clunker that's sitting in the arms room.... ;o)

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 12 at 2015 7:03 PM

2015-03-12T19:03:44-04:00

Easily rolled in with a Joint Pistol carry qualification test on personally owned weapons as suggested in:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 7:08 PM

2015-03-12T19:08:49-04:00

WOW! A lot of good replies on this one in a short period of time. Thanks! It was just a shot in the dark (no pun intended) to see what you all thought about it. I do agree that being the same, or "standard" across the board is important.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Mar 12 at 2015 7:45 PM

2015-03-12T19:45:30-04:00

I pity the 5m target with my saw-off shotgun. Don't worry lanes 1-3....I got this.

Response by SGT George Salzano made Mar 12 at 2015 11:54 PM

2015-03-12T23:54:11-04:00

What does it matter.. Let us qualify wit what we trust

Response by SPC Ryan D. made Mar 13 at 2015 1:22 AM

2015-03-13T01:22:17-04:00

One firearm is not the answer for all. I would challenge most with my preferred sidearm, but it is quite subjective.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 13 at 2015 1:35 AM

2015-03-13T01:35:25-04:00

"Should Officers be allowed to".... No!

You need to qualify with the weapon(s) you are assigned, and that you will carry into (and use) in combat, just like everyone else. Qualification is about demonstrating your ability to fire your assigned military weapon(s), not your ability to fire your you personal weapons? It is also about doing it the same same task, conditions, and standards as your Soldiers.

Why on earth would we do anything that starts with "should officers be allowed to?" if no one else is allowed to? Even if you started with "should Soldiers be allowed to"... My answer would still be No!!!

You need to Lead by example, and train and excel to the same tasks, conditions, and standards as your Soldiers are required to do; right along side of them.

Response by PO3 Jason Hoberg made Mar 13 at 2015 12:05 PM

2015-03-13T12:05:12-04:00

Why just officers, if it improves the efficiency of the soldier then why stop them?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2015 1:24 PM

2015-03-13T13:24:21-04:00

As much as I would like to carry my own sidearm, rifle into combat, I would say "no" for a logistical point of view.

Assuming you were allowed to bring your own sidearm or other weapon into theater....

1. If you need repair parts, how are you going to get them into theater? Besides having to order them and have the shipped to your location, there are export laws that may prevent companies from shipping you repair parts.

2. Some people have said they will purchase or bring their own ammunition. How much then? If you need resupply and it's not 9mm (meaning you can't acquire it from in theater), how are you going to get that ammo to you (export laws again).

Other considerations....
We have standardized weapons so that parts and ammunition are interchangeable among all branches of service and ammunition can be transferred easily between units, branches and allies in the supply system.

If there were a catastrophic malfunction with your weapon or ammunition that you acquire outside of the normal supply systems, I would think the military would give you a high five and say good luck, not their problem since it wasn't their weapon or ammo.

We complain about the differences in uniform before our branches of service and how people don't look "uniform" because people can't wear a beret correctly or place ribbons on their uniform....but we'd be okay with people running around the battlefield with their own firearms? That's inconsistent.

There are other arguments that could be made....think that's good for now.

Response by SGT William Howell made Mar 13 at 2015 4:21 PM

2015-03-13T16:21:13-04:00

So why should it just be officers and the answer is no. This is the military hence it is why it is called a uniform. Shoot what they give you. If it don't work like it should get it fixed. If you want to carry something different the SEALs and SF take applications every day. I heard they get the best toys.

Response by SGT Frank Leonardo made Mar 13 at 2015 5:09 PM

2015-03-13T17:09:12-04:00

I think that soldiers should only be allowed to shoot the weapon they are issued, for 1 the gun was free 2 the ammo was free, so i don't see the problem, a personally owned fire arm cost money and so does the ammo, if standard arms aren't good enough maybe a special armed forces department IE ranger recon etc has nicer weapons.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2015 6:02 PM

2015-03-13T18:02:03-04:00

Qualify? No, I don't think so. Qual is weapon specific (ish anyways - a brand new M4 w/ an ACOG is still the same qual as an old damn-near smooth-bore shot-out carbine with a wobbly rear BUIS, but that's a different issue)
OTOH, I am absolutely for soldiers being able to bring Personal weapons to government ranges.

How many times have you been to the range and had lots of time and very little available ammo? How about not having enough weapons for all? I don't know how many times I've been to a range that didn't utilize even half the firing line. I would happily plink away the same course of fire on a spare lane with a personal weapon with personal ammo at the range in some of the (typically plentiful) downtime. In my experience, there is no shortage of target paper, backers, tape, staples and lanes - ammo is the limiting factor.

Hell, instead of piggybacking on existing range time with all of the accompanying issues (trans, PPE, ammo draw, weapons draw, chow, etc), how about just making a range or two available to soldiers on weekends (or wed evenings or whenever really)? Charge a nominal fee for range maintenance and make it for Active Duty only (to get around issues of it being some kind of base side business). Make it part of MWR rather than the crappy little dedicated MWR range at most posts.
The Swiss military sells subsidized 5.56mm to military members at gov ranges IOT develop marksmanship in the ranks of their citizen soldiers. We do pretty much nothing to aid soldiers wishing to improve their marksmanship on their own time and dime.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Mar 14 at 2015 2:30 AM

2015-03-14T02:30:31-04:00

First off Officers shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons period! :)

In all seriousness I think a better question would be should all service members, enlisted and officer, be allowed to qualify with their POW? I would have loved to carry my Glock 17 when I was on active duty.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2015 3:19 AM

2015-03-15T03:19:51-04:00

I think officers and ncos should be able to. If the military just jad a caliber required and not a make of gun that most people hate/love with no middle ground I think the best thing is remove the service handgun from the service. In the old days all weapons issued were personal weapons as they became your leaving the service. I think for the security of the country it should remain that way. After all we swore and oath to protect this country it doesn't say expires with end of active duty

Response by SPC David Willis made Apr 11 at 2018 2:47 PM

2018-04-11T14:47:34-04:00

Nope, train on whatever you'll carry overseas. Now if you want to make the argument we should be able to carry personal weapons in a theatre of war as long as they are chambered for NATO rounds and meet the specs laid out I'm all for that. Ill take my glock and DDM4 over the M9 and some beat to shit Springfield M4 any day.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 11 at 2018 5:45 PM

2018-04-11T17:45:49-04:00

NO<NO>NO in fact the regs normally don't let you deploy with a POW, much less shooting for qualification