Shotgun Pistol

[Pieman]

The CF uses the 9mm Browning and a 9mm Sigsauer (I don't recall the model). I've shot both these pistols. My Browning would fall apart frequently and I'm pretty sure it would have been better to throw it at the enemy than try and shoot it. My Sig was a lovely handgun, but for someone who didn't have much practice (next to none) with a handgun it was a bitch to hit anything even from a short distance. I actually had no training on handguns initially, they just gave me one when I deployed.

For personal defense, I have a Mossberg 500 'tactical' shoutgun with no choke. If I get into a situation where I have to use it, it's likely to be up close and I just have to point in the general direction. The spread will take care of the rest.

I spotted this pistol, 'The Judge' which is a pistol that can shoot .45 Colt ammo and .410 2-1/2" shotshell. My thought is that the shotgun shell option would be better to have as if I am going to pull my pistol it would be in close quarters anyway....or I would at least try to get close enough so I had an actual chance of hitting something!  The .45 cal is overkill I'm sure, but the shotgun shell option is really appealing.

Think our forces would be better off using a pistol like this?

http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=199&category=revolver

 

[Eaglelord17]

Pistols are next to useless. Effective range of 25m, and unless you practice a fair bit (i.e. not the training we normally receive) hard to be effective with. They are more a status symbol than anything else. Personally I believe we should do away with them as we can spend that same money on other equipment that will help us kill our enemies much more effectively than pistols will (things like Arty, a new B class fleet, etc.).

I like the logic the Americans had in WWII, with the M1 Carbine. Lighter than the service rifle but still effective for short to medium range, and definitely better than a pistol. A SMG would also be a better option for short range to medium range, as it takes less training to be effective in comparison to a pistol and some are pretty compact and light now (just slightly heavier than a pistol). A SMG would also give us more tactical options for short range combat than a pistol will ever do.

 

[George Wallace]

Pistols are next to useless. Effective range of 25m, and unless you practice a fair bit (i.e. not the training we normally receive) hard to be effective with. They are more a status symbol than anything else. Personally I believe we should do away with them as we can spend that same money on other equipment that will help us kill our enemies much more effectively than pistols will (things like Arty, a new B class fleet, etc.).

I like the logic the Americans had in WWII, with the M1 Carbine. Lighter than the service rifle but still effective for short to medium range, and definitely better than a pistol. A SMG would also be a better option for short range to medium range, as it takes less training to be effective in comparison to a pistol and some are pretty compact and light now (just slightly heavier than a pistol). A SMG would also give us more tactical options for short range combat than a pistol will ever do.

At the same time, the "Tunnel Rats" in Vietnam fought solely with pistols.  There is a time and a place for every weapon.  Throwing out a tool from your tool box, just because you don't, or seldom, use it, is STUPID.

 

[CombatDoc]

If you can't hit your target at close range with a 9mm round, neither 45 Colt or 410 shotshell will be of much help. I've seen people miss steel poppers at 5-10 yards with 12 gauge shot, so thinking that shotshell is a panacea is erroneous. You still have to aim.

 

[brihard]

I'm not sure why people believe a shotgun just needs to be pointed in 'the general direction'... At clsoe range from a short barrel you're looking at no more than an inch and a half to two inches of spread per yard of distance. You still very much need to be on target.

A pistol exists either for situations where you did not anticipate the need for a long gun, or where your long gun fails and you face the immediate need to continue servicing threats until changing tactical circumstances allow you to restore your long gun to function or get a new one. Within a proper context a pistol is far from useless. It's perfectly appropriate for an office dweller in an armed camp to carry one in the event of a perimeter breach where they need to mvoe to their fighting kit, for instance. It's appropriate as a backup weapon for someone with an unwieldy support weapon. It's appropriate for someone who expects to be moving through close quarters actively fighting with a rifle or carbine and who may experience stoppages with an active threat.

A pistol's not a primary weapon to knowingly enter into a firefight; nobody pretends it is in the military context. It sure as hell does have a valid role as a supporting weapon, and basic proficiency (not mastery) is quite achievable.

 

[Pieman]

At clsoe range from a short barrel you're looking at no more than an inch and a half to two inches of spread per yard of distance. You still very much need to be on target.

Good point, but I don't have to be nearly as on the mark as with a 9mm. Someone standing just 5 yrds down the hallway would have a spread up to 10 inches diameter come at them. That's a huge difference from a single 9mm bullet, which is 0.35 inches. It's a whopping 28x the area.

A pistol exists either for situations where you did not anticipate the need for a long gun, or where your long gun fails and you face the immediate need to continue servicing threats until changing tactical circumstances allow you to restore your long gun to function or get a new one.

I totally agree with you, definitely not arguing against pistols. I think all soldiers should have one.

I guess the question is if there is an advantage to having the shotgun ammo option in a pistol or not. In my mind, I got a way better chance of hitting the mark.

 

[brihard]

So where then is the rest of your shot going? Who might it be going into if not the threat?

 

[Pieman]

So where then is the rest of your shot going? Who might it be going into if not the threat?

Whoever happens to be behind the guy I'm shooting, I suppose. Solid point. The same could be said for a 9mm, but odds of missing someone you don't want to hit are much better with a smaller bullet. Hm.

 

[Blackadder1916]

While a shotgun makes a good, short range, defensive weapon, keep in mind that a pistol able to accommodate a 2.5 inch 410 gauge shell does not magically give a handgun the ballistic capabilities of a shotgun.  I found this test of the "Judge" to be interesting.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-41-the-taurus-judge-vs-the-box-o-truth/

Lessons learned:
1.Jack bought this pistol for snakes and it looks like a fine tool for that job.
2.Birdshot, in any gauge, is for little birds.
3.Buckshot out of a .410 does not penetrate enough to be an effective personal defense load.
4.The rifled slug was also a disappointment and did not have enough weight or power or penetration to be effective as a defense load.
5.The .45 Long Colt loads had plenty of penetration and would be the preferred defense load for this pistol.
6.It’s fun to bust clays with this pistol.

 

[Pieman]

Thanks for that reference.

The fellow was saying shots had a two inch penetration. Then he stated

Again, well short of the 12 inches minimum required for a defense load.

Wonder how that is determined to be what is needed for a defensive load? Are they assuming the guy is wearing an armored vest?

Looks like this pistol won't be up to the task after all. Boo-Urns! 

 

[Dissident]

To answer your question, not just no, but hell no.

Training on pistol marksmanship in the CAF is abysmal. Changing the round won't solve that problem.

Now I'm going to back away before I start off on my usual rant, again.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

To answer your question, not just no, but hell no.

Training on pistol marksmanship in the CAF is abysmal. Changing the round won't solve that problem.

Now I'm going to back away before I start off on my usual rant, again.

What training? In over 30 years in the military, I have never been trained to shoot. I have been shown how the weapon functions and what to do if it malfunctions, but I have never ( not once, ever) received any raining on how to shoot.

That fact that I pass every time I shoot is entirely because of the shooting I do on my own time (with my own ammo).

 

[a_majoor]

Shame on your range staff and leadership for not even reviewing the principles of marksmanship (as a minimum) prior to going on the line.

I hope other readers of this thread ensure that they take the time to do dry firing, coaching and all the other things needed to effectively shoot. It doesn't take a lot of time, and you could incorporate it with TOET's the day before, if needed.

 

[Dissident]

What training? In over 30 years in the military, I have never been trained to shoot. I have been shown how the weapon functions and what to do if it malfunctions, but I have never ( not once, ever) received any raining on how to shoot.

That fact that I pass every time I shoot is entirely because of the shooting I do on my own time (with my own ammo).

I can't speak for other units, but I know what you mean. I have long suspected that the CAF at large has little in the way of decent pistol marksmanship training.

My unit/trade does a fair job, as one would hope. My platoon does a fantastic job of teaching pistol shooting, but that is because the Captain, one of our cpl,  and I have spent a lot of time and money on our own to develop those skills, which we pass on/coach.

 

[Eaglelord17]

At the same time, the "Tunnel Rats" in Vietnam fought solely with pistols.  There is a time and a place for every weapon.  Throwing out a tool from your tool box, just because you don't, or seldom, use it, is STUPID.

Its not a matter of throwing out a tool so much as getting tools that will be used more effectively. If everything was sunshine and rainbows we would have tons of money, a perfect procurement system and infinite numbers of troops. Unfortunately we don't which means we have to pick and choose.

In one hand we have a fairly ineffective with small amounts of training item with a max effective range of 25m which you say is needed for things like Vietnam Tunnel rats, a pretty specialized position. Or we can spend that money to get something which would see more use, capabilities we lack but are much more important. AA capabilities, Arty, B Class fleet, or maybe something like a SMG might be better options for the money.

Personally I like the idea of getting a modern SMG which is both lightweight and compact. Much more firepower, and with the minimal amounts of training we actually receive on the pistol, you could get much more proficient with a SMG (as it is already similar to rifle training, just the location of the controls being different).

 

[George Wallace]

Personally I like the idea of getting a modern SMG which is both lightweight and compact. Much more firepower, and with the minimal amounts of training we actually receive on the pistol, you could get much more proficient with a SMG (as it is already similar to rifle training, just the location of the controls being different).

NO!  A SMG is not at all similar to a rifle in training.  In fact I would compare the training to be more comparable to a pistol due to the length of the barrel, which greatly degrades accuracy at long ranges; which brings us back to 'your' comment on a max effective range of 25 m.  Having been issued a SMG, the only way to really be proficient on it, one has to be on the range a minimum of three times a week for several weeks; definitely not once a year.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I always say I can shoot pistol despite my army training. to the OP, forget the judge, useful for killing snakes and getting people to buy "cool toys". A pistol can be a useful tool in the right circumstance, as can be a rifle or a SMG. A pistol is generally useful against unarmoured targets up to 25m, but with practice you can hit a man sized target out to 50m and still penetrate enough to do damage. A SMG in 9mm will do 50-75m quite easily and I shoot my .40cal carbine out to 200m with a scope frequently, so a 9mm SMG will work out to about a 100m as you get an energy boost from the longer barrel. http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/

After that it's rifle all the way. Which is a whole set of other skills, which the army is actually pretty good at.

Pistol shooting is one of the most perishable skills I have met, I shoot 1-2 times a month and can see my ability slip if I miss 1 month, the guy that taught me who competes in IPSC shoots roughly 30-40,000 rds a year. I shoot about 2-300 rds a month. If you want to improve your shooting and you have a Restricted PAL, look at getting a .22cal pistol. If you want one that mimics a full size gun, I recommend the  M&P .22 or the Sig Classic .22 (which means you can buy a slide, barrel and mags) to convert it to 9mm. You could buy a G17 but the .22cal conversion kits are not as common. With the .22 practice, practice and practice. Your local club will have various pistol competitions like Bullseye which will help you improve your base skill. Then if you have the time and money get into IPSC , which will push your skills up another level. The chart below will help you. (edit just realized this is for left handed, there is a right handed version as well)

 

 

[suffolkowner]

I have a Henry mare's leg in 45 colt. Not a military weapon by any stretch but extremely fun to shoot, accurate, "cool", and non-restricted to boot (just don't tell anyone, it must have slipped notice)

 

[Jarnhamar]

Pistols are next to useless.

-When you lose your rifle, say from an IED sucking it into limbo
-When your rifle gets a stoppage in a close range engagement

 

[Old and Tired]

-When you lose your rifle, say from an IED sucking it into limbo
-When your rifle gets a stoppage in a close range engagement

Searching Caves and tunnels any where the bad guys like to hang out