What pistol sniper can entrust their life with?

You ask a very good question. I've got a fict in the works that addresses this problem nicely.

A reliable pistol. Because when the time comes for the sniper to use it only means that things have gone FUBAR. When that happens, you put the gun below your chin and squeeze. No capture, no surrender.

Any pistol a non-sniper would trust their life with?

something that can lay in the mud in a holster at his hip for days while he waits for a target, and still be ready to fire at a moment's notice... I won't list my suggestion, it'll just make me sound like a broken record (but I know an ex-Force Recon guy whose entire company brought personal sidearms to Afghanistan against the regs... and they were mostly 10mm variants of my favorite pistol).

During WWI, fighter pilots were given handguns, though use of it is desputed over in the aerodome website.

The British Ace Mannock stated that the gun was for killing one's self if their planes were to burst into flames or in a death spiral, as allied pilots were not allowed to use parachutes at the time. Germans did have parachutes in the later part of the war, but they only worked 50% of the time, and many were killed in jumping out of their planes as other died in them.

The American Ace Frank Luke was shot down and managed to fight off the advancing Germans with a pair of 1911s before he ran out of ammo and the Germans maulled him.

The Allied pilots mostly has 1911s, shipped from the USA to Britan. The French had their own guns (dont know what it was). The Axis, mainly the German Pilots had Mauser Pistols in 9mm or .30 or 9mm Lugers in 9mm with 4 or 8 inch barrels.

Again, the reason why to have such a handgun was questionable. But it was given to all officers above a specific rank. It is assumed that they were too use it in a defensive role. I would guess the same would apply here. As for the gun- something small, but with quite a powerful punch and man stopping power to it. With guns being a personal preference thing, I would surmise anything from a 1911 .45ACP on down would do for a sniper.

LoC978 wrote:something that can lay in the mud in a holster at his hip for days while he waits for a target, and still be ready to fire at a moment's notice... I won't list my suggestion, it'll just make me sound like a broken record (but I know an ex-Force Recon guy whose entire company brought personal sidearms to Afghanistan against the regs... and they were mostly 10mm variants of my favorite pistol).

I know the answer! Glocks! And I won't argue either. Bloody things are built like a Honda Accord. Competitively priced, tons of reliability, a bit on the ugly side, but solid hunk of metal (and polymer ).

I'm getting scared, over the past couple months I think I'm beginning to like Glocks.

You mean pistol as selfdefence weapon?
Than, I think, it must be something having high capacity and (may be) auto mode. In USSR APS was for same purposes. Glock 18, Beretta 93, HK VP 70 may be. Or compact submachine gun like HK MP7 or SR-2 Veresk or AS Val (no bad choice for sniper, I think).

it is true that British pilots used 1911's during the Second world war ,chambered in the British standard .455 webley round ,but i think they used Webley Mk VI revolvers during the first world war,a gun that will work even if exposed to mud,blood guts, rain and mustard gas

I would bring a M93R for PDW purposes my only concern is I don't know about the M93R's reliability.

rusty-spring wrote:I know the answer! Glocks! And I won't argue either. Bloody things are built like a Honda Accord. Competitively priced, tons of reliability, a bit on the ugly side, but solid hunk of metal (and polymer ).

I'm getting scared, over the past couple months I think I'm beginning to like Glocks.

I disagree with you in only one regard - I think Glocks look lovely.

You know, it's strange that we talk of sidearms for regular troops. Most countries don't emphasise a lot on it because it takes a lot of training to use it well and anyway at range the pistol is quite useless. That's why most countries deem it not necessary. The only exception is USA, though I don't really understand why.

Most of the time sidearms are used by SpecOps operatives because they are trained to use them and the opportunities to use them are ever there. One story comes from a British SAS operative who tree-jumped into the jungle in Kalimantan in the 1960s. He was caught in the tree and there was an Indonesian soldier just below him. The worst part was that his rifle was strapped down for HALO jumping so he waited and prayed hard. After that incident all SAS personnel have pistol training and carry sidearms.

As for snipers, it's a different reason altogether. Contrary to popular opinion, their greatest weapon isn't their rifle, it's their ghillie suit. Their primary weapon is stealth and they use it to sneak around to scout. However, they can also use it to cause great terror in the enemy. There are cases when a single sniper can hold up an entire battalion by simply shooting their CO and making everyone else unwilling to go out to look for him. Sadly this is the exact reason why when captured they can expect an on-the-spot summary trial and execution at best, and torture, public humuiliation and a slow lingering death at worst. That's why I said that the only sidearm a sniper carries is a reliable one. When capture is imminent, the worst thing that can happen is for you to put the gun under your chin, squeeze and hear a click

Bah, Glocks, as hideous as the AUG.

A gun should have a safety or a decocking lever or both, not some little doohickey on the trigger.

And their grip angles are terrible.

MikhailN wrote:You know, it's strange that we talk of sidearms for regular troops. Most countries don't emphasise a lot on it because it takes a lot of training to use it well and anyway at range the pistol is quite useless. That's why most countries deem it not necessary. The only exception is USA, though I don't really understand why.

I always thought today's love for the handgun came from the wild west days, where they were exceedingly popular as both a fashion statement (because you could carry publically openly in some frontier areas) and general widespread use. Though even at that "lawless" time, long rifles were also extremely popular.

This is just an opinion of mine however, I'm not a firearms historian by any stretch of the imagination.

Personally, I would also prefer having a sidearm along with a primary. It's a matter of layered defense. Should everything go to hell and you live long enough to expend all of your rifle's ammo, you have something to go down fighting with. Maybe, just maybe, the gods will smile on you and you'll make it out.

For a sniper, if they get that close, you'd better be invisible.

But keeping it in perpective, why do some carry a knife? It's because a knife can be useful. You can argue knife vs gun all day long, but in the end, some choose a knife, some a pistol. Hell, why not carry both? It's your life, isn't it?

maverick375 wrote:Personally, I would also prefer having a sidearm along with a primary. It's a matter of layered defense. Should everything go to hell and you live long enough to expend all of your rifle's ammo, you have something to go down fighting with. Maybe, just maybe, the gods will smile on you and you'll make it out.

For a sniper, if they get that close, you'd better be invisible.

But keeping it in perpective, why do some carry a knife? It's because a knife can be useful. You can argue knife vs gun all day long, but in the end, some choose a knife, some a pistol. Hell, why not carry both? It's your life, isn't it?

Maybe the knife is there for more of a utility than a weapon, but thats my thinking of it.

Unfortunately, not every sniper gets the luxury of a ghillie suit. That bit about torture is interesting, Mik - I never knew that snipers could expect treatment more brutal than other kinds of troops if they were to be captured.

Sidearms aren't meant for ranged combat, not is the reasoning behind their issuing an aesthetic one. As Mav said, it's a matter of layered defence; they're meant to provide an alternative to hand-to-hand combat if circumstances don't permit the use of your primary (be it exhausted ammo or confined spaces) and the enemy gets close enough. Two acquaintances of mine who recently underwent tours in Iraq and were caught up in vicious, house-to-house urban fighting told me that their sidearms saved their bacon on more than a few occasions. Better the capability to pump pistol slugs into those insurgents than being forced to slug it out with fists.

As far as I know, the 'knife or handgun' mentality only appears to persist in armed forces where sidearms were not always standard issue - guys not used to the new system stick with knives out of force of habit. It sounds silly, but I suppose this is something along the lines of those older Marines who preferred their '03 Springfields to the Garand during WWII. Most soldiers I've heard of opt to carry both whenever possible - the handgun for the reasons I've outlined above, and the knife as a tool more than anything else.

MikhailN wrote:You know, it's strange that we talk of sidearms for regular troops. Most countries don't emphasise a lot on it because it takes a lot of training to use it well and anyway at range the pistol is quite useless. That's why most countries deem it not necessary. The only exception is USA, though I don't really understand why.

Cultural issues, as well as having a 'last ditch' weapon. A handgun is what the secret police (Republican Guard, etc) use to inspire fear in the population over in the middle east. If someone disagrees with them, that someone is shot, the rest fall in line quickly. The regular troops and ordinary households all have assault rifles, but those rifles are rarely used on anyone.
It comes down to this: point a rifle/machine gun/grenade launcher at a civilian in Iraq and see if he gets out of your way. He won't. Put your hand anywhere near your 9mm sidearm, and he'll run for his life.

maverick375 wrote:But keeping it in perpective, why do some carry a knife? It's because a knife can be useful. You can argue knife vs gun all day long, but in the end, some choose a knife, some a pistol. Hell, why not carry both? It's your life, isn't it?

Both is what I would prefer. I always have a knife on me... and yes, it's mostly for utility work.

how about those automatic pistols that jet fighter pilots have

Yeah, what about them?

if i was a sniper id carry something with a lot of firepower and by that i mean it holds lots of bullets...a small machinepstol

Machine pistols, you say? I never knew fighter pilots were issued those.

Nachtsider wrote:Machine pistols, you say? I never knew fighter pilots were issued those.

In Black Hawk Down the downed pilot had an MP5K but that different from a fighter pilot.

I remember that one. Didn't think it was a standard issue weapon; always was under the impression that it was something he just decided to bring along with him.

Durant wasn't just any pilot though. He was a member of the 160th SOAR. Those guys are like the special forces of helicopter pilots.

Nachtsider wrote:Machine pistols, you say? I never knew fighter pilots were issued those.

Do you know about CAR-15 Survival rifle (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as50-e.htm), For which purposes it was created?
AKS-74U used for pilots in USSR, in Afganistan war for example.

The sniper should carry an Uzi with many magazines when he scout.

yeah im thinking something along the lines of a mini uzisomething with a supressor and something sub machine gun like

Well, AFAIK russian military snipers use SVD/VSS pair.
SVD as main rifle, VSS for close combat and for selfdefence.

The VSS isn't exactly a close combat rifle though. 10 rounds isn't really enough, and when you're close enough, I'd take irons over a scope.

The spotter for US sniper teams usually have some form of Armalite rifle, which makes more sense.

rshackleford wrote:The VSS isn't exactly a close combat rifle though. 10 rounds isn't really enough

VSS can be loaded by 20 rounds detachable box. It is no big difference between 20 rounds VSS and 30 rounds AR... By the way, VSS is silent. So I think, that's no bad for hiding sniper. AS Val (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as10-e.htm) would be not a bad choice, by the way.

Probably a Glock chambered for anything except 9mm or an FN Five-seveN. Reason: both have hard-hitting rounds that can put someone down in one shot which is not always the case w/ the 9mm and large mag capacity. Glocks can use a 33 round mag, and the 5.7 has a 20. the pistol has to serve as the snipers primary while moving from point to point and in CQB both areas where the rifle cannot be used. the large mag cap reduces time to load and in cqb even split secs will cost you your life. as an additional plus the Glock 18 can be used as an SMG and wave a stock attatched, replacing a secondary SMG all together

If durability is what you want a GLOCK 17 9mm in a two-tone, green and cayoty brown (for the sake of camuflage) is your best bet.

I went to fire one once and I accidently let the mag fall to the floor and when I was gana pick it up, the owner of the gun kicked the mag on the floor and filled it with dust, then he picked it up and gave it to me, he said: " Dont worry I have done this before". I placed the mag in pushed the slide stop and started connectin with with bucket...at 85 yards! that was a great pistol and even after 500 rounds it kept going and going no jams.

Now if you dont care for polymer than a 10mm Kimber custom 1911 is what you need!. Great pistol once you get around the 8 round single-stack mag.

Well Glocks are known to be rigorously tested, dirtied, submereged, and frozen before shipment.

according to the now-famous torture test, there are two ways to make one stop functioning (short of the absolutely ridiculous... such as melting it in a vat of acid).
1: apply enough force to the grip as to crush the rounds inside (ie. throw it off the roof of your house onto concrete), flattening the casings and making them impossible to feed into the chamber (solution: new rounds).
2: take it apart and leave the pieces individually wrapped in salt-water soaked wool for a week. Rust, you see (solution: a few new internal parts).

...I wouldn't be able to bring myself to abuse my pistols like that...

really anything that has large capacity is durable and is calibre between .22 and .45

FN57 is....well its about .22 so yeah but id want a gun that i can find bullets for so id take a 9mm or even a .22

i dont see any reason in having such exotic guns id just take whatever the army gives you be it an m9 or a glock or whatever. If you have a good primary the chances are youll barely have to use your secondary. as long as it has the bullets and shoots its fine.

tsundere9kagami2 wrote:really anything that has large capacity is durable and is calibre between .22 and .45

FN57 is....well its about .22 so yeah but id want a gun that i can find bullets for so id take a 9mm or even a .22

i dont see any reason in having such exotic guns id just take whatever the army gives you be it an m9 or a glock or whatever. If you have a good primary the chances are youll barely have to use your secondary. as long as it has the bullets and shoots its fine.

Finally a bit of wisdom. As long as you're well-hidden you're fine. I can assure you if you do your fieldcraft well the guy can be standing on top of you and not notice. Then again a sidearm is good but if you fire the whole world will be looking for you. On deep penetration missions (don't get the wrong idea. This one involves crawling miles into enemy territory, shooting/scouting and hopefully getting out somewhat alive) once you use your pistol, expect nothing short of a company to come for you.

this is about a sidearm for a sniper right, if that is so then the pistol becomes the primary when the sniper is on the move (especially in urban environments where natural camo is nil. the 5.7 has more power than a .22 which is why i recc it. the glocks are amazing and are very versatile and if you could count it a micro uzi would work too, its got pistol dimensions and a high RoF (1200 rpm)

commanderagl wrote:this is about a sidearm for a sniper right, if that is so then the pistol becomes the primary when the sniper is on the move (especially in urban environments where natural camo is nil. the 5.7 has more power than a .22 which is why i recc it. the glocks are amazing and are very versatile and if you could count it a micro uzi would work too, its got pistol dimensions and a high RoF (1200 rpm)

Usually that role is played by the spotter who usually carries something that lends more firepower than a bolt-action, like an assault rifle or something to that effect. Anyway I heard the US is adopting the M110 that is semi-auto, so it can double up as a PDW for a sniper on the move. Better yet, it looks so much like the M4 carbine that the guy doesn't stand out that much walking about with a bolt-action rifle

...there's also the various roles a sniper can play... choice of sidearm would depend pretty heavily on one's mission. From Mikhail's description of a deep penetration teehehe... penetration. sniper, one would be best off with something along the lines of a derringer in a waterproof bag. The Force Recon guys I've talked to were never quite that far from friendly support... and they were so full of bluster and bravado that they'd take nothing short of a 10mm Glock or 1911 for a sidearm. A sharpshooter attached to a fire support element (which is what most people think of as a 'sniper') is best off using whatever his officers have, so as to avoid misidentification and friendly fire.
as for special forces units... from what I've heard, the consensus (among the men, not the officers) is to take and use the enemy's weapons whenever possible, speak their language, and look as much like them as possible.

LoC978 wrote:...there's also the various roles a sniper can play... choice of sidearm would depend pretty heavily on one's mission. From Mikhail's description of a deep penetration teehehe... penetration. sniper, one would be best off with something along the lines of a derringer in a waterproof bag.

Yup there were jokes (even among the trainees) about the kind of penetration the deep penetration squads would do in the wilderness . However, once they did one "penetration" complete with instructors and long range scouts (read: snipers) hunting for them, the jokes disappeared completely . As for sidearm, you're half right. It was in a waterproof bag, but usually it would be a service pistol. After all, like I said by the time you have to use it it's usually for suicide so not much consideration was taken.

LoC978 wrote:as for special forces units...
from what I've heard, the consensus (among the men, not the officers)
is to take and use the enemy's weapons whenever possible, speak their
language, and look as much like them as possible.

That's for the grunts. For the snipers the opinion is a bit divided because some don't want to give up their personal rifle every war when the enemy uses a different rifle. Others are a bit more audacious. If ever they're found, they want to look like the enemy's sniper as much as possible so hopefully they can evade capture that way. Probably the best camouflage, if you ask me