This is a discussion on WT*--Air Force wants handguns within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Air Force wants handguns; Moseley a .357 man By Bryant Jordan - Staff writer Posted : Monday Feb 26, 2007 17:26:10 EST http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...andguns070226/ Add handguns ...
Air Force wants handguns; Moseley a .357 man
By Bryant Jordan - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Feb 26, 2007 17:26:10 EST
Add handguns to the weapons that the Air Force wants to buy as part of a $7 billion fiscal 2007 supplemental budget.
In testimony before a congressional subcommittee in February, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley testified that, in addition to funds to replace lost aircraft, the additional money would go toward “day-to-day ops and personnel costs, contracts logistics support, depot maintenance, aviation fuel, vehicles force protection and handguns,” according to a transcript of the Feb. 12 hearing.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, told Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne that the committee hopes to help the Air Force increase its aircraft strength.
“And one other comment, you mentioned handguns,” Murtha said, then observed that he has heard from all the services that a substitute for the Beretta may be needed because “I hear you’ve got to put two or three shots in a person before you’re able to stop them [with a Beretta].” (uh, you mean 9mm, right, former Marine?)
Noting that the Air Force has increasing numbers of airmen on the ground in Iraq, Murtha said he hopes the services can come up with something as an alternate to the Beretta.
“That may sound like a minor thing. But if you’re on the ground and somebody’s after you, it’s a pretty major …”
“Sir, it’s a big deal,” Moseley added. “If you have to pull that side arm you just as soon kill the person.”
Asked by Murtha what he carried in theater; Moseley said a .357.
“Because I figure, if I have to pull a sidearm, I really don’t want to mess [around],” he said.
....HUH? Why does he carry a .357...and I get a 9mm?? I'd rather have my .40 (and no, I do not want to turn this into a caliber war )
I agree completely. I am not a fan of the 9mm and not afraid to say it. Why we got away from the .45 is beyond me.
I know that the premise behind the change to 9mm was to appease the NATO and UN types, plus the benefit that 9mm is found world wide, but someones pockets got lined, and not just Beretta's.
Put me in the .40/.45 or .357 camp. I would love to see our boys and girls with something that is better suited.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand
Actually, of course, we went from the .30-06 to the .308 to the .223, and I can pretty much dispel the notion of "we wanted a less lethal round." We wanted a light round (to carry more ammo) from a small, light rifle (that everyone, including smaller statured people could use) that was suitable to confined environments like jungles, et certera.Wasn't it the same reason we went to the .223 from the 30.06 for a long gun, to be less leathal, At least that's what I have heard, but can't say for sure.
The "wounding 'em is better than killing 'em, because then 2 more of 'em have to carry the wounded guy out" theory has been used as a justification or supporting argument for the 5.56N round after the fact, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't a real factor in choosing the round in the first place...
I'm not defending the choice - though I'm not one of those people who thinks the 5.56N is worse than a .22CB - but it wasn't made to be "less lethal."
I also think that if we went to a modern expanding round for our 9mms, the vast majority of the complaints against the rounds would go away. I know, that violates the Hague accords, but 9mm hardball (and, for that matter, .45 hardball) just aren't very good manstoppers.
A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.
Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; NRA Endowment Life; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.
The difference in recoil between 9mm and .45 is too slight to compensate for the lower performance of the smaller caliber particularly with FMJs. I hate to handicap our people by forcing them to stick with the 9 just because it simplified ammo supply when we were worried about a NATO joint action. As we have seen, most of the member-nations of NATO are scared of the dark.
Last edited by obxned; February 28th, 2007 at 10:49 AM. Reason: clarified
"If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan
Now guys i agree that some af guys are great , and need small arms to effectively do the job assigned . that being said my brother in law is af , and personaly i would feel better if you gave each of them a personal handgun , and took away all the heavy iron . Them idiots have no business flying a barn door much less anything that can deliver ordinance .. heck that feels better allready lol .
Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .
Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.
imagine that.....someone from another service calling AF folks idiots.
Let's not bring ASVAB scores into this...(I'm kidding, of course) ALL THE SERVICES ARE IMPORTANT AND NONE IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER. If you don't agree, then imagine the AF pulling its air cover over Iraq, or the Navy pulling out of the region. Kinda like saying the brain is more important than the heart. Oh, and as you might have guessed, I'm an airman (SSgt), and have seen what those "idiots" can do with a VERY complex aircraft against the BG's. Would I like to see a .45? Hell yes. There's no good reason not to considering the reliability and capacity of modern 45 pistols(except for money and red tape).
Last edited by lowflyer; February 27th, 2007 at 09:22 PM.
Whatever doesn't kill you postpones the inevitable.
this is not a shot to you srfl, just an add on... but it took us, as soldiers, 9 months to get us the sappy plates to go with the flak vests in 03' to 04'. that's 9 out of 12. those in "charge", and i mean higher, higher ups, step so far back they miss the definition of personal safety and end up thinking of only budget VS safety. i was an armorer in charge of weapons and still, the only ones who were issued handguns were officers and platoon SGTs. the reason why made sense but was only contradicted because over half of them could not even qualify with them... they had the rank so it didn't matter. To me, that's very sad.What are you complaining about.....when I was in Iraq, I didn't getting anything....just body armor.
What's this button do?
If those boys in the Air Force want guns, they should join the military. You know the Army or the Marine Corps.
Sorry. I couldn't resist.
All props to all who serve.
My war was Vietnam where I flew AC-130 gunships. Night after night we provided cover for fire bases by putting down 20mm, 40mm, and even 105mm on NVA and Cong who were attempting to overrun them. When we weren't doing that, we patrolled the Ho Chi Minh trail and destroyed trucks and supplies that were intended for use against Soldiers and Marines down south. My squadron lost several planes and crews to AAA and SAMs while performing that role. I assume folks like Redneck Repairs and Ranger would assume our losses were because we were idiots who had no business flying a barn door or anything else that could deliver ordnance. I wish the two of you had the opportunity to stand face to face with the widows and children of my squadron mates that were lost and tell them how you feel about their husbands and fathers.
"Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. It undergoes continual change; but this change is not [an improvement]. For everything that is given, something is taken."
Ralph Waldo Emerson