WT*--Air Force wants handguns

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 ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45

Thread: WT*--Air Force wants handguns

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,074

    WT*--Air Force wants handguns

    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 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 )

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array briansmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    688
    .500 magnum...

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array purple88yj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, NC
    Posts
    1,100
    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.

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by purple88yj View Post
    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.
    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.

    Wound them but don't kill them, still takes them out of the battle, maybe?
    "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

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    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.
    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.

    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.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Wink More "BB's" vs BIGGER "BB's"

    Quote Originally Posted by purple88yj View Post
    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.
    I've ALWAYS been a 45 kind of guy and own 4 just now 1911's Sig and H&K. However, with advances in bullet technology/configuration I'm coming to the point in my life that I want less recoil and a higher capacity. I've got a Beretta M92FS that I compete with, but I'm lusting after a Sig P226 BlackWater 9mm. As afriend of mine in SpecOps once said: Would you rather catch a 454 Casull in the hand or a 9mm right thru the upper lip at the base of the nose and headed in a straight line? Well...neither, actually. But the 454 is at least survivable whaile the 9mm strike is not.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array obxned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    OBX, NC
    Posts
    2,655
    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

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array Redneck Repairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,134
    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.

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array srfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    6,870
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    (SNIP)....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 )
    What are you complaining about.....when I was in Iraq, I didn't getting anything....just body armor.
    USAF: Loving Our Obscene Amenities Since 1947

  11. #10
    Member Array riversdaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    67
    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).

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array lowflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    1,221

    Thumbs down Educate yourself

    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Repairs View Post
    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 .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_D._Cunningham

    http://www.pjsinnam.com/War_on_Terro...o_11/Maltz.htm
    http://www.afa.org/magazine/May2003/0503world.asp
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing
    http://www.spectre-association.org/i.../inMemory2.htm


    Last edited by lowflyer; February 27th, 2007 at 09:22 PM.
    Whatever doesn't kill you postpones the inevitable.

  13. #12
    Senior Member Array downrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    levittown PA
    Posts
    584
    What are you complaining about.....when I was in Iraq, I didn't getting anything....just body armor.
    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's this button do?

  14. #13
    Member Array Warhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Repairs View Post
    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 .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Sijan
    http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/cita...f_levitow.html
    http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/cita...r_william.html
    http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/cita...thorsness.html
    http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/cita...s_william.html
    http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/cita...vn_af_day.html

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../usaf/tacp.htm
    http://www.specwarnet.net/americas/cc.htm
    http://www.specwarnet.net/americas/pj.htm

    http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123042327

  15. #14
    Member Array Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    383
    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.

  16. #15
    Senior Member
    Array gimpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Repairs View Post
    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 ..
    Given that this forum is made up of folks primarily interested in CC weapons, and that MOST Air Force people don't carry small arms during their normal duties, I can somewhat understand a little friendly rivalry from the folks who do carry them every day. However, I do take offense to the words such as "Them idiots have no business flying a barn door much less anything that can deliver ordinance.."

    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

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. November 6-7, 2010 - Force-on-Force Gunfighting - Hallsville, MO
    By SteveCollins in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2010, 08:32 AM
  2. AAR: Suarez International Low Light Force on Force with Randy Harris
    By Blackeagle in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 17th, 2010, 08:08 PM
  3. September 25-26, 2010 - Suarez International Force on Force Gunfighting - Tyler, TX
    By Sweatnbullets in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 18th, 2010, 01:06 AM
  4. The Lima Review of Suarez International Force on Force Training with Steve Collins
    By limatunes in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: September 15th, 2010, 10:04 PM
  5. Opinion requested for new online survey - Force on Force Training.
    By WAPS in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 21st, 2007, 09:26 PM