MP-Pistol Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
FYI,



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].”



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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
I believe a .45 would do the the trick also. But hey, I'll take what ever they give me. Anything to replace the Berreta.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
Ugh maybe its just me but his personality wreaks of the type of General that interjects his old and outdated opinion which is disconnected from the airmen under him. "I like .357". Why even mention that? You poor ******* zoomies will get stuck with a wheel gun for a combat arm because this General likes them in his air conditioned office resting in a WWII era patent leather shoulder holster. :roll:



Wouldn't be the first time a piece of equipment is passed down to end users because coughPEOcough thought it was just neato in their offices. Ask me how I know... *looks to crumpled velcro clad ACU uniform that is stuck to itself like a used tissue post ejaculation, then on to the beret next to it*



MOVING ON!




The Beretta aint bad, its the TRAINING that's crap. Keep the Beretta, invest in training. 9mm is good 'nuff, and although I'd like to see them sporting S&W M&P40's I know it just won't happen. Beyond that, the .40 or even the .45 isn't going to do them one bit better if airmen are not proficient with their arms.







Wow....I need to go take a nap, I'm cranky.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
I have to agree with the training being CRAP. I also would like S&W to present the AF with the M&P. SIG, BERRETA & HK have already presented us with some of their models since they all want to win the contract for a new firearm. Although the .357 is a very good round, I prefer a weapon that holds more than six rounds (I'm not knocking on revolvers here). Let's hope they let the Airmen decide on what weapon is best suited for them and combat. (They did an excellent job with our uniform; glad they still listen to us)(sarcasm) :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,726 Posts
crazypilot said:
Let's hope they let the Airmen decide on what weapon is best suited for them and combat. (They did an excellent job with our uniform; glad they still listen to us)(sarcasm) :wink:


It's all about what Senator, will accept the most $$$ to stick in his Swiss account; that will decide on which make and model the Soldiers will get. It's never about the Soldier in the mud, fighting for his life or what he might need, but rather what politician can barger best with our Soldiers lives.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Ya know

not that i'm biased or anything but they had for years one of the best people stoppers in the market.. all the services had them.. the good old 1911 in 45acp.. if they just would have left well enough alone..



Frankly i could never see the services buying a DAO weapon without a manual safety, i remember having to yell at to many boneheads to stop playing with the weapons.. not that they were loaded but .. bad habits you know..



I hope they do get something but the .357.... even the .357sig yuck.. and man what a handful and is that puppy LOUD.. Nice to see them do something in 40 or 45..



we shall see i guess.





Jeff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
I have a real good friend in the Air Force (I'm retired Army) and he said the same thing, training in the Air Force is substandard to say the least. The only problem with the Beretta is the crap 9mm ball ammo that is used. In the Army that is all we were authorized to carry. If they would let us carry hollow points, it may be different. I love how the general carries a .357 and his airman only get a 9mm. Like a terrorist is likely to get that far in the rear and cause him any harm and if he is like a majority of the Army officers I saw before I retired, he more than likely couldn't hit the far side of a C-130 with it standing 10 yards away.




Take Care and God Bless!



Ronin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
Without really good shot placement, you can field any of the popular calibers out there, but you will still have to shoot someone 2-3 times more than likely. It's a HANDGUN. Not exactly a platform known for putting someone down in one shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
Without really good shot placement, you can field any of the popular calibers out there, but you will still have to shoot someone 2-3 times more than likely. It's a HANDGUN. Not exactly a platform known for putting someone down in one shot.


Exactly my point. If you look at posts on other forums from people like DocGKR (ballistics expert) he says one of the largest reason for people having displeasure in 9mm and 5.56 is because of unrealistic expectations from watching movies, tv, ect. People watch TV where one shot kills someone outright, no writhing around on the ground, no movement, dead. Only a CNS hit will do this and it doesn't matter if its 9mm or .44mag at that point. In service members cases, most of them are only exposed to 9mm and 5.56 (in combat anyways, not many people have been in long enough to see the difference between .45ACP vs 9mm on real human targets) so they figure a larger caliber round would yield the results like "seen on tv". Fact is that unless you break the spinal chord or disrupt the brain (and even with that, a certain PORTION of the brain) the BG is not going to be "dead" like in the movies. Hes still going to be remarkably functional for at least a small while (<2 minutes?). I love .40S&W, even over 9mm, BUT I honestly think that for marginally trained troops in a combat zone, the ability to make more hits is paramount because:



1) The number of threats is going to be significantly larger then that a CCW would have to deal with.

2) Troops need the capacity to simply overcome marginal and infrequent training,a lot of those shots are going to be misses. Would you rather have 15 rounds or 8 rounds if 1/3 of your shots are going to be a miss?



The beretta is down on capacity compared to most other 9mm weapons, but an M&P9 with 18 rounds would be PERFECT. I say 9mm because I understand that the AF is simply not going to go outside NATO until big Army does. Thats just being realistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
ClosetCaseNerd said:
Without really good shot placement, you can field any of the popular calibers out there, but you will still have to shoot someone 2-3 times more than likely. It's a HANDGUN. Not exactly a platform known for putting someone down in one shot.


Exactly my point. If you look at posts on other forums from people like DocGKR (ballistics expert) he says one of the largest reason for people having displeasure in 9mm and 5.56 is because of unrealistic expectations from watching movies, tv, ect. People watch TV where one shot kills someone outright, no writhing around on the ground, no movement, dead. Only a CNS hit will do this and it doesn't matter if its 9mm or .44mag at that point. In service members cases, most of them are only exposed to 9mm and 5.56 (in combat anyways, not many people have been in long enough to see the difference between .45ACP vs 9mm on real human targets) so they figure a larger caliber round would yield the results like "seen on tv". Fact is that unless you break the spinal chord or disrupt the brain (and even with that, a certain PORTION of the brain) the BG is not going to be "dead" like in the movies. Hes still going to be remarkably functional for at least a small while (<2 minutes?). I love .40S&W, even over 9mm, BUT I honestly think that for marginally trained troops in a combat zone, the ability to make more hits is paramount because:



1) The number of threats is going to be significantly larger then that a CCW would have to deal with.

2) Troops need the capacity to simply overcome marginal and infrequent training,a lot of those shots are going to be misses. Would you rather have 15 rounds or 8 rounds if 1/3 of your shots are going to be a miss?



The beretta is down on capacity compared to most other 9mm weapons, but an M&P9 with 18 rounds would be PERFECT. I say 9mm because I understand that the AF is simply not going to go outside NATO until big Army does. Thats just being realistic.


I'll have to agree with almost everything you said, although with today's weapons you can get 45's in higher round counts. Let's take it at face value that our armed services folks are not going to get Hollow point ammo, although it would probably save lives..



There's a lot to be said for a large diameter hole, even it's it's made with ball ammo..
Frankly it would be nice to seem them compromise with the .40 but i think your more correct saying it will be 9mm for the reasons you state..



I like the 45 and it served our armed forces for a very long time and quite well, i don't really think they could go wrong going back to it, however in today's squeamish political let's not offend anyone environment i think you'll see them get a 9mm like you said.



Jeff.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top