Posted on May 28, 2015
Why don't all members of the Air Force have to be fully qualified to be a rifleman in case of hostile events?
369K
4.45K
1.94K
565
565
0
I have noticed through the years of being in the Air Force (Security Forces member here) that most people in the Air Force are clueless when it comes to M-4/M-16/M-9. This is outrageous! What are they supposed to do if the enemy comes knocking on our door step and everyone needs to fight. I have taught classes on the M-4 with communication airmen and have seen them completely mess up clearing out the weapon, loading it (magazine upside down or rounds the wrong way), and just completely incapable of achieving a zero on target after four rounds of firing. I am a big fan of how the Army and Marines teach that your are always a rifleman first. It almost seems like some of the Airmen don't expect to carry a weapon (ummmm why did you join the military in the first place)? I wish the Air Force would pick up on this to make us a more combat ready force. But, enough of me what are your thoughts?
Rifleman
3P: Security Forces
Air Force
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 914
0
0
0
For the most part the only Air Force members that see a combat zone are air crews. Even the people who maintain and arm the combat aircraft are usually stationed a long way from enemy soldiers. In my own case I spent 8 years in the regular AF and never touched a government weapon except in basic training. My first permanent station was in NY where I worked in the military pay office - a base level job. After that I was assigned to SAC HQ where nobody but police had any use for weapons. There were some officer details that required they strap on a pistol for courier duty but enlisted people don't do that. My last permanent station was in Washington DC. Again there were no weapons for any AF people there.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
During the Vietnam War, many non-security policemen were pulled from other AFSCs to augment SF. They were trained in the use of .38s, M-16s, M-60s and 60 to 84mm mortars (usually for illumination). Base defense was their main objective. But it didn't end in Vietnam/SEA. Units like Tactical Air Control (mobile radar units) had to be able to defend themselves. Why? Small SF detachments. So along with my AFSC (AGE) , I was selected to be trained on the M-60 (of which I already was qualified on) and the M-79 40mm grenade launcher. But like everything else there were goofball who wanted to play Rambo with two or more weapons. Therefore when my time was up in TAC AIR, no one else was trained to replace me.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I can't reply for the new af but when I was in I q'd as expert out of basic and afterwards also this was with an m-16, the only reason I did not q with the m-9 was that our range was not good enough!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
My take is that putting a weapon in the hands of individuals who don’t fire a weapon routinely is a recipe for disaster. Keeping them qualified would be costly. However, I think quick reaction teams of those who could be spared in urgent situations could be trained and kept qualified. These teams could respond in an emergency.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I agree it is outrageous and is exactly why i trained myself to as many weapons I could get ahold of. My grandson is now a SSgt in the USAF and I trained him on the civilian equivalentcivilian persons of the m-4 and the beretta 92 and a SIG P-320. My philosophy is ya gotta look out for yourself cause no one is gonna do it for you.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
It bothers me to see this crap about the Air Force. I am retired after 20 years in the Air Force. And I was forced to learn the M-16 inside and out. EVERY Year I was in the Air Force-I had to qualify on the M-16 and a 9mm hand gun and be very proficient with both. I could field strip an M-16 and put it back together.
I retired 24+ years ago.
I retired 24+ years ago.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I was in many moons ago and my AFSC (MOS? For others) had a security clearance that did not allow me to be in a hostile area? Let me tell you I was pissed when we trained with 22’s as my dad had an ar15 back then and I was hoping to learn what it took to create a m16. So disappointing... it was not until president Regan was elected that our unit ever even saw a firearm or a real m16 except on the AP’s and SP’s. After that we actually got to go to the range (I loved it) but most hated it and almost none could handle a 1911. That was at our base and many other commands did not have the war time training skills project.
I expected that when I enlisted and even though I could not be in a forward area I would loved additional training regularly the seals and rangers we worked with were awesome, I even learned a few things and I grew up shooting NRA small bore and trap shooting
I expected that when I enlisted and even though I could not be in a forward area I would loved additional training regularly the seals and rangers we worked with were awesome, I even learned a few things and I grew up shooting NRA small bore and trap shooting
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
As an ex AF medic I can assure you that weapons training would come in handy. The AF has a bad habit of putting you in situations where such training would be helpful...ie..the med 'patchup' teams ( if they even still exist) from when I was in, in the early 70's...fwiw..when in basics, our range NCO's told us that because the AF was almost out of money, our practice rounds would be our qualifying rounds...I has hunted since I was 9 or so so I had somewhat of a leg up on most of the guys, but some had only seen pictures of the M16...not a confidence builder for me if TSHTF.
..
..
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google