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?
392K
4.23K
1.93K
562
562
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 >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 907
0
0
0
The USAF’s job is to operate aircraft. The Army and Marines are the primary ground combat personnel. We receive training if our deployment or duty requires it. “Skilled Technicians”.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Everyone in the US military---regardless of their branch--should be familiar with the weapons available, and qualify with them at least once a year.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
When I was in the AirForce (1971 - 1976) I had to qualify with an M-16 twice. I don't know if that changed, but being in the Air Force Communications Service we were never in any combat situations. However, we did have a night where we were ordered to arm ourselves and authorized to use deadly force due to a terrorist group's threat to attack our site in Spain.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
During desert storm, I had an M-16, but all ammunition was stored on the other side of the base. USAF apparently thought too many of us would shoot each other in the foot, as opposed to actually caring about duty, responsibility, etc. so, it doesn't surprise me that this would be an issue today...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Always been so. Remember that until 1947, there was no separate Air Force, just the Army Air Corps!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Hey I was in the Coast Guard and we did annual weapons qualifications every year of the 33 years I served.
Guess the AF just depends on someone else protecting them.
Common sense says train them, the cost is minimal.
Guess the AF just depends on someone else protecting them.
Common sense says train them, the cost is minimal.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
When Mr. Victor Charles came to visit places like Tan Son Nhut and Bien Hoa among others in scenic South Viet-nam, , it would have seemed to have been a good idea for Airmen to have some small arms training. The final banzai attack on Iwo Jima decimated the Army Air Forces troops, unarmed, in their tents, hacked to pieces. So, there are lessons we learn in wars, the hard, very hard, way which we then feel free to forget next time around. My old man, a maintenance Sgt in England during WW 2 routinely re-qualified with the M-1 Carbine and 1911A-1 pistol he also mounted guard routinely. In addition he had a working knowledge of the Quad .50 BMG just in case. So, maybe spending a few days familiarizing yourself then re qualifying at least every year is called "being Prepared", just in case.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Very interesting I never knew that. So if your not SF in the Air Force you are just like a civilian relying on the police to protect you. Even our mechanics had a 50 on their track, and their small arms, and used them to effect when they had too. The Air Force trusts their troops to handle bombs and missiles, work on jet engines. Why not also teach them to protect themselves?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google