cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini) (10/15/90)
From: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini) I was watching the ABC news last night and noticed that of of the crew members climbing into a f111 (?) had a revolver in a shoulder holster. Are side arms standard issue for Jet-jockies? -chris -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |I love my country, I fear its government |Are you registered to Vote? | | Chris Luchini/1110 W. Green/Urbana IL 61801/217-333-0505 | | Cluch@fnald.bitnet cbl@uihep.hep.uiuc.edu| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - OpenWindows Contractor) (10/16/90)
From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - OpenWindows Contractor) In article <1990Oct15.033827.12908@cbnews.att.com>: |>From: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini) |>I was watching the ABC news last night and noticed that of of the |>crew members climbing into a f111 (?) had a revolver in a shoulder |>holster. Are side arms standard issue for Jet-jockies? |>-chris Pretty much since folks fought from planes, they've carried pistols as a side-arm. Not for in-air action, but for if they got shot down. The selection of a weapon was a personal one, I've read of folks taking everything from snub-nosed '38's to big ole '44 magnums, depending on where they feared they might go down and everything else. -MSM ____________________________________________________________________________ Mark S. Miller UUCP: msmiller@Sun.COM "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile." Disclaimer: I work for me, so do my words. - Hunter S. Thompson
rja@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Allen) (10/16/90)
From: rja@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Allen)
In article <1990Oct15.033827.12908@cbnews.att.com> cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini) writes:
+
+
+From: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini)
+I was watching the ABC news last night and noticed that of of the
+crew members climbing into a f111 (?) had a revolver in a shoulder
+holster. Are side arms standard issue for Jet-jockies?
I believe such has been the case ever since we've had planes
in the sky. Their for in case you have to eject over enemy
territory and Rambo-fy the countryside.
--
Robert Allen rja@sun.com
DoD member #0204
Disclaimer: This is my opinion, not my company's. Your mileage may vary.ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (10/16/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Pilots carry sidearms for self-defense after being shot down. When the
competition for the weapon to replace the M1911 .45 ACP began, the
services differed greatly on what kind of weapon they wanted. The Army
wanted a 9mm, because that was an up and coming NATO round. The Marines
wanted an improved .45, because they didn't see any real problem with
the exisitng pistol, except its age. The Navy didn't really care, they
wanted something that would shoot, I guess. And the Air Force wanted
something that amounted to a light-machine gun to give their pilots for
when they were shot down over commieland.
>From what I've read/seen/heard, most pilots/aircrew prefer to carry
revolvers instead of autoloaders because they tend to be lighter.
Allanzimerman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Jacob Ben-david Zimmerman) (10/16/90)
From: zimerman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Jacob Ben-david Zimmerman) RE jet pilots with sidearms: I heard that the revolver is a quick way of destroying equipment if your plane is downed. In WWII fighter pilots carried them. In case of a forced landing, one or two shots into the fuel tank produced a nice raging inferno. I imagine that one or two shots into electronics would be effective as well. ___________ |-Here comes your father. || | -Henry V || ||acob Zimmerman!+> <zimerman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> INTERNET === | <zimerman@PUCC> BITnet
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/18/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >... The Marines >wanted an improved .45, because they didn't see any real problem with >the exisitng pistol, except its age... Yet more proof that the Marines are the only US service with their heads screwed on correctly... :-) (They fought an uphill battle in Congress to get Harriers for close support, and gave up F-14s in exchange; their close-support pilots are trained as infantrymen first; they're equipping all their transport aircraft with defensive countermeasures; they're pushing hard to get the Osprey into service; and now they turn out to have common sense about pistols too... an impressive bunch.) -- "...the i860 is a wonderful source | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of thesis topics." --Preston Briggs | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
baldwin@usna.NAVY.MIL (J.D. Baldwin) (10/18/90)
From: baldwin@usna.NAVY.MIL (J.D. Baldwin) In the referenced article, cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini) writes: >I was watching the ABC news last night and noticed that of of the >crew members climbing into a f111 (?) had a revolver in a shoulder >holster. Are side arms standard issue for Jet-jockies? The U.S. Navy standard flying sidearm is the execrable .38 revolver. (Ugh. Spit. Ptui!) The little pouch in the LPA/survival vest is designed for it, though it can hold a larger weapon if desired. Naval missions over the Persian Gulf have not, in recent years, been flown with sidearms. That, however, was before hostilities were imminent. I would be *very* very surprised if overland flights from SA (and even the naval missions, these days) did not require the crew to carry sidearms. I am intrigued, however, that the weapon was being carried in a shoulder holster and not a pouch built into the survival vest. I wouldn't put it past the USAF to stage a "cowboy" shot for the press (pilot straps on sidearm and flies off to face down the Iraqi hordes), with a prominently placed pistol in a non-regulation shoulder holster. It seems to me that actually to do this would be a safety-of-flight hazard of some sort. Does anyone know about *this*? -- From the catapult of: |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _, J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to __||____:::)=}- U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / baldwin@cad.usna.navy.mil |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rja@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Allen) (10/19/90)
From: rja@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Allen)
In article <1990Oct18.021131.6585@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
+
+
+From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
+>From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
+>... The Marines
+>wanted an improved .45, because they didn't see any real problem with
+>the exisitng pistol, except its age...
+
+Yet more proof that the Marines are the only US service with their heads
+screwed on correctly... :-) (They fought an uphill battle in Congress to
+get Harriers for close support, and gave up F-14s in exchange; their
+close-support pilots are trained as infantrymen first; they're equipping
+all their transport aircraft with defensive countermeasures; they're
+pushing hard to get the Osprey into service; and now they turn out to
+have common sense about pistols too... an impressive bunch.)
That's because the Marines have the crappiest job, and the least
to do it with. They only want something that works, period. They
are also very good at developing their own stuff. I've seen them
install IBM PC clones, and token ring lans, in their field encampments.
I've seen them build their own command center tents while the Army
had custom ones which cost up the wazoo.
Finally, the Marines still carry the USMC combat knife, while I`ve
seen Rangers carrying the BuckMaster piece of garbage.
--
Robert Allen rja@sun.com
DoD member #0204
Disclaimer: This is my opinion, not my company's. Your mileage may vary.rja@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Allen) (10/19/90)
From: rja@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Allen) In article <1990Oct18.021255.6938@cbnews.att.com> baldwin@usna.NAVY.MIL (J.D. Baldwin) writes: + + +From: baldwin@usna.NAVY.MIL (J.D. Baldwin) + +In the referenced article, cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini) writes: +>I was watching the ABC news last night and noticed that of of the +>crew members climbing into a f111 (?) had a revolver in a shoulder +>holster. Are side arms standard issue for Jet-jockies? + +The U.S. Navy standard flying sidearm is the execrable .38 revolver. +(Ugh. Spit. Ptui!) The little pouch in the LPA/survival vest is +designed for it, though it can hold a larger weapon if desired. + +Naval missions over the Persian Gulf have not, in recent years, been +flown with sidearms. That, however, was before hostilities were +imminent. I would be *very* very surprised if overland +flights from SA (and even the naval missions, these days) did not +require the crew to carry sidearms. I recall a scene from the yet to be released film, "Flight of the Intruder", in which a new co-pilot points to the large bowie knife on the pilots gear and says "Do you know something I don't?" + +I am intrigued, however, that the weapon was being carried in a shoulder +holster and not a pouch built into the survival vest. I wouldn't put +it past the USAF to stage a "cowboy" shot for the press (pilot straps on +sidearm and flies off to face down the Iraqi hordes), with a prominently +placed pistol in a non-regulation shoulder holster. It seems to me that +actually to do this would be a safety-of-flight hazard of some sort. +Does anyone know about *this*? All I know is that when surplus USAF survival vests are sold, the holster comes seperate, and you sew it on if you want it and where you want it. It may be because many pilots in the past have chosen to carry different things. I've seen photos of them carrying every- thing from WW II german sub-machineguns, to M-16s, to revolvers. -- Robert Allen rja@sun.com DoD member #0204 Disclaimer: This is my opinion, not my company's. Your mileage may vary.
curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell) (10/19/90)
From: fmrco!curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell) In article <1990Oct16.011101.11588@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: > >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >Pilots carry sidearms for self-defense after being shot down. When the >competition for the weapon to replace the M1911 .45 ACP began, the >services differed greatly on what kind of weapon they wanted. The Army >wanted a 9mm, because that was an up and coming NATO round. The Marines >wanted an improved .45, because they didn't see any real problem with >the exisitng pistol, except its age. The Navy didn't really care, they >wanted something that would shoot, I guess. And the Air Force wanted >something that amounted to a light-machine gun to give their pilots for >when they were shot down over commieland. > >>From what I've read/seen/heard, most pilots/aircrew prefer to carry >revolvers instead of autoloaders because they tend to be lighter. > When I was on active duty in the Marine Corps, the ground guys carried the .45 as a sidearm, but the flyboys carried the Smith and Wesson .38 revolver. The .38 was the standard issue sidearm for aircrews, although in real combat, crews carried whatever they felt like. Marine officers were required to qualify once a year with the pistol, whether it was the .45 for the ground officers or the .38 for the aircrews. The official reason for carrying the weapons in the aircraft was 'survival' when shot down - whatever that could mean. Clearly, a downed pilot wasn't about to fight off a lot of enemy troops with his .38, but it could come in handy. -- ================================================================= Curt Fennell |Fidelity Investments | fmrco!curt@uunet.uu.net |82 Devonshire St. (I40C) | (617) 570-2614 |Boston, MA 02109 |
v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (10/20/90)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1990Oct18.021255.6938@cbnews.att.com>, baldwin@usna.NAVY.MIL (J.D. Baldwin) writes... >From: baldwin@usna.NAVY.MIL (J.D. Baldwin) >In the referenced article, cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini) writes: >I am intrigued, however, that the weapon was being carried in a shoulder >holster and not a pouch built into the survival vest. I wouldn't put >it past the USAF to stage a "cowboy" shot for the press (pilot straps on >sidearm and flies off to face down the Iraqi hordes), with a prominently >placed pistol in a non-regulation shoulder holster. It seems to me that >actually to do this would be a safety-of-flight hazard of some sort. >Does anyone know about *this*? I'm sure that there are many cases of pilots taking up extra weapons. I seem to recall reading about such events taking place during Vietnam. I think it may help them to feel a little better at the prospect of having to eject over hostile territory. I suppose it would be nice in case one weapon decided not to work, you have another one to fall back on. I suppose it could do something for the ego as well. Paul
elp@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM (Ed Peebles x6423) (10/20/90)
From: elp@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM (Ed Peebles x6423) In article <1990Oct18.021255.6938@cbnews.att.com> baldwin@usna.NAVY.MIL (J.D. Baldwin) writes: > > >From: baldwin@usna.NAVY.MIL (J.D. Baldwin) > >In the referenced article, cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini) writes: >>I was watching the ABC news last night and noticed that of of the >>crew members climbing into a f111 (?) had a revolver in a shoulder >>holster. Are side arms standard issue for Jet-jockies? > >The U.S. Navy standard flying sidearm is the execrable .38 revolver. >(Ugh. Spit. Ptui!) The little pouch in the LPA/survival vest is >designed for it, though it can hold a larger weapon if desired. > >[delete] I would be *very* very surprised if overland >flights from SA (and even the naval missions, these days) did not >require the crew to carry sidearms. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Speaking from personal experience (F-14) while flying missions in and around Lebanon, my squadron or air wing never had a requirement that aircrew carry sidearms. It was always a personal decision. Depending on the scenario, a sidearm can sometimes cause more trouble for a downed aircrew than its worth. >I am intrigued, however, that the weapon was being carried in a shoulder >holster and not a pouch built into the survival vest. I wouldn't put >it past the USAF to stage a "cowboy" shot for the press (pilot straps on >sidearm and flies off to face down the Iraqi hordes), with a prominently >placed pistol in a non-regulation shoulder holster. It seems to me that >actually to do this would be a safety-of-flight hazard of some sort. >Does anyone know about *this*? Not only can a sidearm get in the way in the cockpit if its in a shoulder harness, said sidearm and/or shoulder harness will probably be sucked off to never never land during an ejection. Luckily I never had to eject, but having gone through the physiology training and having known several people who did eject, ejection from a tactical jet is not unlike manned space flight without the comfort of a mission capsule. Things like watches, helmets, etc. can be easily separated from the aircrew, particularly since an ejection over hostile territory will probably not be a controlled, center of the envelope ejection. Ed Peebles ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Peebles (Peebs) | Never ask a man what kind of plane he E-Mail: elp@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM | flies. If he flies fighters, he'll tell Phone: 803-739-7413 | you. If he doesn't, why embarrass him? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The opinions expressed here are mine. I thought of it, I said it, I take responsibility for saying it. The End. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sean%limerick@Sun.COM (Sean Browne) (10/23/90)
From: sean%limerick@Sun.COM (Sean Browne) When my father flew AD`s off the Ticonderoga during Vietnam he wore a .357 revolver. He seemed to think it was more for those who wanted the option of doing themselves in rather than defending themselves. You can't exactly "Rambo-fy" the country with your revolver.
military-request@att.att.com (10/24/90)
From: uunet!mcgp1!flak (Dan Flak)
The standard issue weapon in the Air Froce was indeed, the .38 pistol.
The only time I saw one outside of the firing range was during
the evacuation of Saigon. They even gave me bullets :-). I kept
bullets and sidearms in separate flight suit pockets (no
holdsters were issued ??). I really couldn't figure out what I
could do with the damned thing. (I'm not that good of a shot --
I'd much rather run and hide :-). I certainly wasn't going to
"Rambo-cize" the countryside.
On the other hand, the weapon issued to O-2A crews was a modified
M-16 (with pull out wire stock). I *could* hit something with
that, although I was glad never to have the opportunity to prove
it off the firing range.
It doesn't matter if I'm dropping a 500 lb bomb, shooting a
rocket, straffing, or firing a .38 pistol -- I always get within
10 meters of the target.
--
Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 201 Elliot Ave W.,
Suite 105, Seattle, Wa 98119, 206-286-4355, (usenet: nwnexus!mcgp1!flak)biow@tove.cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow) (10/24/90)
From: biow@tove.cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow) In article <1990Oct23.010042.3467@cbnews.att.com> sean%limerick@Sun.COM (Sean Browne) writes: >When my father flew AD`s off the Ticonderoga during >Vietnam he wore a .357 revolver. He seemed to think >it was more for those who wanted the option of doing >themselves in rather than defending themselves. You >can't exactly "Rambo-fy" the country with your revolver. No, you're not going to be able to fight off an infantry platoon with a sidearm, but there are other uses. If the first people on the scene are four farmers with pitchforks, intent upon killing you, that sidearm could make all the difference. In a water landing, it might prevent your capture by fishermen. In a close-cut rescue situation, it would be handy (lots of stories from Viet Nam along these lines). And finally, in a long-term survival/evasion situation, it would be useful to hunt. My preference was to carry a S&W 469, blue steel 12 shot 9mm with night sights, which just barely fit in the survival vest. I also had an AMT .380 back-up, which is sort of an automatic derringer. Depending upon the situation, I intended to either ditch it, or put it in my underwear, hoping it would avoid notice by captors who didn't do a very thorough pat-down. Again, depending upon the situation, it might be usable to effect an escape, or might better be dropped when no one was looking. Escapes using violence can be a problem, as Law of Armed Combat allows prosecution of POW's according to local laws for acts committed after capture. Having bought those weapons, they never made it out of the ship's armory until the day before we flew off, when we did target practice off the fantail, with the Pacific Ocean as our target (I didn't miss once!)
jsloan@ncar.ucar.edu (John Sloan,8292,X1243,ML44E) (10/24/90)
From: jsloan@ncar.ucar.edu (John Sloan,8292,X1243,ML44E) >From article <1990Oct19.032953.13630@cbnews.att.com>, by fmrco!curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell): > mean. Clearly, a downed pilot wasn't about to fight off a lot of enemy > troops with his .38, but it could come in handy. A former co-worker was a pilot in Viet Nam, first in a prop-driven light observation plane (his tales of getting fired upon by SAMs would raise your hair), later in a large multiengine jet. Anyway, he told me once that the aircrews typically carried two .38s, in shoulder holsters under each arm. One carried conventional ammo, the other specialized rounds like .38 caliber flares and the like. The reason they used a revolver is that a semiautomatic wouldn't feed the specialized cartridges. Both guns were .38s so that they could interchange ammunition, and of course so that they wouldn't have to carry an additional flare gun and special loads etc. for that. And of course, carrying a couple of .357 mags could get cumbersome, particlurly in the tight confines of the cockpit. Although the .38 may be questionable in and of itself, in this context it made a lot of sense to me. -- John Sloan +1 303 497 1243 jsloan@ncar.ucar.edu NCAR/SCD, POB 3000 AMA#515306, DoD#0011 ...!ncar!jsloan Boulder CO 80307 1990 BMW K75S Pilot jsloan%ncar@ncario.BITNET Logical Disclaimer: belong(opinions,jsloan). belong(opinions,_):-!,fail.
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (10/24/90)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) > I recall a scene from the yet to be released film, "Flight of > the Intruder", in which a new co-pilot points to the large bowie > knife on the pilots gear and says "Do you know something I don't?" hehehe I remember reading somewhere that the sawteeth on the back of "Rambo" knives started out as a feature meant for hacking one's way out of a crashed aircraft. The cheaper knife manufacturers copied it but now promote them as saws for tree liimbs and such. Wonder why you don't simply use the front edge of the knife to do the same thing in a fraction of the time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !
rja@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Allen) (10/25/90)
From: rja@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Allen)
In article <1990Oct24.150719.15552@cbnews.att.com> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) writes:
+
+I remember reading somewhere that the sawteeth on the back of
+"Rambo" knives started out as a feature meant for hacking one's
+way out of a crashed aircraft. The cheaper knife manufacturers
+copied it but now promote them as saws for tree liimbs and such.
+Wonder why you don't simply use the front edge of the knife to
+do the same thing in a fraction of the time.
The first survival knife with saw teeth on the back was the
Randall Model 18. This was also the first hollow handled survival
knife. It was specifically designed for a Vietnam medic. The
sawteeth were designed to rip open doors in the side of helicopters.
While a sharp knife could be used to open such a hole, the ripping
effect of sawteeth on the soft aluminum skin is probably faster.
Compare cutting a soda can in half with a knife with a straight
edge and a sawteeth edge.
As noted, sawteeth on knives are essentially useless for use on
wood, since a good knife can chop through wood faster than these
sawteeth (some of which don't work on wood at all, others of which
work only bareley).
--
Robert Allen, rja@sun.com DISCLAIMER: I disclaim everything.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shawron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ron Miller) (10/26/90)
From: ron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ron Miller) > From: sean%limerick@Sun.COM (Sean Browne) > > > When my father flew AD`s off the Ticonderoga during > Vietnam he wore a .357 revolver. He seemed to think > it was more for those who wanted the option of doing > themselves in rather than defending themselves. You > can't exactly "Rambo-fy" the country with your revolver. Gee! My dad flew F3H's off the Tico in '59 thru '61 before transitioning to F-4s. He went to war in 1965 and again in 1967. I distinctly recall going along to the home of a recently-deceased airman and my dad purchasing a .38 revolver from the widow. Dad carried the .38 loaded with tracer ammo as his sidearm. I don't know if it was because no one was issuing sidearms or whether he had a preference for a revolver over the standard-issue whatever. I also recall that the standard flight suit in 1965 was bright international (catch-me-and-kill-me) orange. My mother converted a couple of sets of Marine fatigues into his combat flight suit to offset this. I think I'll ask more about this when I seem him next month..... And yes, suicide was an option. Some of his friends killed themselves in captivity. Ron (could have been a fatherless child.....) Off the subject: One AD squadron had a very small guy in it. He was the envy of all the other AD drivers. You see, the AD had LONG missions due to their great endurance. And, well, humans have needs. The AD also had a good autopilot and ... well, the short pilot was the envy of the others because he could put his plane on autopilot, turn around, crawl up onto the seat, and [defecate] into a plastic bag. He was probably the only "regular guy" in the squadron!
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (10/29/90)
From: p14.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org!Dan.Daetwyler (Dan Daetwyler)
AB> wanted something that would shoot, I guess. And the Air Force wanted
AB> something that amounted to a light-machine gun to give their pilots for
AB> when they were shot down over commieland.
>>From what I've read/seen/heard, most pilots/aircrew prefer to carry
AB> revolvers instead of autoloaders because they tend to be lighter.
For at least one group of Artillery Liason (Cubs -- Maytag Messershmidts) pilots, the preferred personal weapon was the WWI "trench gun". That turns out to be a sawed off 12 guage pump shotgun. Procurement was a bit "informal", but all of us "legs" knew that if you could come up with this weapon, you got "free" flights anywhere you wanted to go.
D Squaredshafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (10/29/90)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>
Jacob Ben-david Zimmerman (zimerman@phoenix.princeton.edu) writes:
RE jet pilots with sidearms: I heard that the revolver is a quick way
of destroying equipment if your plane is downed. In WWII fighter pilots
carried them. In case of a forced landing, one or two shots into the
fuel tank produced a nice raging inferno. I imagine that one or two
shots into electronics would be effective as well.
You don't make forced landings in modern fighters; you eject. The
impact will destroy any electronics.
The B-52, B-1, and B-2 also have ejection seats.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilotmilitary@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (10/29/90)
From: p14.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org!Dan.Daetwyler (Dan Daetwyler) HS> close-support pilots are trained as infantrymen first; they're equipping HS> all their transport aircraft with defensive countermeasures; they're HS> pushing hard to get the Osprey into service; and now they turn out to HS> have common sense about pistols too... an impressive bunch.) HS> -- You neglected to mention that Marines are trained to shoot... not just spray the countryside with a firehose. On the other hand, a staggered mag with 14 rounds can be quite an advantage over a 7 round mag. Despite all the compatability problems, I'm surprised that they didn't opt for the 10mm. Depending on the load, it can compare favorably with the .45, and it's capacity is signficantly greater.
Peter Brooks <brooksp@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> (10/30/90)
From: Peter Brooks <brooksp@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> >Despite all the >compatability problems, I'm surprised that they didn't opt for the 10mm. >Depending on the load, it can compare favorably with the .45, and it's capacity is signficantly greater. Both personal experience and the opinions of several expert shooters I know say that the 10mm is generally too hot to be a self defence round. Anything you hit is in danger, but you gotta hit it first. In general, the .45 is the most powerful pistol that any trained person can be expected to controll adequately. Besides, the Marines consider themselves rifleman, not pistolmen. BTW, the new FBI round, the .40 S&W seems like an adequate replacement for a light .45 round, but it's not that much more compact. Besides, if you need anymore than 7 shots in a pistol, you are probably dead already... Pete Brooks pb@hpocia.hp.com
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (10/30/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1990Oct29.033204.10576@cbnews.att.com>, shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: > carried them. In case of a forced landing, one or two shots into the > fuel tank produced a nice raging inferno. I imagine that one or two > shots into electronics would be effective as well. > >You don't make forced landings in modern fighters; you eject. The >impact will destroy any electronics. Uh, what happened when Gary Power's U-2 was shot down over Mother Russia? I thought there were enough embarassing parts left from the 70,000 drop, despite the CIA's belief that anything which was shot/blown to pieces at that altitude would break up into generic metal once it hit the ground. Intel data? I dunno...
leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) (11/01/90)
From: leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) In article <1990Oct30.052445.7246@cbnews.att.com> brooksp@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Peter Brooks) writes: : : :From: Peter Brooks <brooksp@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> :>Despite all the :>compatability problems, I'm surprised that they didn't opt for the 10mm. :Both personal experience and the opinions of several expert shooters I know :say that the 10mm is generally too hot to be a self defence round. Anything :you hit is in danger, but you gotta hit it first. : :BTW, the new FBI round, the .40 S&W seems like an adequate replacement for :a light .45 round, but it's not that much more compact. Besides, if you :need anymore than 7 shots in a pistol, you are probably dead already... : :Pete Brooks pb@hpocia.hp.com The FBI is not using the .40 S&W, they have purchased about 10,000 S&W 10mm pistols, model 1076. They are using a mid-range load of 185 grain bullet at 950 fps. The ballestics are about the same for this load as the .40, but the 1076 can be loaded with the full power 10mm load, the .40 cal guns cannot. From a defensive point of view, to give up 7 rounds of ammo with the same ballestics does not make any sense, tactical situations cannot be predicted and those extra rounds may be the difference between life and death. Lee "Mit Pulver und Blei, die Gedanken sind frei." |Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 |leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
pb@hpocia.hp.com (Peter_Brooks) (11/03/90)
From: Peter_Brooks <pb@hpocia.hp.com> The ballistics you mention for the FBI 10mm load are the same as for a .40 S & W (at least that's what we measured in load development for the .40.) If I am remembering correctly, Smith developed the new round after the FBI developed the downloaded 10. Apparently, the .40 is getting some law enforcement sales. As to whether it'as better to have a smaller bullet at high velocity than the larger .45 at lower, I guess I'd rather not find out the hard way. Note on large capacity magazines: At Jeff Cooper's Gunsite ranch, they frequently run two pistol class sections at a time. When circumstances require, the .45 people are in a differenct section from the people shooting high capacity 9mms. Curiously (this is reported by a couple of students at the class and from some other sources-can't remember who), the people who use the 7 round magazine get caught empty MUCH less often than the people with the big magazines. I know it is easier to count to 7 or 8 in practice drills than to 13-14. I'd rather carry the extra magazine and not get caught dry than to carry a wonder **mm and get caught. (Even with the extra mag, trying to shoot with the slide back can be embarassing, and maybe fatal.) Other concerns such as a lesser amount of concentration with the big magazines have been mentioned (forgot who said that). Considering that a major portion of carrying a sidearm is psychological, I'd go with what I am most comfortable with. I was trained with a .45, so I'd carry it. If you can hit with a 10 or whatever, by all means use it. (I'd draw the line at a .25ACP, tho) Pete Brooks pb@hpocia.hp.com
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/03/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) >:BTW, the new FBI round, the .40 S&W seems like an adequate replacement for >:a light .45 round, but it's not that much more compact. Besides, if you >:need anymore than 7 shots in a pistol, you are probably dead already... > >... From a defensive point of view, to >give up 7 rounds of ammo with the same ballestics does not make any >sense, tactical situations cannot be predicted and those extra rounds >may be the difference between life and death. Sure can, if they make the gun sufficiently heavier and bulkier that you aren't carrying it on the day you need it, or if the two-column magazine that's almost mandatory for the zillion-shot pistols has a feed problem at the wrong time. Other things being equal, nobody in his right mind would prefer fewer rounds... but other things are *not* equal and the tradeoffs need to be weighed very carefully. In a pistol intended mainly as secondary emergency armament, compactness, lightness, and reliability are more important than the ability to fight a six-hour battle without reloading. Especially since going into that six-hour battle armed only with a pistol and the usual run of military pistol training is probably suicide anyway. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (11/03/90)
From: budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Coast Guard helo pilots don't like weapons in the machine at all. But when forced, they could find .38 revolvers in the armory. Up until a few years ago, the standard sidearm was, of course, the .45 automatic. Now it's the 9mm automatic. Problem with automatics is they eject spent shells, also known as FOD. Not too cool to get them sucked up into the rotor/engine intakes. So I'm guessing the revolvers are still there. Rex Buddenberg
huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL (CCL-S) (11/03/90)
From: "Hugh A. Huntzinger" (CCL-S) <huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
In some ways, I feel that "its about time" that the Air Force got caught up
with some of the other branches in its small arms. Prior to 9mm, their
standard sidearm was .38 revolver and std. rifle the M16 (NOT M16A1 or M16A2).
However, the storageability of a loaded sidearm is frequently in question
with an automatic (springs in the clips), making the choice of a revolver
a more robust system for their application. On that ground, their choice
for a revolver has significant merit. As for now changing to 9mm, are
they now forgetting this system requirement? I don't know. Perhaps they
could comprimise by getting a revolver chambered to use 9mm parabellum via
half or full moon clips.
The other services are pretty good with staying standardized; interestingly,
the Navy has selected to stay with the 7.62mm, M14 due to the longer
over-water engagement distances that they may have to deal with.
-hummer
"every fool who's ever fired a gun considers himself to be a small arms expert"
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (11/05/90)
From: p2.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org!Robert.King (Robert King) In a message to All <02 Nov 90 05:36:00> Mary Shafer wrote: MS>>RE jet pilots with sidearms: MS>>I heard that the revolver is a quick way of destroying equipment if MS>>your plane is downed. In WWII fighter pilots carried them. In MS>>case of a forced landing, one or two shots into the fuel tank MS>>produced a nice raging inferno. I imagine that one or two MS>>shots into electronics would be effective as well. MS> You don't make forced landings in modern fighters; you eject. The MS> impact will destroy any electronics. MS> The B-52, B-1, and B-2 also have ejection seats. Then of course there is the matter of the thermite charges and high G impact fuses located in all the more sensitive electronics boxes. After you jump out of your bird, the impact will set these off and pretty well vaporize anything you don't want the bad guys to find in the wreckage. Robert King
rja@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Allen) (11/05/90)
From: rja@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Allen)
In article <1990Nov2.202327.28701@cbnews.att.com> huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL (CCL-S) writes:
+
+The other services are pretty good with staying standardized; interestingly,
+the Navy has selected to stay with the 7.62mm, M14 due to the longer
+over-water engagement distances that they may have to deal with.
They also don't have to carry them far, they don't have to engage
in closerange full-auto firefights, and they don't have to inflict
large quantities of casualties with them.
--
Robert Allen, rja@sun.com DISCLAIMER: I disclaim everything.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shawgary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) (11/06/90)
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) In article <1990Nov2.202327.28701@cbnews.att.com> huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL (CCL-S) writes: > >From: "Hugh A. Huntzinger" (CCL-S) <huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL> >In some ways, I feel that "its about time" that the Air Force got caught up >with some of the other branches in its small arms. Prior to 9mm, their >standard sidearm was .38 revolver and std. rifle the M16 (NOT M16A1 or M16A2). >However, the storageability of a loaded sidearm is frequently in question >with an automatic (springs in the clips), making the choice of a revolver >a more robust system for their application. On that ground, their choice >for a revolver has significant merit. As for now changing to 9mm, are >they now forgetting this system requirement? I don't know. Perhaps they >could comprimise by getting a revolver chambered to use 9mm parabellum via >half or full moon clips. A few years ago the NRA published an article where some 45 magazines had been stored loaded since WWII. They test fired the magazines with no failures to feed. Revolver mechanisms are more exposed and subject to fouling by dirt than semi-autos. This is one of the reasons the Army changed from revolvers to semi-autos. The semi-auto is thiner due to the lack of cylinder bulge and is easier and more comfortable to carry on the person. The S&W 38 is a much more delicate mechanism than a Government Model 45 Colt. In particular, the hand is easily broken and the leaf hammer spring fatiques much more easily than more modern coil springs. Half moon clips are the pits to work with. The only real drawback of semi-autos is the inability to handle special rounds such as flare cartridges. Gary
leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) (11/06/90)
From: leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) In article <1990Nov2.202035.28348@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: : : :From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) :>From: leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) :>:BTW, the new FBI round, the .40 S&W seems like an adequate replacement for :>:a light .45 round, but it's not that much more compact. Besides, if you :>:need anymore than 7 shots in a pistol, you are probably dead already... :> :>... From a defensive point of view, to :>give up 7 rounds of ammo with the same ballestics does not make any :>sense, tactical situations cannot be predicted and those extra rounds :>may be the difference between life and death. : :Sure can, if they make the gun sufficiently heavier and bulkier that you :aren't carrying it on the day you need it, or if the two-column magazine :that's almost mandatory for the zillion-shot pistols has a feed problem :at the wrong time. Other things being equal, nobody in his right mind :would prefer fewer rounds... but other things are *not* equal and the :tradeoffs need to be weighed very carefully. In a pistol intended mainly :as secondary emergency armament, compactness, lightness, and reliability :are more important than the ability to fight a six-hour battle without :reloading. Especially since going into that six-hour battle armed only :with a pistol and the usual run of military pistol training is probably :suicide anyway. :-- :"I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology :"Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry For the pistols we are talking about, .45 vs. .40/10mm, size and weight are very close, and in fact some versions of the .40 are lighter and considerably more pointable, especially by non-expert shooters, as pilots tend to be. Reliability in the .45 vs .40/10mm comparasion is a non-issue, there has been no real evidence of any reliability problems with the currently produced pistols (S&W 1006/4006, Colt 10mm Delta Elite, Glock 22/23 and soon 20). The Glock pistols are about 30% lighter than the comparable .45 Colt and are extremely reliable. In one demonstration 20 Glocks were picked at random from the factory. The guns were all disassembled and the parts placed in containers of the same parts. A single gun was then constructed from the radomized parts, without any gunsmithing. The gun was then fired continuously for 3 hours by a team of shooters who put more than 3000 rounds through it. There were no malfuntions of any kind during the course of this test. This is severe test, pistols are not designed for continous firing, the heat build up is very large. The Glock 23 is a .40 cal. pistol of very compact dimensions and it holds 15 rounds that are the equivalent of the .45. Lee - Certified Firearms Instructor Civilian and Police "Mit Pulver und Blei, die Gedanken sind frei." |Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 |leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (11/07/90)
From: p14.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org!Dan.Daetwyler (Dan Daetwyler) HS> Sure can, if they make the gun sufficiently heavier and bulkier that you HS> aren't carrying it on the day you need it, or if the two-column magazine HS> that's almost mandatory for the zillion-shot pistols has a feed problem HS> at the wrong time. Other things being equal, nobody in his right mind Actually, from what I read and see, the staggered mag guns are less likely to malfunction due to magazine problems than the old standard .45. I will be the first to admit that I haven't seen the staggered mag's used in a field combat situtation, but they'd have to be pretty bad to be worse than the old .45 mags. I shoot one of these all the time, and spend half of my time hammering the old mags back into shape. Most of the military holsters for the old single stack guns made provision for an extra mag in the holster. So the space required is probably a "wash". I still believe that the most common pilot carried weapon that was "issue" was the old 5 (five) shot S & W .38, primarily for weight and space reasons. I also believe that the main reason for the weapons was for "morale". I sure wouldn't want to go off in the wild blue yonder without some kind of a side arm. In our modern society, you might say the same thing about going to the grocery store :-). I find it very interesting that the FBI is moving to staggered mag 10mm as it's standard weapon. D Squared
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (11/07/90)
From: p14.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org!Dan.Daetwyler (Dan Daetwyler) Pe> Note on large capacity magazines: Pe> At Jeff Cooper's Gunsite ranch, they frequently run two pistol class Pe> sections at a time. When circumstances require, the .45 people are Pe> in a differenct section from the people shooting high capacity 9mms. This may well be because of the "classes" the shooters are in. A .45 makes a "major" power factor easily, while a 9mm has to be overloaded severely to make it. For those of you who are interested, powerfactor is a system devised to make the odds even for shooters using a variety of weapons. Power factor is simply the bullet weight (in grains) multiplied by the muzzle velocity in feet per second. Major class is a powerfactor in execess of 175,000, while minor is 125,000. Weapons under 125,000 cannot be fired in competitions sponsored by shooting organizations like the USPSA, IPSIC, and maybe NRA (?). [mod.note: The power factor concept is only used by IPSC (International Practical Shooting Competition), so far as I know, and has recently been amended to require that "major" caliber be at least .40 (10mm) diameter, in addition to the power factor requirement. I don't think this would have anything to do with Cooper's school, in any case. Followups are mostly likely to be appropriate to rec.guns. - Bill ]