Frangible bullets

[C J Campbell]

Yet another myth -- that frangible bullets will provide an adequate defense
against terrorists while minimizing the possibility of aircraft damage.

Frangible bullets explode on contact with a target. Good idea if the target
is the skin of an aircraft or the skin of a terrorist. Bad idea if the
terrorist wears thick enough clothing or maybe a layer of Kevlar and the
frangible bullet will not penetrate the protective layer. Meanwhile those
bullet shards will be flying all over the place.

I would prefer that sky marshals be issued armor piercing rounds that will
penetrate bullet-proof vests and make only small holes in airplanes. Perhaps
a mix of the first couple of rounds armor piercing and the rest dum-dums
just to make sure the ******* is dead.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[Jay Honeck]

> Also, if the terrorist
> got kevlar through security, somebody's gonna lose their job.

Interesting. Will a Kevlar vest trigger the walk-through metal detectors?

If not, how will security detect it?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Natalie]

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message ...
> Saw a show on TLC or something about frangibles. It was my
> understanding that frangibles would go through a fairly serious amounts
> of clothing before becoming one with the target. Also, if the terrorist
> got kevlar through security, somebody's gonna lose their job.

Really, we have kevlar detectors out there now? Getting Kevlar through security
would be trivial.

[Ron Natalie]

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message ...

>
> Oh, actually, now that I think of it, the buttons would on a .mil flak
> jacket. They have to make them big enough for a troop to manipulate
> with gloves. Without the buttons and grommets, I don't know.

The stuff they sell for the cops around here are velcro'd.

[Cub Driver]

:

>dum-dums

Actually, when this subject first came up I wondered if "frangible"
simply wasn't a non-gun-freak's idea of a soft-nosed bullet.

What do coppers use in their Police Specials and (increasingly) Nines?
Are they brass-jacketed military rounds or soft-nosed? Seems to me the
latter would be much safer, and not just in hijacking scenarios. Plus
they would be far more likely to disable the bad guy.

I've often been amused by the thought that shooting at a man obliges
the shooter to use a brass-jacketed round, while shooting at a deer
obliges him to use soft-nosed shells (or a lead slug, in the county
where I live).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dave Stadt]

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> Saw a show on TLC or something about frangibles. It was my
> understanding that frangibles would go through a fairly serious amounts
> of clothing before becoming one with the target. Also, if the terrorist
> got kevlar through security, somebody's gonna lose their job.

There are umpteen other ways to get them on board.

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Really, we have kevlar detectors out there now? Getting Kevlar through
security
> would be trivial.

Furthermore, is Kevlar a banned carry-on item? I don't see why it would be.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> I've often been amused by the thought that shooting at a man obliges
> the shooter to use a brass-jacketed round, while shooting at a deer
> obliges him to use soft-nosed shells (or a lead slug, in the county
> where I live).

Hunting ammo for rifles is also brass-jacketed. The difference between it and
military rounds is that the jacket on military rounds covers the entire bullet;
in hunting rounds, the tip is left exposed. This gives the military round more
range and decreases the chance that the round will kill the enemy soldier (as
agreed to by the Hague Convention). The hunting round expands more readily on
contact and is designed to kill as humanely (ie: rapidly) as possible.

Rounds used by the police depend on local policies. The policy of the FBI is to
use rounds deliberately designed to kill as certainly and rapidly as possible.
They are not fully jacketed. The so-called "cop-killer" rounds were designed to
be used by the police to punch through car doors. They're jacketed.

Unjacketed lead bullets are used almost exclusively in some types of black powder
firearms and in shotguns.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Cub Driver]

>Hunting ammo for rifles is also brass-jacketed. The difference between it and
>military rounds is that the jacket on military rounds covers the entire bullet;
>in hunting rounds, the tip is left exposed. This gives the military round more
>range and decreases the chance that the round will kill the enemy soldier (as
>agreed to by the Hague Convention). The hunting round expands more readily on
>contact and is designed to kill as humanely (ie: rapidly) as possible.

Well, this is just a little bit off, in my experience.

Jacketed rounds aren't meant to less the chance the round will kill
the soldier, but to lessen the damage it does to his insides if he
survives the hit.

And hunting rounds are soft-nosed not to kill rapidly but to ensure
that a leg wound or or non-fatal hit will cripple the deer, so that he
will be tracked and killed by the hunter, rather than escaping into
the next county and dying a slow death from the cold and predators.

I know how hunting rounds are built. I'm sitting less than two feet
from a box of .303 British Core Lokt Soft Point.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>The only dangerous
>thing that a bullet in an aircraft could do is hit something in the
>control system (guess how many backup systems there are?) or take out
>an engine (they can fly without one) or hit one of the people in the
>cockpit. (there are two of them, at least)

Well, it could hit me--that's dangerous!

Thanks for the information about frangibles / prefragmented / sky
marshal rounds. But are the marshal's rounds different again from
prefragmented?

The way I'm reading this is this: Sky marshals do indeed have a type
of breakup round that is intended to lessen the chance that the guy
behind the hijacker will be killed, and that has nothing to do with
the possibility of piercing the aircraft shell?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:a9mJb.726828$Tr4.1855404@attbi_s03...
> > Also, if the terrorist
> > got kevlar through security, somebody's gonna lose their job.
>
> Interesting. Will a Kevlar vest trigger the walk-through metal detectors?
>
> If not, how will security detect it?

Have you ever seen someone wearing a Kevlar vest? It sticks out like Gwenth
Paltrow wearing falsies.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> Velcro gets yucked up by troops in sand. That'd be why we got to fumble
> with giant buttons.
>
> Jeff...

So which vest (velcro or metal buttoned) do you think terrorists would wear?

>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> > "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> >>Oh, actually, now that I think of it, the buttons would on a .mil flak
> >>jacket. They have to make them big enough for a troop to manipulate
> >>with gloves. Without the buttons and grommets, I don't know.
> >
> >
> > The stuff they sell for the cops around here are velcro'd.
> >

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> :
>
> >dum-dums
>
> Actually, when this subject first came up I wondered if "frangible"
> simply wasn't a non-gun-freak's idea of a soft-nosed bullet.
>
> What do coppers use in their Police Specials and (increasingly) Nines?
> Are they brass-jacketed military rounds or soft-nosed?

Typically Federal Hyda-Shocks or Wincester SXT's (SXT is the old "Black
Talon" with a different color and different name to throw of the shrills),
the latter which was designed based on FBI specs after the Miami shootout.
The last thing a cop wants, especailly in an urban environment, is a FMJ
bullet.

>Seems to me the
> latter would be much safer, and not just in hijacking scenarios. Plus
> they would be far more likely to disable the bad guy.

You don;t shoot to "disable", you shoot to KILL.


> I've often been amused by the thought that shooting at a man obliges
> the shooter to use a brass-jacketed round, while shooting at a deer
> obliges him to use soft-nosed shells (or a lead slug, in the county
> where I live).

Soft nosed bullets are also COPPER jacketed (not "brass").

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Cub Driver wrote:
> >
> > I've often been amused by the thought that shooting at a man obliges
> > the shooter to use a brass-jacketed round, while shooting at a deer
> > obliges him to use soft-nosed shells (or a lead slug, in the county
> > where I live).
>
> Hunting ammo for rifles is also brass-jacketed. The difference between it
and
> military rounds is that the jacket on military rounds covers the entire
bullet;
> in hunting rounds, the tip is left exposed. This gives the military round
more
> range and decreases the chance that the round will kill the enemy soldier
(as
> agreed to by the Hague Convention). The hunting round expands more readily
on
> contact and is designed to kill as humanely (ie: rapidly) as possible.

An FMJ bullet adds nothing to range. AAMOF, most match ammo is small hollow
point.

>
> Rounds used by the police depend on local policies. The policy of the FBI
is to
> use rounds deliberately designed to kill as certainly and rapidly as
possible.
> They are not fully jacketed. The so-called "cop-killer" rounds were
designed to
> be used by the police to punch through car doors. They're jacketed.
>
> Unjacketed lead bullets are used almost exclusively in some types of black
powder
> firearms and in shotguns.

Cast bullets come in tow varieties; soft lead, for black powder arms, and
hard cast (adding antimony and tin to about 8%) that are used for target
shooting. There's a school of thought that says the most damaging bullet you
can shoot at a human body is a hard cast semi-wadcutter.

Frangible bullets are typically made from machined nylon bar stock. If it
hits any flesh, it virtually explodes about an inch or so inside the body.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Hunting ammo for rifles is also brass-jacketed. The difference between it
and
> >military rounds is that the jacket on military rounds covers the entire
bullet;
> >in hunting rounds, the tip is left exposed. This gives the military round
more
> >range and decreases the chance that the round will kill the enemy soldier
(as
> >agreed to by the Hague Convention). The hunting round expands more
readily on
> >contact and is designed to kill as humanely (ie: rapidly) as possible.
>
> Well, this is just a little bit off, in my experience.
>
> Jacketed rounds aren't meant to less the chance the round will kill
> the soldier, but to lessen the damage it does to his insides if he
> survives the hit.

A FMJ bullet, as required by the Geneva Convestion (or the Hague...I can;t
remember which) does not expand, but therefore it also produces disabling
wounds, thus requireing soldiers to cart their wounded off the battlefield.
Thus one FMJ bullet can take five men out of action -- one wounded, four to
carry the litter.
>
> And hunting rounds are soft-nosed not to kill rapidly but to ensure
> that a leg wound or or non-fatal hit will cripple the deer, so that he
> will be tracked and killed by the hunter, rather than escaping into
> the next county and dying a slow death from the cold and predators.

Completely backwards. You never shoot an animal unless you're farily sure of
an _immediate_ kill (like mere seconds).

>
> I know how hunting rounds are built. I'm sitting less than two feet
> from a box of .303 British Core Lokt Soft Point.

Whcih are high expansion bullets...not as good as the current merchandise,
but good for their day (late 50's to early 70's).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:59:49 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> :Yet another myth -- that frangible bullets will provide an adequate
defense
> :against terrorists while minimizing the possibility of aircraft damage.
> :
> :Frangible bullets explode on contact with a target. Good idea if the
target
> :is the skin of an aircraft or the skin of a terrorist. Bad idea if the
> :terrorist wears thick enough clothing or maybe a layer of Kevlar and the
> :frangible bullet will not penetrate the protective layer. Meanwhile those
> :bullet shards will be flying all over the place.
> :
> :I would prefer that sky marshals be issued armor piercing rounds that
will
> :penetrate bullet-proof vests and make only small holes in airplanes.
Perhaps
> :a mix of the first couple of rounds armor piercing and the rest dum-dums
> :just to make sure the ******* is dead.
>
> Frangible means it comes apart on contact, like the operation pinball
> target aircraft during ww2.

Not quite --IIRC, frangible means it comes COMPLETELTY apart, and not
necessarily on contact. A hollow point, for example, is designed to EXPAND,
but it still should retain about 855 fo it's original weight from the lead
core.

>
> Far more effective are prefragmented (which is really what you're
> describing) like Glasers or MagSafe. There is a version of Glasers
> that are armor piercing, they punch through a hard layer and come
> apart in flesh underneath. They dont go through more than one body.
> Overpenetration is the thing to worry about - a 9mm ball can go
> through about 3-4 people before it stops.
>
> I can assure you, as someone working with aircraft security, that FAMs
> have special ammunition made especially for that mission.
>
> Glassers and MagSafe will punch through an aircraft skin very easily.
> Anything that will stop a man will. There were experiments with "bean
> bag" rounds in the 70's, but they didn't expand reliably and were
> terribly inaccurate. However, a bullet through an aircraft skin is a
> complete non-event. A bullet through an aircraft window is also a
> non-event, despite what you saw in "Goldfinger". The only dangerous
> thing that a bullet in an aircraft could do is hit something in the
> control system (guess how many backup systems there are?) or take out
> an engine (they can fly without one) or hit one of the people in the
> cockpit. (there are two of them, at least)
>
> But FAM's are good enough shots that none of that is going to happen.
> It might happen if the bad guy has his own gun aboard and starts
> shooting at random - but then an armed FAM is the best chance to save
> the airplane anyway.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:58:18 -0500, Cub Driver
> > wrote:
>
> :
> :>The only dangerous
> :>thing that a bullet in an aircraft could do is hit something in the
> :>control system (guess how many backup systems there are?) or take out
> :>an engine (they can fly without one) or hit one of the people in the
> :>cockpit. (there are two of them, at least)
> :
> :Well, it could hit me--that's dangerous!
>
> True, and that's something that everyone involved would like to avoid.
> All the good guys, anyway. All that blood to clean up, all the
> paperwork. Just a bad scene all around. :)
> :
> :Thanks for the information about frangibles / prefragmented / sky
> :marshal rounds. But are the marshal's rounds different again from
> :prefragmented?
>
> FAM's have rounds that are loaded especially for the unique job
> environment that they face, rounds that are not commercially
> available. I can't comment any further than that.
>
> The Glasers are amazing. I don't have any direct experience with the
> MagSafes, but they're similar. The Glasers have a thin copper jacket,
> designed to tear away. Inside they take #12 birdshot, dip it in
> teflon, and swage it into the jacket. The teflon keeps the shot from
> fusing. When it hits, each piece takes off on it's own path and makes
> it's own wound channel. If it's not a lethal hit, there's so much
> surface area in the wound channels that the target bleeds massively,
> and goes into shock within a couple of seconds. Get hit in something
> like the upper thigh, you'll bleed to death in 30 seconds or so. I
> saw a sick horse put down with one shot to the chest from a .38 with a
> Glaser, it was down in a count of 4.


A terrorist is a different kind of animal to put down. Any such assailant
must be put down on the first shot...IMMEDIATELY.

[Kyler Laird]

"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:

>Have you ever seen someone wearing a Kevlar vest? It sticks out like Gwenth
>Paltrow wearing falsies.

And here we make fun of journalists for assuming that all private
aircraft are Cubs.

Sheesh...

--kyler

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> So which vest (velcro or metal buttoned) do you think terrorists would wear?

The military flak jackets sometimes come up in mil surplus stores, but the ones
sold to cops are readily available all the time by mail order. I'd bet they'd
pick the cop style.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Ash Wyllie]

Peter Duniho opined

>"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>> Really, we have kevlar detectors out there now? Getting Kevlar through
>security
>> would be trivial.

>Furthermore, is Kevlar a banned carry-on item? I don't see why it would be.

One hopes that if several young, large <un PC>arab</un PC> men go through
security with kelvar vests, someone will become suspicious. But that might be
too much to ask cor.


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 05:44:17 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
> wrote:
> :You don;t shoot to "disable", you shoot to KILL.
>
> A minor quibble - you shoot to STOP. Which means using bullets,
> placement, etc, that also happen to maximise lethality, so it amounts
> to the same thing, but the intent isn't (or shouldn't be) to kill.

The only sure STOP is a KILL.

If you need to shoot, your intent needs to be a "kill". No one is a good
enough sharpshooter under stress to play games with "disabling".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > So which vest (velcro or metal buttoned) do you think terrorists would
wear?
>
> The military flak jackets sometimes come up in mil surplus stores, but the
ones
> sold to cops are readily available all the time by mail order. I'd bet
they'd
> pick the cop style.
>
Good bet!

[Casey Wilson]

>
> Of course, the most reliable way to stop is one between the eyes.
> It's kinda hard to justify at an inquest, though. That's why "center of
mass" is the
> preferred method. But when in doubt, empty the magazine.
>
Discussion comes and goes about this. Factors like adrenaline and muscle
memory enter into the equations. The perp may be for all intents and
purposes, dead but keeps on coming and shooting. An interesting example is
the FBI training film of live action against the two criminals in the car
with handguns and AKs. Florida?
On the other hand, if you put two in the chest and one in the hip joint,
the broken mechanism bring the target down immediatley. The legs may keep
thrashing, but without bones to support the mass....
In that regard, a .45cal +P hollow-point will to the job adequately.
That's what I carry.
And, by the way, I have always been taught to use the gun only to STOP
the attacker. If s/he expires as a result.... well, that is collateral
damage.
Empty the magazine only if you must to make the stop. And you better
have a reload available for when his partner come charging out of the
shadows.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Tom Sixkiller" >
>
> >The only sure STOP is a KILL.
> >
> >If you need to shoot, your intent needs to be a "kill". No one is a good
> >enough sharpshooter under stress to play games with "disabling".
>
> No, you've got to be politically correct, nowadays.
>
> "Well, officer, I kept shooting until I was sure I stopped him" will be
viewed a LOT
> different than "Well, officer, I kept shooting until I was sure I killed
him".
> Even though they mean essentially the same thing.
>
> Of course, the most reliable way to stop is one between the eyes.
> It's kinda hard to justify at an inquest, though. That's why "center of
mass" is the
> preferred method. But when in doubt, empty the magazine.
>

Quite so. The foibles of the current court systems are such they demonstrate
high levels of schizophrenia.
Unless you can demonstrate the ability to hit a moving target with several
shots into a 2" area, you better not tell a court you thought you could
merely shoot to _STOP_. Also, courts have often held that if the situation
warrants using DEADLY force, that DEAD must be your intent. Shooting "to
wound" only plays out in Hollyweird.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Of course, the most reliable way to stop is one between the eyes.
> > It's kinda hard to justify at an inquest, though. That's why "center of
> mass" is the
> > preferred method. But when in doubt, empty the magazine.
> >
> Discussion comes and goes about this. Factors like adrenaline and
muscle
> memory enter into the equations. The perp may be for all intents and
> purposes, dead but keeps on coming and shooting. An interesting example is
> the FBI training film of live action against the two criminals in the car
> with handguns and AKs. Florida?
> On the other hand, if you put two in the chest and one in the hip
joint,
> the broken mechanism bring the target down immediatley. The legs may keep
> thrashing, but without bones to support the mass....

The only REAL one shot kill/stop is a shot to the (I'm going to botch the
spelling here I'm sure) Obdula Oblongota (the part of the brain you take out
when you shoot yourself in the mouth to commit suicide). Anything else
allows the hand to continue to shoot/detonate a bomb...

> In that regard, a .45cal +P hollow-point will to the job adequately.
> That's what I carry.
> And, by the way, I have always been taught to use the gun only to STOP
> the attacker. If s/he expires as a result.... well, that is collateral
> damage.
> Empty the magazine only if you must to make the stop. And you better
> have a reload available for when his partner come charging out of the
> shadows.

Quite. "Securing the situation" means taking out all the bad guys, even
those hang back.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Casey Wilson" >
>
> > In that regard, a .45cal +P hollow-point will to the job adequately.
> >That's what I carry.
> > And, by the way, I have always been taught to use the gun only to
STOP
> >the attacker. If s/he expires as a result.... well, that is collateral
> >damage.

This (from Casey) confuses STOPPING an attack with "scaring off a perp".

> Yea, that should "stop" someone. I carry the .40 S&W 'cause I've never
found
> a comfortable and concealable .45.
>
> > Empty the magazine only if you must to make the stop. And you better
> >have a reload available for when his partner come charging out of the
> >shadows.
>
> I carry 2 reloads, actually (22 rds total). I can accurately (@7 yrds)
empty A mag
> in about 3-4 seconds. Even with a first shot kill, the other 7 rounds will
be flying
> before someone "stops". 4 sec. to reload, so roughly 10 sec. to "stop" and
prepare
> for the unseen partner.

I believe Massad Ayoob has some case stories on his web site of bad guys who
were DOWN, but not OUT. He also goes into the physiological aspens of the
SHOOTER and how difficult it is to hit a human target under the stress of
the moment (giving the lie to all the crap that Hollyweird put out about
"Shooting the guns out of their hands".

[Cub Driver]

>And here we make fun of journalists for assuming that all private
>aircraft are Cubs.

They aren't?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Completely backwards. You never shoot an animal unless you're farily sure of
>an _immediate_ kill (like mere seconds).

Perhaps I never do, but evidently I am in a small minority, given the
number of guys I've met tracking deer through my woods by the blood
trail.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>You don;t shoot to "disable", you shoot to KILL

Everyone here seems to live in a perfect world, where they never miss
the heart. Good on you, lads! For my part, I hope the sky marshal has
a soft-nosed bullet in that gun of his, because it would be just my
luck to be on the plane that wasn't guarded by Dirty Harry.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>If you need to shoot, your intent needs to be a "kill". No one is a good
>enough sharpshooter under stress to play games with "disabling".

Were you born stupid, or did you have to work at it?

Nobody is suggesting that the sky marshal shoot so as to disable. We
are suggesting that he be so armed that a non-fatal hit will indeed
disable.

Am I wrong in thinking that you've never had to fire a gun while
someone was shooting at you?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >And here we make fun of journalists for assuming that all private
> >aircraft are Cubs.
>
> They aren't?

SNOB!!! :~)

>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Completely backwards. You never shoot an animal unless you're farily sure
of
> >an _immediate_ kill (like mere seconds).
>
> Perhaps I never do, but evidently I am in a small minority, given the
> number of guys I've met tracking deer through my woods by the blood
> trail.

Was that the result of their poor marksmanship and poor decisions to take a
high risk shot...or their intent to get some exercise by chasing down the
wounded animal?

I "assume" you're familiar with the term "Buck Fever".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >You don;t shoot to "disable", you shoot to KILL
>
> Everyone here seems to live in a perfect world, where they never miss
> the heart. Good on you, lads! For my part, I hope the sky marshal has
> a soft-nosed bullet in that gun of his, because it would be just my
> luck to be on the plane that wasn't guarded by Dirty Harry.
>
Or Harry's predecessor, John Wayne.

[Cub Driver]

Thank you for casting some light into the darkness! I'm not sure I
feel any safer now, but at least I'm better informed :)

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:28:35 GMT, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:58:18 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:
>
>:
>:>The only dangerous
>:>thing that a bullet in an aircraft could do is hit something in the
>:>control system (guess how many backup systems there are?) or take out
>:>an engine (they can fly without one) or hit one of the people in the
>:>cockpit. (there are two of them, at least)
>:
>:Well, it could hit me--that's dangerous!
>
>True, and that's something that everyone involved would like to avoid.
>All the good guys, anyway. All that blood to clean up, all the
>paperwork. Just a bad scene all around. :)
>:
>:Thanks for the information about frangibles / prefragmented / sky
>:marshal rounds. But are the marshal's rounds different again from
>:prefragmented?
>
>FAM's have rounds that are loaded especially for the unique job
>environment that they face, rounds that are not commercially
>available. I can't comment any further than that.
>
>The Glasers are amazing. I don't have any direct experience with the
>MagSafes, but they're similar. The Glasers have a thin copper jacket,
>designed to tear away. Inside they take #12 birdshot, dip it in
>teflon, and swage it into the jacket. The teflon keeps the shot from
>fusing. When it hits, each piece takes off on it's own path and makes
>it's own wound channel. If it's not a lethal hit, there's so much
>surface area in the wound channels that the target bleeds massively,
>and goes into shock within a couple of seconds. Get hit in something
>like the upper thigh, you'll bleed to death in 30 seconds or so. I
>saw a sick horse put down with one shot to the chest from a .38 with a
>Glaser, it was down in a count of 4.
>:
>:The way I'm reading this is this: Sky marshals do indeed have a type
>:of breakup round that is intended to lessen the chance that the guy
>:behind the hijacker will be killed, and that has nothing to do with
>:the possibility of piercing the aircraft shell?
>
>I can say that avoiding piercing the aircraft shell is not priority.
>Think about it this way. An airplane is flying at about 10 psi
>internal pressure, with maybe 4 psi pressure outside (these are VERY
>rough figures, flame away if you wish).
>
>6 psi is not much more than you can blow with your lungs, if you push
>HARD you'll get up to about 5 psi.
>
>Now, how much could you blow, with your lungs, through a short piece
>of 1/2 inch pipe? That's about the diameter hole that a pistol bullet
>would make in the skin of an airliner, or through an airliner window.
>
>It's not very much. Look at the windows on some older airliners. See
>the little holes in the corners? That's to let a little air leak out.
>Take all those holes together, they're much greater area than 1/2".
>Depressurization from a bullet is a non issue, there's 100 times more
>bleed air available for pressurization than you'd loose through a
>bullet hole.
>
>A much greater issue is what's under the floor (control stuff, cables,
>electronics and hydraulics, and fuel tanks and lines) and what's
>behind (or, in front of) the cockpit bulkhead. Prefrag rounds spray
>on the back side of such things, and would greatly lessen the damage
>that could be done to such critical items.
>
>On a side note - hollow point or soft point expanding bullets are
>banned in war by the Geneva Convention. Pre fragmented bullets
>aren't. In a conventional war between states, you actually want to
>wound the enemy - if you kill him, that's one enemy gone. If you
>wound him, it's him, the medic, the ambulance, the hospital, doctor,
>nurse, etc, that you've tied up.
>
>Whoops, gotta go, time for Babys's 3 am feeding.
>
>Don't worry about airliners, they're about the most hardened target we
>have right now. Shipping containers, small planes, electrical grids,
>railroads, chemical plants, rock concerts, football games, LNG ships -
>those are the things to worry about.
>
>RR

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >If you need to shoot, your intent needs to be a "kill". No one is a good
> >enough sharpshooter under stress to play games with "disabling".
>
> Were you born stupid, or did you have to work at it?
>
> Nobody is suggesting that the sky marshal shoot so as to disable.

Are you stupid by birth or do you work at it? We've had seeral here suggest
that one shout merely shoot to disable. During 40 years of shooting I've
heard several people suggest that one should only "shoot to wound". The
people that confuse movies with reality is appalling, especially when it
comes down to life and death siuation.


> We
> are suggesting that he be so armed that a non-fatal hit will indeed
> disable.

And here is your stupidity--- the only 100% disabling shot is a FATAL shot,
either my a strike to the controlling part of the brain, and that may take
several attempts.


> Am I wrong in thinking that you've never had to fire a gun while
> someone was shooting at you?

No, YOU'RE NOT WRONG...and all YOU'VE probably heard is outright BULL****.
You evidence it every time you open you mouth in this thread, including
you're glaring ignorance the effect of various bullet types and your stupid
remarks about hunting.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thank you for casting some light into the darkness! I'm not sure I
> feel any safer now, but at least I'm better informed :)

Too bad most of what he said was just wrong, or irrelevant.

>
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:28:35 GMT, Richard Riley
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:58:18 -0500, Cub Driver
> > wrote:
> >
> >:
> >:>The only dangerous
> >:>thing that a bullet in an aircraft could do is hit something in the
> >:>control system (guess how many backup systems there are?) or take out
> >:>an engine (they can fly without one) or hit one of the people in the
> >:>cockpit. (there are two of them, at least)
> >:
> >:Well, it could hit me--that's dangerous!
> >
> >True, and that's something that everyone involved would like to avoid.
> >All the good guys, anyway. All that blood to clean up, all the
> >paperwork. Just a bad scene all around. :)
> >:
> >:Thanks for the information about frangibles / prefragmented / sky
> >:marshal rounds. But are the marshal's rounds different again from
> >:prefragmented?
> >
> >FAM's have rounds that are loaded especially for the unique job
> >environment that they face, rounds that are not commercially
> >available. I can't comment any further than that.
> >
> >The Glasers are amazing. I don't have any direct experience with the
> >MagSafes, but they're similar. The Glasers have a thin copper jacket,
> >designed to tear away. Inside they take #12 birdshot, dip it in
> >teflon, and swage it into the jacket. The teflon keeps the shot from
> >fusing. When it hits, each piece takes off on it's own path and makes
> >it's own wound channel. If it's not a lethal hit, there's so much
> >surface area in the wound channels that the target bleeds massively,
> >and goes into shock within a couple of seconds. Get hit in something
> >like the upper thigh, you'll bleed to death in 30 seconds or so. I
> >saw a sick horse put down with one shot to the chest from a .38 with a
> >Glaser, it was down in a count of 4.
> >:
> >:The way I'm reading this is this: Sky marshals do indeed have a type
> >:of breakup round that is intended to lessen the chance that the guy
> >:behind the hijacker will be killed, and that has nothing to do with
> >:the possibility of piercing the aircraft shell?
> >
> >I can say that avoiding piercing the aircraft shell is not priority.
> >Think about it this way. An airplane is flying at about 10 psi
> >internal pressure, with maybe 4 psi pressure outside (these are VERY
> >rough figures, flame away if you wish).
> >
> >6 psi is not much more than you can blow with your lungs, if you push
> >HARD you'll get up to about 5 psi.
> >
> >Now, how much could you blow, with your lungs, through a short piece
> >of 1/2 inch pipe? That's about the diameter hole that a pistol bullet
> >would make in the skin of an airliner, or through an airliner window.
> >
> >It's not very much. Look at the windows on some older airliners. See
> >the little holes in the corners? That's to let a little air leak out.
> >Take all those holes together, they're much greater area than 1/2".
> >Depressurization from a bullet is a non issue, there's 100 times more
> >bleed air available for pressurization than you'd loose through a
> >bullet hole.
> >
> >A much greater issue is what's under the floor (control stuff, cables,
> >electronics and hydraulics, and fuel tanks and lines) and what's
> >behind (or, in front of) the cockpit bulkhead. Prefrag rounds spray
> >on the back side of such things, and would greatly lessen the damage
> >that could be done to such critical items.
> >
> >On a side note - hollow point or soft point expanding bullets are
> >banned in war by the Geneva Convention. Pre fragmented bullets
> >aren't. In a conventional war between states, you actually want to
> >wound the enemy - if you kill him, that's one enemy gone. If you
> >wound him, it's him, the medic, the ambulance, the hospital, doctor,
> >nurse, etc, that you've tied up.
> >
> >Whoops, gotta go, time for Babys's 3 am feeding.
> >
> >Don't worry about airliners, they're about the most hardened target we
> >have right now. Shipping containers, small planes, electrical grids,
> >railroads, chemical plants, rock concerts, football games, LNG ships -
> >those are the things to worry about.
> >
> >RR
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dennis O'Connor]

And keep your piece loaded with Hydra-Shoks T... Frangible crap is just
that - crap; window dressing to calm the hysterical...
Denny
"Nomen Nescio" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-> "Well, officer, I kept
shooting until I was sure I stopped him" will be viewed a LOT
> different than "Well, officer, I kept shooting until I was sure I killed
him".

[Bill A.]

>>>I carry 2 reloads, actually (22 rds total). I can accurately (@7 yrds)
empty A mag
>>>in about 3-4 seconds. Even with a first shot kill, the other 7 rounds
will be flying
>>>before someone "stops". 4 sec. to reload, so roughly 10 sec. to "stop"
and prepare
>>>for the unseen partner.

Have you ever really had to use a gun for a living? I say this only because
you just fired off all of your ammo at someone who you yourself said may be
dead. My question to you now is what are your going to do about the second
person behind you?

Two words for you my friend...Double Tap.



"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Casey Wilson" >
>
> > In that regard, a .45cal +P hollow-point will to the job adequately.
> >That's what I carry.
> > And, by the way, I have always been taught to use the gun only to
STOP
> >the attacker. If s/he expires as a result.... well, that is collateral
> >damage.
>
> Yea, that should "stop" someone. I carry the .40 S&W 'cause I've never
found
> a comfortable and concealable .45.
>
> > Empty the magazine only if you must to make the stop. And you better
> >have a reload available for when his partner come charging out of the
> >shadows.
>
> I carry 2 reloads, actually (22 rds total). I can accurately (@7 yrds)
empty A mag
> in about 3-4 seconds. Even with a first shot kill, the other 7 rounds will
be flying
> before someone "stops". 4 sec. to reload, so roughly 10 sec. to "stop" and
prepare
> for the unseen partner.
>
> Answer: Altitude and Ammo!
>
> Question: What are two things an armed pilot can never have too much of?
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBP/fpwZMoscYxZNI5AQEf5wP/S/ZvRVsY+HCb+SFJgMNLSjQWlJ+zOEFp
> LzI1y4Q001Gg8dM7WIGZWBHva3idkiwPAApHXHaFEyqouZnys5 wHzEZ5HNh4QJAV
> ZC3izhbYoqlDJQahM+EsWn3tCEqfa6S/DVvwqImo7pQZ/zNZCXVnTQY3iYU8pJzP
> 13ec5A8Bn8w=
> =D08O
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message ...
>
> The only REAL one shot kill/stop is a shot to the (I'm going to botch the
> spelling here I'm sure) Obdula Oblongota (the part of the brain you take out
> when you shoot yourself in the mouth to commit suicide).

Medulla Oblongata. And it's amazing how many people miss this (or anything
else lethal) when putting a gun in their mouth.

> Quite. "Securing the situation" means taking out all the bad guys, even
> those hang back.

Depends what service you're in :-)

[Ron Natalie]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message ...

>
> Are you stupid by birth or do you work at it? We've had seeral here suggest
> that one shout merely shoot to disable. During 40 years of shooting I've
> heard several people suggest that one should only "shoot to wound". The
> people that confuse movies with reality is appalling, especially when it
> comes down to life and death siuation.

Phasers on stun, Mr. Spock.

[Ron Natalie]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message ...
>
> >And here we make fun of journalists for assuming that all private
> >aircraft are Cubs.
>
> They aren't?
>
No, there are two types of private aircraft: Cubs (sometimes called a Cessna Cub)
and Learjets. It depends on whether it has propellers or not.

[Ron Natalie]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
..
>
> Maybe *you* do. The FBI shoots to kill. I don't know what the policy of the Air
> Marshalls is.
>
I guess it depends whatever supposed law-enforcement training they had before going
in for the 5 days of "air marshal training." Some of it was pretty spotty.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Riley wrote:
>
> A minor quibble - you shoot to STOP.

Maybe *you* do. The FBI shoots to kill. I don't know what the policy of the Air
Marshalls is.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> Perhaps I never do, but evidently I am in a small minority, given the
> number of guys I've met tracking deer through my woods by the blood
> trail.

I had to follow a blood trail once. Turned out, I had put a Federal Ammo 8mm
bullet right through the lungs at 80 yards. The deer made it 100 yards through
heavy brush and covered itself over with leaves. Had to come back with a dog to
find it.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > The only REAL one shot kill/stop is a shot to the (I'm going to botch
the
> > spelling here I'm sure) Obdula Oblongota (the part of the brain you take
out
> > when you shoot yourself in the mouth to commit suicide).
>
> Medulla Oblongata. And it's amazing how many people miss this (or
anything
> else lethal) when putting a gun in their mouth.

Quickie tonsillectomy.

>
> > Quite. "Securing the situation" means taking out all the bad guys, even
> > those hang back.
>
> Depends what service you're in :-)

Room Service.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > Are you stupid by birth or do you work at it? We've had seeral here
suggest
> > that one shout merely shoot to disable. During 40 years of shooting I've
> > heard several people suggest that one should only "shoot to wound". The
> > people that confuse movies with reality is appalling, especially when it
> > comes down to life and death siuation.
>
> Phasers on stun, Mr. Spock.

Owwwww!!!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Richard Riley wrote:
> >
> > A minor quibble - you shoot to STOP.
>
> Maybe *you* do. The FBI shoots to kill. I don't know what the policy of
the Air
> Marshalls is.
>
Shoot to annoy!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Cub Driver wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps I never do, but evidently I am in a small minority, given the
> > number of guys I've met tracking deer through my woods by the blood
> > trail.
>
> I had to follow a blood trail once. Turned out, I had put a Federal Ammo
8mm
> bullet right through the lungs at 80 yards. The deer made it 100 yards
through
> heavy brush and covered itself over with leaves. Had to come back with a
dog to
> find it.

Shoulda' gone for a neck shot!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bill A." > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> >>>I carry 2 reloads, actually (22 rds total). I can accurately (@7 yrds)
> empty A mag
> >>>in about 3-4 seconds. Even with a first shot kill, the other 7 rounds
> will be flying
> >>>before someone "stops". 4 sec. to reload, so roughly 10 sec. to "stop"
> and prepare
> >>>for the unseen partner.
>
> Have you ever really had to use a gun for a living? I say this only
because
> you just fired off all of your ammo at someone who you yourself said may
be
> dead. My question to you now is what are your going to do about the second
> person behind you?
>
> Two words for you my friend...Double Tap.

Three shots as a Mozambique Drill.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> And keep your piece loaded with Hydra-Shoks T... Frangible crap is just
> that - crap; window dressing to calm the hysterical...
> Denny

Frangibles work well inside a urban home, at distances of less than 20 feet.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> >>Two words for you my friend...Double Tap.
>
> Ten words for you my friend.....Use it to impress the guys at the shooting
range. <g>

The guys at the shooting range probably have about ten times the shooting
experience that your average cop, federal or local, does.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 11:25:40 -0800, "G.R. Patterson III"
> > wrote:
>
> :
> :
> :Richard Riley wrote:
> :>
> :> A minor quibble - you shoot to STOP.
> :
> :Maybe *you* do. The FBI shoots to kill. I don't know what the policy of
the Air
> :Marshalls is.
>
> It's almost a semantic argument. Both the FAMs and the FBI shoot to
> stop. But the best way to stop someone also happens to be the best
> way to kill them. There's no difference in the action the LEO takes -
> it's *why* they are taking it.

Saying "shoot to stop" is like saying "pulling the trigger to shoot".

[Cub Driver]

Perhaps we could compromise on "incapacitate"?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Tom Sixkiller" >
>
> >The guys at the shooting range probably have about ten times the shooting
> >experience that your average cop, federal or local, does.
>
> I'd sure bet you're right about that. Last time I was at the range, the
local cops were
> there.
> Until I watched them, I never would believe that anyone could miss a man
sized target at 15 ft
> with a MP-5. It was pathetic. Hell, my wife's better than that with an Uzi
at full auto.
> I just hope the Sky Marshalls are better trained.


I once met a former Israeli Air Marshal at my local R&G Club. What he could
do with two rounds in half a second was unbelievable. But then, they
practice nearly the entire time they're not flying. IOW, they take it VERY
seriously.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Richard Riley wrote:
> >
> > It's almost a semantic argument. Both the FAMs and the FBI shoot to
> > stop.
>
> Perhaps it is semantics, but about ten years ago, the FBI lost an agent in
a
> shootout with one of these people who seems to keep going no matter how
many
> times you hit him. They made two changes. The first was an announced
policy that
> they deliberately shoot to kill, not to stop, and the second was the
adoption of
> the 10mm pistol as their official weapon.

And third (I assume you're referring to the Miami gunfight) they developed
(or rather they paid Winchester to) and adopted the Winchester Black Talon.
Prior to that time, they were still using primarily straight lead ammo in
..38 Special, not even +P (a few in special units used the .357 Mag with
basic hollow points).

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Riley wrote:
>
> It's almost a semantic argument. Both the FAMs and the FBI shoot to
> stop.

Perhaps it is semantics, but about ten years ago, the FBI lost an agent in a
shootout with one of these people who seems to keep going no matter how many
times you hit him. They made two changes. The first was an announced policy that
they deliberately shoot to kill, not to stop, and the second was the adoption of
the 10mm pistol as their official weapon.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:59:49 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>Yet another myth -- that frangible bullets will provide an adequate defense
>against terrorists while minimizing the possibility of aircraft damage.
>
>Frangible bullets explode on contact with a target. Good idea if the target
>is the skin of an aircraft or the skin of a terrorist. Bad idea if the
>terrorist wears thick enough clothing or maybe a layer of Kevlar and the
>frangible bullet will not penetrate the protective layer. Meanwhile those
>bullet shards will be flying all over the place.

>Christopher J. Campbell
>World Famous Flight Instructor
>Port Orchard, WA

Chris, frangible bullets don't explode. They don't have explosive
inside them. They're designed to maintain enough shape and mass to
enter a body, then disintegrate to dust so that they don't pass
through and hit multiple targets after that. They also are designed
to disintegrate against things like aluminum sheeting, rather than
penetrate. Or at least some frangible rounds are designed like that.

There are several different types of frangible rounds. Presumably the
ones used by air marshals would be lethal to people but only to the
target.

Corky Scott

[Cub Driver]

> Until I watched them, I never would believe that anyone could miss a man sized target at 15 ft
>with a MP-5. It was pathetic. Hell, my wife's better than that with an Uzi at full auto.

How about when somebody is shooting back at her?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Until I watched them, I never would believe that anyone could miss a man
sized target at 15 ft
> >with a MP-5. It was pathetic. Hell, my wife's better than that with an
Uzi at full auto.
>
> How about when somebody is shooting back at her?

If you're "good" when you practice, you'll be passable under stress; if you
suck at the range, you're a hazard to yourself and bystanders under stress.
(See the flying parallel?)

Even the distinction between shooting a bulls-eye target (or tin cans) is
very different from shooting a human (or even human-form, i.e., silhouette)
target.