How to make your own frangible rounds

[C J Campbell]

Pilots who like frangible rounds but can't get any of the government issue
can easily make their own by loading .45 cal shot shells with bits of wire
and small birdshot. These can be fired from a revolver, but not an automatic
pistol. At close range the round will act just like a slug, but it will not
penetrate wallboard, extremely thick clothing, airplane windows or aircraft
aluminum. This is the famed "junkyard dog" load printed in American
Handgunner several years ago. Guaranteed to stop an inadequately protected
human target, but it makes a heck of mess to clean up afterwards.

--
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.

[Gig Giacona]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Pilots who like frangible rounds but can't get any of the government issue
> can easily make their own by loading .45 cal shot shells with bits of wire
> and small birdshot. These can be fired from a revolver, but not an
automatic
> pistol. At close range the round will act just like a slug, but it will
not
> penetrate wallboard, extremely thick clothing, airplane windows or
aircraft
> aluminum. This is the famed "junkyard dog" load printed in American
> Handgunner several years ago. Guaranteed to stop an inadequately protected
> human target, but it makes a heck of mess to clean up afterwards.
>
> --
> 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.
>

Or you could just buy the readily available Glaser Safety Slugs

[Mike Beede]

In article >, C J Campbell > wrote:

> Pilots who like frangible rounds but can't get any of the government issue
> can easily make their own by loading .45 cal shot shells with bits of wire
> and small birdshot. These can be fired from a revolver, but not an automatic
> pistol. At close range the round will act just like a slug, but it will not
> penetrate wallboard, extremely thick clothing, airplane windows or aircraft
> aluminum.

When I tried shot loads from a revolver, the seemed to spread at
around a 30 degree angle. The only place it would "act like a slug"
would be within an inch or two of the barrel. I always assumed that
was because of the rifling. These were .38 instead of .45, but I
can't imagine they act *that* much different. Do they?

Mike Beede

[C J Campbell]

"Mike Beede" > wrote in message
...
| In article >, C J Campbell
> wrote:
|
| > Pilots who like frangible rounds but can't get any of the government
issue
| > can easily make their own by loading .45 cal shot shells with bits of
wire
| > and small birdshot. These can be fired from a revolver, but not an
automatic
| > pistol. At close range the round will act just like a slug, but it will
not
| > penetrate wallboard, extremely thick clothing, airplane windows or
aircraft
| > aluminum.
|
| When I tried shot loads from a revolver, the seemed to spread at
| around a 30 degree angle. The only place it would "act like a slug"
| would be within an inch or two of the barrel. I always assumed that
| was because of the rifling. These were .38 instead of .45, but I
| can't imagine they act *that* much different. Do they?
|

Birdshot spreads out very fast. The bits of wire are loaded into the shell
standing up, interspersed with the shot. Apparently the wire pieces help
keep the shot from spreading so quickly.

[tony roberts]

> Pilots who like frangible rounds but can't get any of the government issue
> can easily make their own by loading .45 cal shot shells with bits of wire
> and small birdshot.

The Israelis, who have been using armed guards for years on their
aircraft, use a low velocity tumbling bullet that will stop a person but
supposedly will not decompress the aircraft if it misses and hits the
cabin wall.
I don't understand how filling a 45 cal shot shell with birdshot and
wire would achieve the same result.
Or is the US following a different path?

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument :)
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Beede" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, C J Campbell
> wrote:
>
> > Pilots who like frangible rounds but can't get any of the government
issue
> > can easily make their own by loading .45 cal shot shells with bits of
wire
> > and small birdshot. These can be fired from a revolver, but not an
automatic
> > pistol. At close range the round will act just like a slug, but it will
not
> > penetrate wallboard, extremely thick clothing, airplane windows or
aircraft
> > aluminum.
>
> When I tried shot loads from a revolver, the seemed to spread at
> around a 30 degree angle. The only place it would "act like a slug"
> would be within an inch or two of the barrel. I always assumed that
> was because of the rifling. These were .38 instead of .45, but I
> can't imagine they act *that* much different. Do they?
>
These rounds are typically "snake loads" which are fine for 8-15 feet, but
not much more. I used to load Speer "shot caps" (plastic tubes that would
disintegrate as soon as they left the barrel) for carry while Upland
hunting.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> | When I tried shot loads from a revolver, the seemed to spread at
> | around a 30 degree angle. The only place it would "act like a slug"
> | would be within an inch or two of the barrel. I always assumed that
> | was because of the rifling. These were .38 instead of .45, but I
> | can't imagine they act *that* much different. Do they?
> |
>
> Birdshot spreads out very fast. The bits of wire are loaded into the shell
> standing up, interspersed with the shot. Apparently the wire pieces help
> keep the shot from spreading so quickly.
>
Until one goes sideways and completely disrupts the entire load.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-7F8D68.00225703012004@shawnews...
> > Pilots who like frangible rounds but can't get any of the government
issue
> > can easily make their own by loading .45 cal shot shells with bits of
wire
> > and small birdshot.
>
> The Israelis, who have been using armed guards for years on their
> aircraft, use a low velocity tumbling bullet that will stop a person but
> supposedly will not decompress the aircraft if it misses and hits the
> cabin wall.
> I don't understand how filling a 45 cal shot shell with birdshot and
> wire would achieve the same result.
> Or is the US following a different path?
>
Quite so...those rounds are only good for a few (less than 25) on soft
targets, and virtually useless on even "firm" targets.

[C J Campbell]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:09:56 -0800, "C J Campbell"
| > wrote:
|
|
| Of course, if you ever get put in front of a jury and they're told how
| you hand loaded these special, super deadly rounds, cutting each piece
| of wire and mixing it in with lead shot, it's not going help.
|
| Just get a second mortgage and buy a couple of magazines full of
| MagSafe. I want a jury to know I paid big bucks for that "extra safe"
| ammo.
|

Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

Seriously, *I* don't have any assets, so it is not worth suing me.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> In article >, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
> > Pilots who like frangible rounds but can't get any of the government
issue
> > can easily make their own by loading .45 cal shot shells with bits of
wire
> > and small birdshot. These can be fired from a revolver, but not an
automatic
> > pistol. At close range the round will act just like a slug, but it will
not
> > penetrate wallboard, extremely thick clothing, airplane windows or
aircraft
> > aluminum. This is the famed "junkyard dog" load printed in American
> > Handgunner several years ago. Guaranteed to stop an inadequately
protected
> > human target, but it makes a heck of mess to clean up afterwards.
>
> Why are you posting this crap here?

Because this "crap" is the subject of what various ammunition will do inside
the body of an aircraft.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > wrote:
>
> > "Tom Fleischman" > wrote in
message
> > rthlink.net...
> > > Why are you posting this crap here?
> >
> > Because this "crap" is the subject of what various ammunition will do
inside
> > the body of an aircraft.
>
> I think you need to read the thread again. Pay particular attention to
> the subject line.

Have you read the entire thread?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > wrote:
>
> > "Tom Fleischman" > wrote in
message
> > rthlink.net...
> > > In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Tom Fleischman" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > rthlink.net...
> > > > > Why are you posting this crap here?
> > > >
> > > > Because this "crap" is the subject of what various ammunition will
do
> > inside
> > > > the body of an aircraft.
> > >
> > > I think you need to read the thread again. Pay particular attention to
> > > the subject line.
> >
> > Have you read the entire thread?
> >
> >
>
> Yes, most of it, and the 7 or 8 posts I read were completely off-topic,
> including the original post in the thread. It belongs in rec.guns.
>
> Just my opinion...

Well, opinions are like assholes and bellybuttons, especially coming from
self-appointed net cops that don't understand the material and the
abstractions of frangible bullets for use inside aircraft and how THEY ARE
MADE.

I suspect your discomfort with the subject has more to do with your nagging
than any real quest for UseNet purity.