Pilot shot in head

[Jim Burns]

on CNN

Jim

[Peter R.]

Jim Burns > wrote:

> on CNN

Not on their website yet. What is the story?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Gene Seibel]

Pilot Aiding Police Pursuit Shot
# Safely Landed Plane Without Incident

May 5, 2005 1:18 pm US/Eastern
CLAY CENTER, KAN (AP) Hit in the head by a shot fired from the ground,
pilot Mike Spicer managed, with the help of his passenger, to get his
plane safely back to the Clay Center airport.

Spicer, a Clay County commissioner who manages the municipal airport,
was pressed into service last Friday by authorities who were looking
for a man who sped away when a deputy tried to stop him for illegal
registration of his pickup truck.

Sheriff Chuck Dunn called Spicer, figuring he could get his Cessna 150
in the air near this north central Kansas community sooner than the
Kansas Highway Patrol plane.

Before he took off, Spicer heard from Arnie Knoettgen, mayor of the
nearby community of Morganville. Knoettgen, an emergency medical
technician and a reserve deputy, volunteered to join him in the search.

Shortly after leaving the airport, Spicer spotted an abandoned truck in
a ravine about three miles south of town. After a couple of passes,
Spicer saw what he first thought was a feed sack in a field. But he
realized it was a shirtless man in blue jeans, lying face down among
the green, 12-inch plants.

Knoettgen verified that the man was the suspect and radioed the
sheriff.

Spicer, 55, told The Clay Center Dispatch he was leaning forward,
holding the plane in a turn when he heard a "crack" from the ground and
the Plexiglass window on his left popped, but he felt nothing.

"It all happened so fast," Spicer said. "Neither one of us realized
what was happening at first."

A shot fired from the ground slammed into the plane's passenger's side,
whizzing by Knoettgen and striking Spicer in the forehead above his
left eye.

Spicer said the shot was fired from a handgun, believed to be a .44
Magnum, and that it was "just lucky" that it hit the plane, which he
estimated was several hundred feet in the air.

"After he shot us, he got up and ran toward the trees," Spicer said.

The plane began to drop, and Knoettgen reached over and pulled back on
the stick while Spicer pushed in the throttle for a climbing turn to
head back to the airport. Spicer also pushed his hooded sweatshirt
against the 3-inch gash in his head, trying to stem the heavy flow of
blood.

"I knew I had been hit in the head, but I couldn't feel anything,"
Spicer said. "That's what really scared me."

Both men kept telling each other they were OK, although Spicer admitted
later he "really thought this was it" and began to think of being
reunited with an infant son who died of meningitis nearly 25 years ago.

"Then I realized I had to get Arnie back," he said. "That kind of
brought me back to reality."

"I knew I may have to get the plane back to the airport," Knoettgen,
who had never taken off or landed, told the Dispatch. "I thought I had
a chance to put it down if someone could talk me through it."

Spicer kept giving instructions on the flight back to the airport,
about three miles away. He also radioed his wife, Pam, who was at the
airport, to call for an ambulance.

"He told me he had been shot in the head, but he kept sending
instructions," she said. "So I knew it must not have been as bad as it
sounded."

As they neared the airport, Spicer tightened his shoulder harness to
make sure he didn't slump forward should he pass out.

"I knew if I collapsed on the yoke, Arnie would have no chance of
getting the plane down," he said.

The plane came in low and both men recall the landing as a pretty good
one. Police, an ambulance and firetrucks were waiting on the runway.
After only about 2=BD hours at the Clay County Medical Center, Spicer
was back home.

"It just wasn't my time," he said.

Michael Michaud, 28, of Clay Center, was arrested Saturday morning. He
is in the Clay County Jail on $1 million bond awaiting a preliminary
hearing May 18.

Michaud is charged with two counts of attempted murder, criminal
discharge of a weapon at an occupied vehicle resulting in bodily harm,
criminal possession of a firearm and attempting to elude an officer.
The sheriff's office said drug charges are also pending against him in
an unrelated case.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Jim Burns]

Pilot of what looks like a C152 was helping police with a high speed car
chase. I didn't catch where it was. Driver of car shot at plane, hitting
the pilot in the forehead, just grazing him. Passenger took over the
airplane while the pilot used his coat to suppress the bleeding. They
landed safely.
Jim

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Jim Burns > wrote:
>
> > on CNN
>
> Not on their website yet. What is the story?
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

[Bob Chilcoat]

Not to mention Federal charges for firing at an aircraft. The TSA ought to
get a shot at him too, for terrorism. This guy's toast, and deserves every
bit of it.

Wow!

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
oups.com...

Michaud is charged with two counts of attempted murder, criminal
discharge of a weapon at an occupied vehicle resulting in bodily harm,
criminal possession of a firearm and attempting to elude an officer.
The sheriff's office said drug charges are also pending against him in
an unrelated case.

[John Galban]

Gene Seibel wrote:
> Pilot Aiding Police Pursuit Shot
> # Safely Landed Plane Without Incident
>
> May 5, 2005 1:18 pm US/Eastern
> CLAY CENTER, KAN (AP) Hit in the head by a shot fired from the
ground,
> pilot Mike Spicer managed, with the help of his passenger, to get his
> plane safely back to the Clay Center airport.
<snip>

Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John Galban]

Bob Chilcoat wrote:
> Not to mention Federal charges for firing at an aircraft. The TSA
ought to
> get a shot at him too, for terrorism. This guy's toast, and deserves
every
> bit of it.
>

Do you think it's wise to encourage the government to label every
criminal a terrorist, just so they can get more mileage on a case?
Frankly, I get a little disturbed when new laws that were specifically
targetted to improve terrorist intervention are used against common
criminals for common criminal acts. The result is that the increase
powers of law enforcement and prosecutors under these statutes are no
longer limited to the actual terrorists. They just slap a label on
anyone and rights begin to disappear.

That's well on the way down the slippery slope that started out by
rationalizing that taking away rights from "terrorists" would be a good
thing.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
> feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
> that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
> chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.


And a head shot at that....


Mort, RN

[Capt.Doug]

>"John Galban" wrote in message
> Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
> feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
> that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
> chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.

I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A
Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit.

D.

[Matt Whiting]

Capt.Doug wrote:
>>"John Galban" wrote in message
>>Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
>>feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
>>that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
>>chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.
>
>
> I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A
> Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit.
>
> D.
>
>

I shoot a Super Blackhawk (no scope) and I think hitting an airplane at
100+ yeards and 80+ MPH would be a pretty mean feat. You'd have to lead
just right, etc. I tend to think the "golden BB" moniker is pretty apt.


Matt

[Joe Johnson]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Do you think it's wise to encourage the government to label every
> criminal a terrorist, just so they can get more mileage on a case?
> Frankly, I get a little disturbed when new laws that were specifically
> targetted to improve terrorist intervention are used against common
> criminals for common criminal acts. The result is that the increase
> powers of law enforcement and prosecutors under these statutes are no
> longer limited to the actual terrorists. They just slap a label on
> anyone and rights begin to disappear.
>
> That's well on the way down the slippery slope that started out by
> rationalizing that taking away rights from "terrorists" would be a good
> thing.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
I completely agree with you, John. Labeling a suspect a "terrorist" in
order to restrict his/her rights with regard to bail, incarceration,
discovery, deposition of opposing witnesses, etc., logically prejudges
guilt, and should clearly be unconstitutional

[Flyingmonk]

Thank you John, I completely agree with you.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[Blueskies]

"John Galban" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
>> Do you think it's wise to encourage the government to label every
> criminal a terrorist, just so they can get more mileage on a case?
> Frankly, I get a little disturbed when new laws that were specifically
> targetted to improve terrorist intervention are used against common
> criminals for common criminal acts. The result is that the increase
> powers of law enforcement and prosecutors under these statutes are no
> longer limited to the actual terrorists. They just slap a label on
> anyone and rights begin to disappear.
>
> That's well on the way down the slippery slope that started out by
> rationalizing that taking away rights from "terrorists" would be a good
> thing.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)



Well, here is the other end of the spectrum:

http://www.wwmt.com/engine.pl?station=wwmt&id=15796&template=breakout_local.html

[Matt Barrow]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"John Galban" wrote in message
> > Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
> > feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
> > that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
> > chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.
>
> I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A
> Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit.
>

It'd be easier _without_ the scope.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Capt.Doug wrote:
> >>"John Galban" wrote in message
> >>Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
> >>feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
> >>that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
> >>chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.
> >
> >
> > I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A
> > Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit.
> >
> > D.
> >
> >
>
> I shoot a Super Blackhawk (no scope) and I think hitting an airplane at
> 100+ yeards and 80+ MPH would be a pretty mean feat. You'd have to lead
> just right, etc. I tend to think the "golden BB" moniker is pretty apt.
>

It's be tough for a novice, but not for someone who's even a fair marksman.
You'd have to hold only about 10 feet in front of it (130fps for the
150@80MPH, 1400fps (?) for the .44 Mag round). Five feet in front would just
about put the impact at the front of the cockpit.

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>"John Galban" wrote in message
>>>Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
>>>feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
>>>that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
>>>chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.
>>
>>I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A
>>Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit.
>>
>
>
> It'd be easier _without_ the scope.
>
>

Maybe, but most pistol scopes are pretty low power with a fairly large
FOV. I still think it would be difficult no matter what.


Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > "Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>"John Galban" wrote in message
> >>>Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
> >>>feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
> >>>that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
> >>>chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.
> >>
> >>I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A
> >>Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit.
> >>
> >
> >
> > It'd be easier _without_ the scope.
> >
> >
>
> Maybe, but most pistol scopes are pretty low power with a fairly large
> FOV. I still think it would be difficult no matter what.
>

I dunno...I can hit a 12" pie plate at 100 yards with a 1911 with standard
sights. I doubt it's be that hard.

[Bob Chilcoat]

Very good point, John. I was just commenting that the Feds will probably be
all over him, too. I'm not encouraging that, I just think he deserves
plenty of grief.

A bunch of the neighbors around our airport are pretty irrational (see
http://www.bbbccc.net/ for the most organized group). I would not be all
that surprised if someone took a potshot at one of us someday. I sometimes
feel like a target on short final. I hope I'm wrong.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bob Chilcoat wrote:
> > Not to mention Federal charges for firing at an aircraft. The TSA
> ought to
> > get a shot at him too, for terrorism. This guy's toast, and deserves
> every
> > bit of it.
> >
>
> Do you think it's wise to encourage the government to label every
> criminal a terrorist, just so they can get more mileage on a case?
> Frankly, I get a little disturbed when new laws that were specifically
> targetted to improve terrorist intervention are used against common
> criminals for common criminal acts. The result is that the increase
> powers of law enforcement and prosecutors under these statutes are no
> longer limited to the actual terrorists. They just slap a label on
> anyone and rights begin to disappear.
>
> That's well on the way down the slippery slope that started out by
> rationalizing that taking away rights from "terrorists" would be a good
> thing.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Capt.Doug wrote:
>>
>>>>"John Galban" wrote in message
>>>>Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
>>>>feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
>>>>that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
>>>>chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.
>>>
>>>
>>>I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A
>>>Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit.
>>>
>>>D.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I shoot a Super Blackhawk (no scope) and I think hitting an airplane at
>>100+ yeards and 80+ MPH would be a pretty mean feat. You'd have to lead
>>just right, etc. I tend to think the "golden BB" moniker is pretty apt.
>>
>
>
> It's be tough for a novice, but not for someone who's even a fair marksman.
> You'd have to hold only about 10 feet in front of it (130fps for the
> 150@80MPH, 1400fps (?) for the .44 Mag round). Five feet in front would just
> about put the impact at the front of the cockpit.

Well, I'm a pretty fair shot, but this isn't easy even for a marksman.
Judging 10 feet isn't trivial at that distant and this presumes that you
know the exact speed and distance to begin with. Not many people can
hit a running deer at 100 yards with a handgun and that is a much slower
target. It does bob up and down a little which adds to the challenge
though!

It these shots were as easy as you suggest, then the military would use
single-shot AA guns and save a lot of ammunition. Unfortunately, the
sniper's motto doesn't apply to shooting at aerial targets.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"John Galban" wrote in message
>>>>>Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
>>>>>feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
>>>>>that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
>>>>>chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.
>>>>
>>>>I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A
>>>>Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It'd be easier _without_ the scope.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Maybe, but most pistol scopes are pretty low power with a fairly large
>>FOV. I still think it would be difficult no matter what.
>>
>
>
> I dunno...I can hit a 12" pie plate at 100 yards with a 1911 with standard
> sights. I doubt it's be that hard.

So can I. We all make lucky shots occasionally. However, few can hit a
pie plate at 100 yards EVERY shot when shooting off-hand. Actually,
even a machine rest won't do that as the standard 1911's tend to scatter
their hits more than 12" at 100 yards inherently. And if the pie plate
is moving at 80 MPH, the odds get MUCH worse.

I don't think Doug Koenig could do that with any consistency and he's a
lot better shot than you or me.


Matt

[AES]

In article >,
"Joe Johnson" > wrote:

> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Do you think it's wise to encourage the government to label every
> > criminal a terrorist, just so they can get more mileage on a case?
> > Frankly, I get a little disturbed when new laws that were specifically
> > targetted to improve terrorist intervention are used against common
> > criminals for common criminal acts. The result is that the increase
> > powers of law enforcement and prosecutors under these statutes are no
> > longer limited to the actual terrorists. They just slap a label on
> > anyone and rights begin to disappear.
> >
> > That's well on the way down the slippery slope that started out by
> > rationalizing that taking away rights from "terrorists" would be a good
> > thing.
> >
> > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
> >
> I completely agree with you, John. Labeling a suspect a "terrorist" in
> order to restrict his/her rights with regard to bail, incarceration,
> discovery, deposition of opposing witnesses, etc., logically prejudges
> guilt, and should clearly be unconstitutional

Count me in -- it has other serious practical (and political) advantages
as well

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Capt.Doug wrote:
> >>
> >>>>"John Galban" wrote in message
> >>>>Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
> >>>>feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
> >>>>that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
> >>>>chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope.
A
> >>>Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit.
> >>>
> >>>D.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I shoot a Super Blackhawk (no scope) and I think hitting an airplane at
> >>100+ yeards and 80+ MPH would be a pretty mean feat. You'd have to lead
> >>just right, etc. I tend to think the "golden BB" moniker is pretty apt.
> >>
> >
> >
> > It's be tough for a novice, but not for someone who's even a fair
marksman.
> > You'd have to hold only about 10 feet in front of it (130fps for the
> > 150@80MPH, 1400fps (?) for the .44 Mag round). Five feet in front would
just
> > about put the impact at the front of the cockpit.
>
> Well, I'm a pretty fair shot, but this isn't easy even for a marksman.
> Judging 10 feet isn't trivial at that distant and this presumes that you
> know the exact speed and distance to begin with. Not many people can
> hit a running deer at 100 yards with a handgun and that is a much slower
> target.

And much smaller.

Think of the shot: if he would have held just in front of the prop, he'd
have hit the cockpit. A novice that knows you have to lead a moving target
at all would probably lead just in front.

We hit MUCH smaller targets moving at a corresponding speed in Sporting
Clays all the time, at up to 40 yards.

> It does bob up and down a little which adds to the challenge
> though!

Yet hunters do it all the time, with rifles AND pistols.

>
> It these shots were as easy as you suggest, then the military would use
> single-shot AA guns and save a lot of ammunition. Unfortunately, the
> sniper's motto doesn't apply to shooting at aerial targets.

Context, please. Military AA guns don't fire at targets at 100 yards doing
80MPH. More like 1000 yards and several hundred MPH. And AA is now
radar/heat seeking.

> Matt
The other Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >>
> >>Maybe, but most pistol scopes are pretty low power with a fairly large
> >>FOV. I still think it would be difficult no matter what.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I dunno...I can hit a 12" pie plate at 100 yards with a 1911 with
standard
> > sights. I doubt it's be that hard.
>
> So can I. We all make lucky shots occasionally. However, few can hit a
> pie plate at 100 yards EVERY shot when shooting off-hand.

Context, again: He only had to hit ONCE. We don't know how many times he
FIRED.

> Actually,
> even a machine rest won't do that as the standard 1911's tend to scatter
> their hits more than 12" at 100 yards inherently.

Hmmm...last time I tried, I did about three out of four. A .44 Mag

> And if the pie plate
> is moving at 80 MPH, the odds get MUCH worse.

See remarks about Sporting Clays....yes, we use scatter guns, but the
targets are 6", not 16 feet.
>
> I don't think Doug Koenig could do that with any consistency and he's a
> lot better shot than you or me.

You'd be surprised. Shoot the moving poppers at at IPSC match some time.

>
> Matt

The other Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"AES" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Joe Johnson" > wrote:
>
> > "John Galban" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Do you think it's wise to encourage the government to label every
> > > criminal a terrorist, just so they can get more mileage on a case?
> > > Frankly, I get a little disturbed when new laws that were specifically
> > > targetted to improve terrorist intervention are used against common
> > > criminals for common criminal acts. The result is that the increase
> > > powers of law enforcement and prosecutors under these statutes are no
> > > longer limited to the actual terrorists. They just slap a label on
> > > anyone and rights begin to disappear.
> > >
> > > That's well on the way down the slippery slope that started out by
> > > rationalizing that taking away rights from "terrorists" would be a
good
> > > thing.
> > >
> > > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
> > >
> > I completely agree with you, John. Labeling a suspect a "terrorist" in
> > order to restrict his/her rights with regard to bail, incarceration,
> > discovery, deposition of opposing witnesses, etc., logically prejudges
> > guilt, and should clearly be unconstitutional
>
> Count me in -- it has other serious practical (and political) advantages
> as well

They used to say "Don't make a Federal case out ot it", now everything is
not only a federal case, but terrorism.

It's the natural inclination of the power holders to usurp even more power.
Lord Acton was dead right.

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> Actually,
>>even a machine rest won't do that as the standard 1911's tend to scatter
>>their hits more than 12" at 100 yards inherently.
>
>
> Hmmm...last time I tried, I did about three out of four. A .44 Mag

A 1911 in .44 mag? What brand is that?


>>And if the pie plate
>>is moving at 80 MPH, the odds get MUCH worse.
>
>
> See remarks about Sporting Clays....yes, we use scatter guns, but the
> targets are 6", not 16 feet.

Yes, shotguns don't count. :-)

Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> >> Actually,
> >>even a machine rest won't do that as the standard 1911's tend to scatter
> >>their hits more than 12" at 100 yards inherently.
> >
> >
> > Hmmm...last time I tried, I did about three out of four. A .44 Mag
>
> A 1911 in .44 mag? What brand is that?

It chopped my line which was supposed to say "A .44 Mag is much better at
long range shooting". Hence, the 100 yard matches and hunters.

>
> >>And if the pie plate
> >>is moving at 80 MPH, the odds get MUCH worse.
> >
> >
> > See remarks about Sporting Clays....yes, we use scatter guns, but the
> > targets are 6", not 16 feet.
>
> Yes, shotguns don't count. :-)

Yes, and remember the 6" vs. 16 foot context.

[W P Dixon]

I believe Mr Whiting is speaking of a standard issue 1911 Colt .45. Which
does have an awful pattern even at 50 yards. There are some mods that can be
done, as in with some of the new modified 1911's. Which very few of those
are "real" 1911's, but aftermarket copies. A Kimber 1911 come to mind. Which
is a very nice weapon with alot better patterns than it's old standard US
military version. Just a good old Colt .45! Great for close combat, but not
a reach out and touch someone kind of weapon.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
ex-marine rifle coach

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> >> Actually,
>> >>even a machine rest won't do that as the standard 1911's tend to
>> >>scatter
>> >>their hits more than 12" at 100 yards inherently.
>> >
>> >
>> > Hmmm...last time I tried, I did about three out of four. A .44 Mag
>>
>> A 1911 in .44 mag? What brand is that?
>
> It chopped my line which was supposed to say "A .44 Mag is much better at
> long range shooting". Hence, the 100 yard matches and hunters.
>
>>
>> >>And if the pie plate
>> >>is moving at 80 MPH, the odds get MUCH worse.
>> >
>> >
>> > See remarks about Sporting Clays....yes, we use scatter guns, but the
>> > targets are 6", not 16 feet.
>>
>> Yes, shotguns don't count. :-)
>
> Yes, and remember the 6" vs. 16 foot context.
>
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> I believe Mr Whiting is speaking of a standard issue 1911 Colt .45. Which
> does have an awful pattern even at 50 yards.

Mine is a Springfield Armory, with a bit of trigger work and my onw reloads.
At 50 yards through a Ransom rest it shoots about a 4-5" group. The load I
use has been tweaked for this particular gun and it's had a couple thousand
rounds through it.

> There are some mods that can be
> done, as in with some of the new modified 1911's. Which very few of those
> are "real" 1911's, but aftermarket copies.

The term "1911" is for any version of the original J.M. Borwning design.

>A Kimber 1911 come to mind. Which
> is a very nice weapon with alot better patterns than it's old standard US
> military version. Just a good old Colt .45! Great for close combat, but
not
> a reach out and touch someone kind of weapon.

Which is the point I made about a .44 Mag being much better at 100 yards and
further.

Could I hit a Cessna 150 at 100 yards? Sure. Every time? Probably not.

[W P Dixon]

A four inch group with a 1911 .45 is not bad at all ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I believe Mr Whiting is speaking of a standard issue 1911 Colt .45. Which
>> does have an awful pattern even at 50 yards.
>
> Mine is a Springfield Armory, with a bit of trigger work and my onw
> reloads.
> At 50 yards through a Ransom rest it shoots about a 4-5" group. The load I
> use has been tweaked for this particular gun and it's had a couple
> thousand
> rounds through it.
>
>> There are some mods that can be
>> done, as in with some of the new modified 1911's. Which very few of those
>> are "real" 1911's, but aftermarket copies.
>
> The term "1911" is for any version of the original J.M. Borwning design.
>
>>A Kimber 1911 come to mind. Which
>> is a very nice weapon with alot better patterns than it's old standard US
>> military version. Just a good old Colt .45! Great for close combat, but
> not
>> a reach out and touch someone kind of weapon.
>
> Which is the point I made about a .44 Mag being much better at 100 yards
> and
> further.
>
> Could I hit a Cessna 150 at 100 yards? Sure. Every time? Probably not.
>
>
>
>
>

[W P Dixon]

Oh and I almost forgot if you have an original Springfield 1911 in decent
shape she is worth a nice chunk of change :)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I believe Mr Whiting is speaking of a standard issue 1911 Colt .45. Which
>>does have an awful pattern even at 50 yards.
>
>
> Mine is a Springfield Armory, with a bit of trigger work and my onw reloads.
> At 50 yards through a Ransom rest it shoots about a 4-5" group. The load I
> use has been tweaked for this particular gun and it's had a couple thousand
> rounds through it.

Mine is a Colt (I believe series 70, but can't remember for sure) that
is factory stock and it only groups 3-4" at 25 yards off a sandbag (I
don't have access to a machine rest. I'd say I could hit a 12" pie
plate at 100 yards maybe 50% of the time if I was shooting off a
sandbag. Shooting off-hand would probably lower than to less than 25%
of the time. That was my point.

My Super Blackhawk is much more accurate and will group about 2" at 25
yards, but even that would have a pretty low hit rate at 100 yards,
especially shooting off-hand and at a 12" target moving at 80 MPH or more!



>>There are some mods that can be
>>done, as in with some of the new modified 1911's. Which very few of those
>>are "real" 1911's, but aftermarket copies.
>
>
> The term "1911" is for any version of the original J.M. Borwning design.

True, but very few short of match tuned will shoot less than 12" at 100
yards with factory ammo.



>>A Kimber 1911 come to mind. Which
>>is a very nice weapon with alot better patterns than it's old standard US
>>military version. Just a good old Colt .45! Great for close combat, but
>
> not
>
>>a reach out and touch someone kind of weapon.
>
>
> Which is the point I made about a .44 Mag being much better at 100 yards and
> further.
>
> Could I hit a Cessna 150 at 100 yards? Sure. Every time? Probably not.

The point wasn't to hit a 150, but to hit something the size of a
pilot's head! Hitting a 150 that was sitting still would be trivial.
Hitting one that was moving at 80 MPH would be tougher, but not
impossible to be sure. To consisently hit a spot the size of a human
head, would be nigh on impossible.


Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> A four inch group with a 1911 .45 is not bad at all ;)
>

My Wilson Combat KZ45 is even better, but three time the price.


> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> I believe Mr Whiting is speaking of a standard issue 1911 Colt .45.
Which
> >> does have an awful pattern even at 50 yards.
> >
> > Mine is a Springfield Armory, with a bit of trigger work and my onw
> > reloads.
> > At 50 yards through a Ransom rest it shoots about a 4-5" group. The load
I
> > use has been tweaked for this particular gun and it's had a couple
> > thousand
> > rounds through it.
> >
> >> There are some mods that can be
> >> done, as in with some of the new modified 1911's. Which very few of
those
> >> are "real" 1911's, but aftermarket copies.
> >
> > The term "1911" is for any version of the original J.M. Borwning design.
> >
> >>A Kimber 1911 come to mind. Which
> >> is a very nice weapon with alot better patterns than it's old standard
US
> >> military version. Just a good old Colt .45! Great for close combat, but
> > not
> >> a reach out and touch someone kind of weapon.
> >
> > Which is the point I made about a .44 Mag being much better at 100 yards
> > and
> > further.
> >
> > Could I hit a Cessna 150 at 100 yards? Sure. Every time? Probably not.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Matt Barrow]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Oh and I almost forgot if you have an original Springfield 1911 in decent
> shape she is worth a nice chunk of change :)
>
Nah, this is a new model, only about three years old.

My kid picked up an OLD Remington-Rand 1911 (WW2 surplus ??) for $50, and
even with
the crappy trigger he can do amazing things. (His old man taught him well
:~)

[W P Dixon]

Teaching your son is very cool! I give mine pointers all the time , mostly
in rifles. But he is getting the handgun itch pretty bad. He aspires to be a
Marine Sniper...so I have to pass on what I can as an old coach. Hope he
takes it all in , may save his life one day.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>I believe Mr Whiting is speaking of a standard issue 1911 Colt .45.
Which
> >>does have an awful pattern even at 50 yards.
> >
> >
> > Mine is a Springfield Armory, with a bit of trigger work and my onw
reloads.
> > At 50 yards through a Ransom rest it shoots about a 4-5" group. The load
I
> > use has been tweaked for this particular gun and it's had a couple
thousand
> > rounds through it.
>
> Mine is a Colt (I believe series 70, but can't remember for sure) that
> is factory stock and it only groups 3-4" at 25 yards off a sandbag (I
> don't have access to a machine rest. I'd say I could hit a 12" pie
> plate at 100 yards maybe 50% of the time if I was shooting off a
> sandbag. Shooting off-hand would probably lower than to less than 25%
> of the time. That was my point.

I shoot offhand, but brace against the support beams for the roof cover at
our range. I never could get comfortable shooting a pistol off sandbags.
Rifles, though, are a different story.

> My Super Blackhawk is much more accurate and will group about 2" at 25
> yards, but even that would have a pretty low hit rate at 100 yards,
> especially shooting off-hand and at a 12" target moving at 80 MPH or more!

I have a Wilson Combat KZ45 which is even more accurate, but much more
expensive. Also, you probably won't get optimal accuracy with factory ammo.
They'll be good, but not your smallest groups.

> >>There are some mods that can be
> >>done, as in with some of the new modified 1911's. Which very few of
those
> >>are "real" 1911's, but aftermarket copies.
> >
> >
> > The term "1911" is for any version of the original J.M. Borwning design.
>
> True, but very few short of match tuned will shoot less than 12" at 100
> yards with factory ammo.

I haven't bought factory ammo (other than for carry/defense, or .22's) in
probably 30 years. My load of choice is 5.4grains of WW-231 behind a Montana
Gold 200gr JHP, using WW military match brass.

> >>A Kimber 1911 come to mind. Which
> >>is a very nice weapon with alot better patterns than it's old standard
US
> >>military version. Just a good old Colt .45! Great for close combat, but
> >
> > not
> >
> >>a reach out and touch someone kind of weapon.
> >
> >
> > Which is the point I made about a .44 Mag being much better at 100 yards
and
> > further.
> >
> > Could I hit a Cessna 150 at 100 yards? Sure. Every time? Probably not.
>
> The point wasn't to hit a 150, but to hit something the size of a
> pilot's head!

I doubt the dirtbag was aiming for a head shot; hitting the plane was
intentional/basic skill, hitting the guy in the head was coincidental.

> Hitting a 150 that was sitting still would be trivial.
> Hitting one that was moving at 80 MPH would be tougher, but not
> impossible to be sure. To consisently hit a spot the size of a human
> head, would be nigh on impossible.
>
Like I said, I doubt he was trying for a head shot.

[Matt Barrow]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Teaching your son is very cool! I give mine pointers all the time , mostly
> in rifles. But he is getting the handgun itch pretty bad. He aspires to be
a
> Marine Sniper...so I have to pass on what I can as an old coach. Hope he
> takes it all in , may save his life one day.
>
I have two boys and a girl and all started shooting before they were seven
years old. They learned discipline, self-control, hand-eye coordination,
responsibility, etc.

All three took to different aspects and none really do they shooing sports,
but my oldest, Michael, (25 on May 25th, a Navy Lt(jg)) is awesome with a
rifle. My #2 son (23) does things with a pistol makes me drool. My daughter
(20) doesn't shoot unless I take her, but she's incredible at Sporting
Clays. Her reflexes are phenomenal. I bought her a Beretta AL-391 20ga Youth
model for her 18th birthday, but she won't clean it (manicure, ya' know),
nor will she run the reloader...ah, women. :~)

[[email protected]]

On 6 May 2005 11:36:15 -0700, "John Galban" >
wrote:


> Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
>feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
>that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
>chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

When I was flying skydivers, I would have to divert to Hazel Green
Alabama to get fuel.

One fine day, the pay phone rang and I answered it. There was an
irate guy who said that the crop duster was making too much noise and
that he was going to shoot him down.

Youy've got to realize that times were simpler back then. So I asked
him to leave his name and phone number, and I would tell the crop
duster pilot to give him a call when he got back. (I was tapping my
forefinger on the side of my head thinking, boy you sure are smart).

Well, I waited, and he landed, so I went to tell him about the phone
call.

He showed me a patch on the wing where a bullet had gone through.

I guess today, I would have called the Sheriff.

And I need to say again that times really were different back then.

Mike Weller