US Air Force survival gun?

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
(B2431) wrote in message
...
Let's see, you guys didn't issue 357 magnums during the war, better
check again
on the pistol caliber. The piece in question was heavy and bulky and
rarely
carried for those reasons.

As stated earlier in reply to Als post, the 9.3mmX74mmR cartridge was
equivalent in POWER to a .375H&H Magnum! Check with a gun expert on
that.

Seriously overdone for a survival gun. Are these escaping aircrew or elite
paratroopers?

Flare pistols launching grenades is a non starter even for you.

You obviously don't know **** about the
Leuchtpistole/Kampfpistole/Sturmpistole.

Again, for survival after escaping from an unflyable aircraft? The idea is
"not to die of exposure, hunger or angry wildlife", not "stand off all of 3
Shock Army singlehandedly". Every ounce of grenades, heavy-calibre
ammunition, et cetera you carry is an ounce less of food, water, radio
beacon, spare batteries, flares, dye markers and other items that might
actually improve your chances of living until rescue.

279,000 of them were issued
in WW2 and all the grenade ammo was used up for them. They were put to
good use and there long before the strap-on GLs we use today on our
rifles.

And they were thoroughly predated by assorted "rifle grenades" that ranged
from the Heath Robinson to the rather practical.

**** off, will you? The US got the lion's share of advanced German
technology including all those funny "black project" triangles, discs,
and cylinders flying around using EM propulsion systems.

Haven't seen a single one at an airshow.


They may be ugly but they work, they are light and small enough to carry
and
ARE carried. Given the choice of a heavy, bulky "super weapon" left
behind or
one of those "ugly weapons" in my kit guess which one is more effective
when
needed?

Gee, I don't seem to recall ANY stories of success with that butt-ugly
M6.

Have you looked?

At least the German bomber crews used the Sauer Drillings in
combat on the Russian front as well as the 27mm
Leuchtpistole/Kampfpistole/Sturmpistole.

Why are bomber crews engaging in ground combat when they ought to be flying
bombers?

Tell you what, put on a flightsuit. How many pockets do you have? How
much can
you carry? Now put on your survival vest and address the same questions.
OK,
part of your bailout kit has all kinds of wonderful things, how much can
you
put in the aforementioned pockets? Unless the kit bag makes a
comfortable back
pack you will get rid of it if you have to go cross country. A basic
rule of
thumb is it's better to wear what you need than carry it. You survival
vest has
a holster for a pistol. How long will you carry that wonder weapon you
described?

Quite a few SF aircrews today carry the HK SOCOM pistol.

Oh, you mean the Robocop Gun. Pray tell, what does it do that a Glock 21
doesn't?

I'd be
willing to bet they would carry the new HK MP-7 PDW if they could
procure one.

Doesn't square with the aircrew I've talked to: but then they're only
actually flying the missions, what do *they* know?

I *have* heard of US aircrew drawing M16s and M4s as personal weapons for
high-risk ops, which makes a lot more sense, but then they seriously
considered the risk of being forced down somewhere very unfriendly.

If you need a combat weapon, take a combat weapon and accept the weight and
bulk. If you need a basic survival weapon, get something as light and
compact as possible. Don't haul a heavy, overpowered, break-action weapon
around and insist it's wonderful: it's too big to get out of an aircraft
with, too heavy to carry, too powerful for small game and too slow-firing
for a firefight.

--
Paul J. Adam

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...

I haven't heard any credible stories of Black Bear attacks either.
They're pretty willing to just go about their business and amble
along. I think that the Bears (and us) face more danger from the
Charging Buick than anything else.

I believe a back country camper was killed in the Rocky Mountain
National Park last summer just before I was out there. Drug out
of his tent at night.

Actually, from what I have read the case in Colorado did not involve a
camper; instead, it was apparently a logger/timberman who had a backcountry
cabin, from which he was drug, killed, and partially consumed. There was
also a similar case in New Mexico, where the victim was a 90 year old woman,
again in her cabin. Black bears are not necessarilly cuddly creatures.

Brooks

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" writes:

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Stephen Harding writes:
Kevin Brooks wrote:

The ol' Black Bear actually accounts for many more attacks against
humans in
the US than does the Grizzly, which makes sense being as they are more
widely distributed and have a larger population. I carried a 12 guage
pump

Are you certain of that? I've read quite consistently that
the black bear is really very slow to attack a human, even
when it has cubs. Attacks are extremely rare.

I think the last I heard, a couple years ago a woman jogging
around somewhere in Quebec was killed by a black bear. It
was an exceptional event!

I guess I should find out more. We've got *plenty* of black
bears around here, and they're definitely done with their
winter naps.

Had my first encounter with one for this year just a few days
ago. It growled at my dog, made a short charge towards the
dog, and then took off. This would be my 5th encounter with
local black bears in about 3 years, and usually, they just
skeedadle as fast as possible when they see me. The critters
are *everywhere* around here now days!

I haven't heard any credible stories of Black Bear attacks either.

Then you may want to reread what is available out there. A quick Google
should convince you that the black is no teddy bear; they have accounted for
a number of fatalities, and reportedly account for more attacks and
fatalities in BC than the also-present grizzlies.

I'd be the last one to state that _any_ wild critter, be it a bear, of
any color, Coyote, Racoon, or even Field Mouse is a Cuddly Teddy Bear.
(Especially after sewing a friend's Coon Hound's ears back on after it
learned that Black Bears are Very Much Irritated by Coon Hounds
bouncing around them and bellowing. (It wasn't so much an attack as a
backhand cuff in the "Get Outta Here!" mode. It was still sufficient
to scalp the dog. (Didn't do any permanent damage though, 'cause it
hit him in hte head. The one thing you could be certain of was that
you couldn't induce detectable Brain Damage in Bounce the Coon Hound -
It's sort of like detectnig radiation from DU - sure, it's there, but
the background count is so high that you can't sort out just what the
cause is))
I don't doubt that there have been Black Bear attacks. We haven't had
any of any consequence in New Hampshire, of late. Given what I've
observed of bears in the woods. I'd be willing to wager that it's
more a question of the likelyhood of an encounter with a particular
species rather than a blanket statement that a Black Bear is as
agressive, or as prone to provocation, as a Grizzly.
I wouldn't dream of cornering either type - other than Humans, they're
at the toop of the food chain around here, and they didn't get there
by being slow, dull-witted vegetarians.


They're pretty willing to just go about their business and amble
along. I think that the Bears (and us) face more danger from the
Charging Buick than anything else.
That being said, wo do have a lot of bear up here, these days. (IIRC,
the census figures put the bear population in New England at the
highest level since about 1600.
Hmm. given the number of bear sighting out to Durham, it could well
be that bears are attracted to Academic environments. I know Skunks
are - there's an area of UNH that's just loaded with them. And teh
City-raised kids learn pretty quickly that they all respond quite well
to "Here, Kitty!"
As it happens, I'll be meeting with some of teh Wildlife Studies folks
at UNH this weekend. I'll see what they think.

Ask them if any of them have read Shelton's book on the subject of black
bears and attacks.

I wouldn't doubt that they have - in fact, some of them may have
contributed or reviewed it.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" writes:

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
I wouldn't try a handgun on a bear though. Too dicey.

Rules for hiking in bear country:

1. ALWAYS bring a friend.
2. ALWAYS carry a .22LR pistol. NOTE: don't tell friend you have a gun.
3. When charged by a bear, shoot friend in leg.
4. RUN. You can't outrun a bear, but you can outrun your friend.

Sounds like a variation of the old joke..."Run? Why? We can't outrun that
bear!" "Nope, but I figure I can outrun *you*!"

That's why I always carry a backup pair of Nikes (The shoes, not
the SAM) in my backpack. (I'm pretty quick for a middle-aged fat
man.)

Then too, there was the time I took my then-girlfriend up to the
family compund in Oxford Country, Maine (A good pick-up line was "I'm
going to Paris this weekend. Would you like to come along?" (Of
course Paris is right next to Norway, and just before Bryant Pond)
Anyway, it's up in the mountains, lots of trees & lakes & stuff.
And it was Bear Season. She had on a brown jacket, and wanted to take
a walk in the woods.
"Don't wear that jacket", I told her, "You'll get mistaken for a
Bear."
"Well, what if I wear one of the orange hats?"
"They'll mistake you for a Smart Bear."

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
wrote:

What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
utility!
The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
You would think they would do better than that.

Rob

The Sauer drilling had a 9.3X74R rifle barrel, not a .357 Magnum. It also
weighed about 15 pounds and could not be carried in aircraft other
than bombers. It was wooden stocked, commercially built, desperation
weapon issued to bomber crews on the Eastern front.

He did say .375, not .357

used ammunition unique in the German military,

The 9.3 X 74 is more like the .35 Whelen and is and was very popular all
across Europe for hunting. Not a military caliber, let alone unique.

BTW, the 9.3 X 74 in NOT a magnum caliber, but it is powerful and
has hefty recoil.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Mary Shafer wrote:

The closest I've ever come to being attacked by a wild animal is being
nipped by a rock hyrax on Table Mountain, though. Hyraxes are the
closest living relatives of elephants, not that you'd guess that by
looking at either of them. Although now that I think about elephants,
there was that one bull elephant who seriously considered charging our
vehicle in Samburu (or was it Masai Mara?) a few years ago.

Hyraxes? Elephants? Phaah!

Ever been to Rocky Mountain Nat'l Park in Colorado?

That's the site of my only "wildlife attack". A vicious and highly
aggressive pack of ground squirrels! The little buggers would come
right up under the picnic table at the campsite, and nip at your
toes.

The message was for us to get out so they could move in on the chips
and fritos for themselves.

Such a terrifying experience, I have never returned!


SMH

John Keeney wrote:

I would think.
A few years ago in The Smoky Mountains National Park I
witnessed some fool approaching two bear cubs hand out
stretched like he was offering a nut to a chipmunk. Momma
bear charged him, he turned and ran (laughing like the idiot
he was) and the three bears headed for the dense brush.

A very interesting overview of black bear dangers in the US
and Canada can be found at:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/bears/17275

Complete with some gory details on fatal attacks. Most
interesting is the depth of stupidity some people exhibit
in dealing with bears.

In summary, although black bears tend to be overall non-aggressive
and no special threat to humans, black bear aggressiveness
varies a good deal by region.

Bears of the eastern US are the most mild and timid of the
species, with heightened aggressiveness in south and central
north. Canadian bears in the western part of the country
can be dangerous, with the bears of non-coastal British
Columbia being more dangerous than grizzlies!

The real terror is the "predacious black bear", which
fortunately isn't especially common, although more likely
to be encountered in the wilds of BC. It will actually prey
on humans.

Speculation as to why the bears vary so much in aggression
varies, but perhaps northern conifers provide less vegetation
to feed on as in more southern climates (a US black bear is
more vegetarian than carnivore).

Also perhaps habituation to humans. The bears in the deep
wilderness of inner BC may not know what a human is, other
than a tastey looking treat that is exceptionally slow and
unaware and apparently rather stupid.

Interesting stuff, but I think I'm mostly safe from the bears
until my next visit to BC!


SMH

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:42:52 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Mary Shafer wrote:

The closest I've ever come to being attacked by a wild animal is being
nipped by a rock hyrax on Table Mountain, though. Hyraxes are the
closest living relatives of elephants, not that you'd guess that by
looking at either of them. Although now that I think about elephants,
there was that one bull elephant who seriously considered charging our
vehicle in Samburu (or was it Masai Mara?) a few years ago.

Hyraxes? Elephants? Phaah!

Ever been to Rocky Mountain Nat'l Park in Colorado?

Yes, I have been. Pretty, isn't it?

That's the site of my only "wildlife attack". A vicious and highly
aggressive pack of ground squirrels! The little buggers would come
right up under the picnic table at the campsite, and nip at your
toes.

Stellar jays in Yosemite are equally aggressive, taking food right out
of your hand. My father, who spent a fair amount of time in the
mountains of Utah and Colorado, always called jays camp robbers, as
they would take anything not nailed down (and at least try to take the
rest). I don't recall any direct attacks, though.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1"
wrote:

I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
possible.

Wasn't this the Armalite survival gun?

As I recall (vaguely: a friend bought one to kyak through the Arctic
Circle) it had an over-under barrel, with a .22 bullet and a 410
shotgun shell. It packed into its own stock.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:33:19 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Are you certain of that? I've read quite consistently that
the black bear is really very slow to attack a human, even
when it has cubs. Attacks are extremely rare.

We have black bears in southern New Hampshire. Perhaps one sighting a
year in this college town. To the best of my knowledge, no one has
ever been attacked by a bear in the past century.

Of course, if you go kidnapping bear cubs ...


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org