Pilot shot in head

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 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 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

"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 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 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.

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.

"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.

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.

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