What? No more debate on this one?

OK, I'll bite one more time.  Don't arm the pilots per se.  Put a striker (the good revolver style shotgun that the streetsweeper was a cheap knockoff of) 12 guage with bird shot in the cockpit under lock and key.  No one is getting through that door. There is really no need for pilots to be armed in the airports, etc..  It may be unweildy for cabin carry, but they shouldn't be venturing back there.  This is last line of defense, right?  If things go south, Pilot flys the plane to nearest emergency landing facility, co-pilot has the Striker trained on the door.  

I can hear the post accident playing of the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) now:

First Officer Dickweed, "Hey Capt Lardass (a Capt is one step below God, BTW). Check out my new 445 Supermag.

Capt Lardass, "Cool. Let me put some finger prints on that bad boy."

Sound of gunfire and Capt Lardass's brains hitting the cockpit side window.

First Officer Dickweed, "Oh Crap! How can I get keep the FAA from finding out about this? I can't, I'm screwed! Guess I'll just have to...

Sound of gunfire and First Officer Dickweed's brains hitting the other cockpit side window followed seconds later by the "Whoop, Whoop, Pullup!" tone generated by the aircrafts GPWS (ground prox warning system).

Give it time, it'll happen.

I'm with SteyrAUG on this one. The MP5-PDW would be much easier to shoot than a handgun. With a dot sight you would be able to shoot at night, and not have to worry about aligning the sights. With a 30 round magazine it is still small enough to be carried on the body. If pilots with automatic weapons frighten you, their is a semi only MP5.

You know I had almost the same idea. Why not make it the AIRLINES responsiblity to provide weapons and have a SMG or Carbine as part of the cockpit equipment, rather than have pilots carry their own guns. Since the guns never leave the cabin except for maintanance, even FOREIGN countries couldn't bitch and ALL flights could be armed. And you would get a better weapon.

But a shotgun or a pistol caliber SMG would be a waste. Body armor. This is a problem for relying on hanguns as well. It is perfectly legal to wear body armor onto any flight. Lots of people who are NOT terroists do it on a daily basis. No one would stand out because of it. Something in 5.56 would be better, even with the increased muzzle blast-flight crews wear headsets after all!

Barracade the door. Put TV cameras and microphones in the cabin so they can see what is going on. Give all the flight attendants silent alarm beepers to trigger alarm in the cockpit. Give them a AR-15 based PDW like the ones the 160th Aviation Regiment are supposedly getting to replace their MP-5 PDW's. Alarm rings they see whats happening in the cabin, pilot declares emergancy and gets the plane down ASAP, co-pilot and/or flight engineer (if present) cover door with PDW's. Flight crew make point to never open door while in flight.

Unless you can think of a time when the guy covering the door might have to use one hand for some other task, this would be better than a handgun.

.224 BOZ. 10mm necked to .224. I forget the numbers, but its enough to go right through body armor. You can put it in the MP5/10, and it would have less muzzle blast and probably more power than an M16 of similar length.

OK - here's my input...

There are some 7-shot revolvers running around in .38/.357, right?  I would also assume that they are full-sized frames with some exotic lightweight metal, no?  We all know that recoil is an issue with lightweight frames, and that a heavier bullet will recoil more than a lighter one.

Additional factors - Given that these are to be duty CCW sidearms, going with Titanium or Scandium for a frame is a good idea, as it will help prevent rusting.  Cylinders for these are either totally stainless or base metal with stainless inserts, and the barrels are base metal with stainless inserts.

Also, overpenetration is an issue - you don't want to shoot a tango and drop him, but the bullet kept going and will hit the AC skin (I know, not that big a problem mechanically.  Think about the psychological effect it will have on the sheeple who don't know anything about airframes) or you managed to hit someone right behind him who just ain't involved.

Also, any armed engagement within the airframe is, BY DEFINITION, short-range/CQB in nature.  You just don't need the full range...

Therefore, let me offer this.  In 1990, we developed a short-range load for these sorts of things, using a slightly lower powder charge and bullets centreless ground out of Delrin bar stock.  That's right - plastic bullets.

Recoil - next to none.
Overpenetration - none.
Terminal energy - Scads
Penetration of soft armour - not a problem.
Range - about 40 yards

Those of you who have read UC will find this idea familiar, but it is a bit older than the book.  We came across the idea in 1990, but I think it actually goes back to the CIA/OSS assassination teams, which were disbanded after the Church Committee Hearings (Frank Church should have been strung up by his pubic hair.)  The idea was lost, and several military ops units "rediscovered" it recently.

The Delrin bullet idea WORKS.  Trust me.  It will homogenise any soft tissue it hits, terminal energy transfer is TOTAL, and will not penetrate metal (and has a hard time with sheet.)  This makes it a nearly idea carry ammunition for use onboard aircraft, at a significant cost savings conpared with the Glaser Safety Slug - this savings can be applied where it belongs - TRAINING.

FFZ

No it wouldnt. Like the other fad PDW cartridges by HK and FN, it penetrates armor well, does not have effective wounding. Go ask the ammo gurus. As to having more "power" I am not quite sure what you mean. 5.56x45 is still throwing a heavier bullet faster. If anything it has a surplus of power.

Plastic bullets? Not a good idea. You will give the guy a nasty shallow flesh wound, just like all the other fragnable rounds like glaser and magsafe.

It doesn't matter if a bullet goes through the hull of the aircraft. Small arms fire will not down a jetliner by itself.

I suggested .224 BOZ as a way to get reasonable power out of a short weapon with reasonable muzzle blast. A 10.5 inch M16 would probably work, but it is somewhat larger. Were you to use a shorter barrel, the rifle would double as a concussion grenade and flamethrower.

DESERT EAGLE, POINT FIVE OH

The .224 BOZ is impressive, but totally inappropriate to the environment.

Notes on Ammo performance -

Energy of a projectile varies directly in direct proportion to either the mass of the projectile or to the SQUARE of the velocity.  Therefore, doubling the mass will merely double the available energy, while doubling the velocity will QUADRUPLE energy!

Energy is useless unless it is transferred efficiently.  Shooting someone with a solid 500-gr bullet will put a hole in them, and probalby two or three people behind them.  Shooting someone with a 500-gr softnose or other expanding bullet will likely kill them outright with a decent hit on the torso - pretty much anywhere.  Difference?  The expanding softer bullet does a more efficient job of TRANSFERRING its energy into the tissue of the target, while the solid does not.  This is what makes hollowpoints so effective, and the relative expansion of the various profiles of hollowpoint are a good measure of their effectiveness.  Better holowpoint bullets recover at two calibres or better, expanded (the expansion of the hollowpoint bullet is a side effect of energy transfer into tissues.)

Also, the softer bullet causes a larger wound channel in the target, with attendent increases in hydrostatic shock (the human body is mostly water) and trauma and physiological shock effects.

Coming up with a useful load for the expected environments and situations is usually a trade-off, and the sort of thing that gives ballisticians fits.  Sometimes experimentation proves useful...

FFZ

IPsh, Let me be the first to call B.S. On your scenario.   #1 the F.O would never suicide in the aircraft.  Sure he would loose his job, prolly his ATP, but it's not the end of the world.

           #2  He might even keep his job.  What do you think unions are for?

I saw this on a friend's website.


[img]http://www.cableone.net/uziforme/stevens311.jpg[/img]

you have misidentified the weapon.

that is an "A.C.M.E. Disinigrating Pistol"
the "Uranium Pew-36 Explosive Space Modulator" looked like a stick of dinamite and screwed into the base of whatever that cannon marvin had was.

if anyone cares...   the "Uranium" was changed to "ALooneyum" in the later cartoons.

Free Fire Zone,

only tissue destruction kills.

Energy transfer and hydrostatic shock are not contributers to wounding or killing, except as they can force lacerated tissue further apart.

How bout one those full auto beretta's like Travolta had in Broken Arrow?

That would be the 93. I would prefer the G18 to a Beretta.

IMI makes a mac size Uzi with weaver rail and side cocking handle, and it uses Glock magazines.

These would not be bad choices-but not the greatest either. Definently you would need to consider some exotic ammo like BAT, THV, or Arcane due to the problem of body armor.

The people who did this the first time could afford to put their expendable human assets through flight school. Surely they could of afforded to give them body armor if needed to accomplish the task of gaining control of the aircraft. And as I already mentioned, its common anymore for people to fly wearing body armor, and it doesn't rate two glances by security.