Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/7/2002 7:42:46 AM EDT
What model and caliber of gun should be issued to airline pilots? Obviously it would have to be standardized to standardize training (i.e. all the same make, model, caliber issued)? I would propose a GLOCK 17 9mm NATO? CRC
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 7:46:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2002 7:47:43 AM EDT by Matthew_Q]
I think they should use [img]http://quentinj.dynamic-dns.net/pics/1911.jpg[/img] one of these. :)
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 7:54:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 8:07:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2002 4:26:51 AM EDT by Wave]
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 8:12:18 AM EDT
1911 .45 Auto. Let the airlines fork over the money for a top of the line Wilson or Les Baer, as well as a complete Galco shoulder rig for any pilot who wants to carry . . . they ought to be able to make a fashion statement too!![:D]
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 8:28:54 AM EDT
My choice would be a Glock- either 23 or 19. Both are the same form factor, compact for CC, and hold lots of ammo for multiple engagements, with good firepower. I believe the FBI is using the 23, for similar reasons... [8d]
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 9:35:18 AM EDT
Good God, not a Glock. You'd risk explosions in the cockpit. [rolleyes] A short-barreled revolver seems appropriate.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 9:40:19 AM EDT
Maybe a few different handguns could be chosen from by the pilots. But as for ammo, it has to be something that can't pierce the skin of a pressurized cabin. Maybe Glazer.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 9:43:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Deliverator: Maybe a few different handguns could be chosen from by the pilots. But as for ammo, it has to be something that can't pierce the skin of a pressurized cabin. Maybe Glazer.
View Quote
Do you really think there is a special ammo for airplanes? Thousands of LEOs fly everyday with regular duty ammo.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 9:44:06 AM EDT
I think the pilots should carry what they are comfortable with and what they can shoot accurately with. Once you standardize it will only hurt, one size does NOT fit all.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 9:47:34 AM EDT
Something small and light would be appropriate. As much as I'd like to have my 1911, when mohhammad comes a-knocking, those flight bags are already heavy enough with all the manuals and such. It would have to be somthing that can be worn all the time. The Aluminium/Titanium/Scandium J frame revolvers in 38+p would be a great choice. Already bought one in fact. The Mini Glocks would be another great choice. I guess the program SOP. ie. open/concealed carry/ lockboxes etc would have to be established before a choice could be made.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 10:08:48 AM EDT
The logical choice would be a 1911. They come in several sizes and can drop a towelie at twenty paces.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 10:33:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2002 10:39:38 AM EDT by Fearandloathing37]
I'm sure this is going to harelip a lot of people, but the handgun I would put forth, would be the Smith & Wesson 386PD Scandium 7 shot .357 revolver, loaded with a frangible .38 round similar to longbow Ammunition. While some pilots, who are gun people, might practice, with their weapon regularly, the great majority will not. Things like jam clearing drills, taught at a four day pistol course will be rapidly forgotten, as skills degrade without repetitive training. High magazine capacity may be less than desirable in a weapon meant for last ditch defense of the cockpit. while I am not worried so much about punching holes in the skin of the plane and depressurization, as I am Damage to Avionics, control lines and hydraulics. With every shot the pilot or terrorist fires, the chances of hitting one of these vital systems rises greatly. Frankly if both the Pilot, Co-pilot and in some cases the Flight Engineer fired all of their 7 shot revolvers empty, chances are the plane will be brought down by the 14 to 21 shots, plus the shots that may or may not be fired by the terrorists. SHOT PLACEMENT AND BACKSTOP AWARENESS ARE THE KEY TO THE AIRLINER GUN BATTLE AND TO THE ULTIMATE SURVIVAL OF PASSENGERS AND CREW, not high mag cap, as some would have us believe. Somehow I doubt that Pilots, who are in most cases short on sleep, live from hotel to hotel, trying to fit a small amount of personal time, into the hellish schedule that is the life of a airline pilot, will spend the time to do a whole lot of weapon cleaning and maint. the great majority of pilots, will want a handgun that will fire with absolute reliability, without having to f*ck with it to much. The 386PD has a lot going for it, it is incredibly light weight, with it's Scandium Frame, thus making it easier for pilots to wear during the long sitting hours of trans-oceanic flights. It's Simple, robust and can be relied upon to go bang, every time the trigger is pulled for 7 shots, it is reasonably compact, with its 2 1/2 inch barrel, Hogue Bantam grips and medium frame, it's dull gray finish is very resistant to wear. It is,"The perfect pilot gun"
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 11:05:23 AM EDT
There is only one choice.... [img]www.achilles.net/~jtalbot/humour/Marvin.gif[/img] [size=3]The Illudium Q36 Explosive Space Modulator[/size=3]
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 12:00:05 PM EDT
I was under the impression that air marshals used magsafe or some sort of fragible ammo (glaser?). Not very reliable in autoloaders
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 12:30:30 PM EDT
A S&W 629 with a 4 inch barrel loaded with 44 special MagSafes. Also 2 speed loaders. A revolver because it is simpler to operate, has greater reliability, and has simpler maintenance procedures than a semi-auto. And simpler to fire when under stressful conditions. A Double Action, because they are faster to reload than a single action. A large bore, because they are more efficient when it comes to stopping a perpetrator (larger wound channels). Frangible Ammunition, to help prevent penetration of the aircraft fusulage, walls into the passenger compartment, or damage to control systems. 44 special instead of 44 magnum, because it would be easier to handle.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 12:45:06 PM EDT
Basically, I agree with Fearandloathing37 and Bostonterrier97. However, in some ways you guys have the horse before the cart. First, how much and what kind of training are they going to get? That may limit the handguns that can even be considered. I know it can be argued to pick the best handgun first and then the training, but it’s not going to happen that way. This is going to be a very expensive package anyway - a week or two at Thunder Ranch isn’t realistic. Also, what kinds of standards are going to apply? Does every pilot get a handgun? Do only those who pass, say, the Air Marshall qualification course get one? I’d opt for low but reasonable standards to get as many guns as possible in the hands of the cockpit crew. But that means a fairly idiot-proof firearm. The probable lack of expertise and/or interest on the part of some crewmembers should also limit the handgun selected. Having a couple, three handguns to choose from would help solve both this and the usual grip size problems. Also, don’t forget the environment. An AD (or ND, if you wish) could be really bad news. In addition to previously mentions concerns, I’ll add the dangers of hitting a fuel line or fuel tank or otherwise starting a fire – a fire on a plane is really bad news! Whatever handgun is selected must have a very wide margin of safety. Glocks are excellent firearms in the hands of really knowledgeable shooters – not so in the hands of novices. IMHO, I wouldn’t even consider them for this role. Same for 1911’s. My first choice would probably be something like a S&W 64 with a 3 inch barrel (stainless steel K-frame, .38 Special caliber, with fixed sights). I would also routinely store it in some sort of very secure container – keep in mind the aircrews aren’t likely to be making any quick draws.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 1:18:44 PM EDT
Whatever the air marshalls carry, so if things go south they can use a weapon tossed to them or pass extra mags. I think the air marshalls carry .357 sig, but I don't know what brand handgun. .357 sig makes some sense, as lighter/faster bullets penetrate less. BTW the original sky marshal round was a specialized .22, which they stopped using, and Hinkley got a hold of a box of surlus, one of which bounced of the limo door and creased our second greatest modern president.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 1:27:07 PM EDT
I dont think they should use a Glock, simply because that not everyone can shoot a Glock well. It does have one of the most unorthodox triggers in my opinion. I think they should pick a handgun that is easy to operate, Accurate, and reliable. I think 9mm JHP would do the job. Therefore, I would nominate the Beretta 92FS, or the USP 9, or Sig P226.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 2:14:21 PM EDT
In my best John McLaughlin Group voice... WRONG! All WRONG... The correct answer is HK MP5K-PDW, the choice of Special Operations members for airline takedown all over the world.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 2:19:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wave: something simple that is fairly idiot proof and reliable...how about a revolver?
View Quote
Not a bad idea, I second this motion.. I'd go for a medium frame 357 mag with a 4" barrel myself
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 3:08:44 PM EDT
I just read that they will beable to pick from any of these four hand guns. [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/Sixgun357%2FSHTF%2EJPG[/img]
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 3:15:52 PM EDT
Sig P228 in 9mm (only caliber it comes in) Sig P229 in 9mm, .40, or .357 Sig. No explanation needed.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 5:21:40 PM EDT
The same thing many of them carried in the USAF/USN/USMC: Beretta 92F (M-9) Seriously, it would help with the training requirements if a gun was used that many of the pilots had seen before. Since the airlines get alot of ex-military pilots who (unless they've been out of the service since the 80's) have trained with the 92FS before, it would be easier to re-qualify them... Besides, the US Govt has plenty of M-9's left over to issue...
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 6:07:56 PM EDT
As much as I appreciate [b]Sixgun357[/b]'s post for its sublime silliness, I think they'd be better off armed with a dozen Lorcins with 1 round each. [:)] My recommendation would be an M16 with a 6" barrel and a Beta-C full of tracers. An M203 with HE rounds would be the first line of defense with the rifle for backup. A sack of phosphorus grenades should be kept handy in case the hijackers try to overwhelm the plane in large numbers. Seriously, though, bullet holes in the fuselage will NOT cause depressurization -- just a minor leak that the pressurization system can more than compensate for. I'd be more concerned with overpenetration of a BG and into a passenger, but I would [b][u]not[/u][/b] cripple the air crew by forcing them to use frangible rounds. Anything from 9mm to .45 ACP seems fine to me with .45 being my personal preference for the situation. FWIW, the vast majority of commercial pilots out there are not only trained in the use of firearms, but most are already trusted by our government to fly aircraft equipped with big-ass machine guns and highly lethal missles & bombs. And many do so 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year, if not more. I agree that additional tactical and safety training is not only a good idea, but a necessity. I think their training should also be designed to make it fun and inspire them to want more & more training. Maybe even an airline pilots' tactical olympics would be good to instill competition and a desire to refine skills. When I step on a plane, I don't mind my pilot being capable of taking down a half dozen elite enemy special ops guys, but I don't demand it.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 6:13:56 PM EDT
I forgot to add that I think standardizing on 1 specific weapon is a huge mistake. It's OK for the military to standardize, but each pilot (crew member) should be allowed to choose a weapon that best suits him/her from a list of weapons that have been reviewed & approved for reliability & effectiveness.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 6:54:27 PM EDT
Like every other US citizen, I think they should use BATF/JBT approved pistols. [img]http://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/guns/fpistols/brescian.JPG[/img]
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 6:59:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2002 7:06:55 PM EDT by Armed_Scientist]
I think they should be allowed to carry anything that they demostrate proficency. I think that if there were to be a standard issue it should be a simple point and shoot weapon with low recoil. Maybe even a .22 with a lot of rounds. How about a select fire Calico M-100/100p? [url]http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0100/105.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 7:09:13 PM EDT
You guys need to think a little bigger. But not much... I want to see pilots use these: [img]http://www.ar15.com/members/albums/HKocher%2Fcoltdoe%2Ejpg[/img] Colt M16, Department of Energy special edition. 9mm, barrel in the 6 inch class. CJ
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 7:34:41 PM EDT
how 'bout a serbu super shorty?
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 7:46:26 PM EDT
We’re getting into some pretty heavy armament here! All I can say is I’m not getting on any aircraft where crewmembers are wearing “Kill’em all, let God sort’em out” tee shirts!! I have a vague recollection that Israeli Sky Marshals use .22LR Berettas and go for head shots. However, I don’t think much of that approach.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 8:09:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: In my best John McLaughlin Group voice... WRONG! All WRONG... The correct answer is HK MP5K-PDW, the choice of Special Operations members for airline takedown all over the world.
View Quote
I'll second this. This is what I would want.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 8:10:34 PM EDT
MP5K compact, powerfull, and will clear the hallway. A burst into a terrorist will have much more effect than any single round.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 8:39:10 PM EDT
Frankly, I don't care if I have a pengun. Anythings better than a crash axe. IMHO, Depresurization, Hyd,elect,control line failures or fires would not be an issue. Innocent passengers would be at risk however, unless shot placement is good. Thanks again to all of you who wrote letters and made calls. This is a huge victory for america.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 8:46:58 PM EDT
M203 with buckshot!!!!
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 1:11:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97: A S&W 629 with a 4 inch barrel loaded with 44 special MagSafes. snip Frangible Ammunition, to help prevent penetration of the aircraft fusulage, walls into the passenger compartment, or damage to control systems. 44 special instead of 44 magnum, because it would be easier to handle.
View Quote
This makes sense for short range stopping power, reliability, and simplicity. Except S&W is a no-go as they are traitors. Taurus actually offered free guns and have a good 44 special. If a semiautomatic is chosen it should be either be what the Air Marshals use: Sig 229 in .357 Sig, or a 1911 .45 for reasons obvious to us here at AR15.c_m. My guess is a Sig 229 in .357 Sig will be chosen. Secret Service and Air Marshalls use this as a standard issue. Special Forces use a Sig 226 whick is very similar. The Sig 229's slide is US made (lower made in Germany?) and it is an especially fine weapon. The .357 Sig is a very good and modern round that closely matches the time proven .357 mag round. There is a familiarity issue in using the same weapon, and interchangeable magazines could also be a valid consideration.
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 4:47:57 AM EDT
I'll second' third' whatever the revolver. I think Tarus has already offered to supply the handguns. Something that's dependable/uncomplicated/low maintenance.
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 7:05:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CRC: What model and caliber of gun should be issued to airline pilots? Obviously it would have to be standardized to standardize training (i.e. all the same make, model, caliber issued)? I would propose a GLOCK 17 9mm NATO? CRC
View Quote
I know quite a few airline pilots that I wouldn't trust with a rubber band pistol...
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 8:13:07 AM EDT
i think standardazation is a bad idea. my only input is i think a magnum round is overkill, and in an airliner full of people is one of the places overkill may not be a good thing. any shooting would be at close range, a nice fragmenting 45 would do the job.
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 8:33:23 AM EDT
What about something in .40 SW loaded with 135 grain Hydra Shocks.
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 9:00:33 AM EDT
how about a taurus revolver in .45 acp because taurus offered them for free and then a 14" 870 shotgun with some #4 buck, you can't beat 12ga buck.
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 2:11:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rn45: ... There's also one big hurdle to overcome. What happens if the hijackers take hostages first to try and force the pilots to surrender their weapons?
View Quote
Easy. The pilots do what LEO’s do the same situation – they don’t give up their guns!
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 12:58:59 AM EDT
I'd go with the wheel-gun as well. The simplicity factor is important, as is the size and packability. I would go with a Colt "D" frame with a hammer shroud, but a Smith bodyguard or the like may be a better choice. Anyway, the cockpit is pretty confined, even in the bigger planes. A 2-3" revlovler shines in that enviroment. Also without any brass ejecting to get wedged in the controls, or roll down into components, a revolver may be a tad safer in a cockpit as well. The best solution would be to have the pilot fly the plane and have an armed security type (like an Air Marshall) on the plane whose job it is to kill bad guys. If you're riding the city bus, and some punk tries to kill someone, would you rather the bus driver have a gun, or there be a Cop there armed and trained specifically for the job? I'm not against arming pilots, but I think there is a better solution that we can take if the government was truly serious about security and not just eye-wash. Ross
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 6:18:34 AM EDT
[red] The best solution would be to have the pilot fly the plane and have an armed security type (like an Air Marshall) on the plane whose job it is to kill bad guys. If you're riding the city bus, and some punk tries to kill someone, would you rather the bus driver have a gun, or there be a Cop there armed and trained specifically for the job? I'm not against arming pilots, but I think there is a better solution that we can take if the government was truly serious about security and not just eye-wash. [/red]
View Quote
You don't seem to be completely getting it. Arming pilots IS a LAST LINE OF DEFENSE. When the air marshal is down and the passengers have been beaten back and the intruder is about to break into the cockpit, this is when it's absolutely NECESSARY to have a gun in the cockpit and someone to operate it. I subscribe to the simple philosophy that you can't trust anyone else to defend your life for you. If the pilots subscribe to this same philosophy, then they are the very best choice of people to arm on a plane. Their defensive capability translates directly to the survivability of the passengers and crew. Hell, just hand out guns to everybody. Anyone who got out of line wouldn't be out of line for long! CJ
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:37:56 AM EDT
Actually, you don't have to arm them all. If you read Lott's book about CCW, crime goes way down when bad guys think the average citizen MAY be carrying. The hijackers will have to assume the pilot is, even if it is only an unknown percentage. It would actually be better if we publicized that an unknown percentage WERE NOT carrying. Then a potential hijacker could not rely on seizing the pilot's or co-pilot's weapon as part of a plan. Keep them guessing. Remove their options.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 9:14:00 AM EDT
Well, if they are armed, which I'm not sure is reall the eay to go. It concerns me when even the pilots themselves are saying its a bad idea. But, how about the new Springfield Armory gun in .40, DAO with a grip safety as well as a manual safety? Sounds about right for this application.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 10:21:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ross: … The best solution would be to have the pilot fly the plane and have an armed security type (like an Air Marshall) on the plane … I'm not against arming pilots, but I think there is a better solution that we can take if the government was truly serious about security and not just eye-wash.
View Quote
Basically I agree – but sadly I think your expectations are unrealistic. Air Marshals aren’t on every flight and - IMHO - never will be. President Bush has said that there are going to marshals on [b]most[/b] flights. At some point we’re going to learn that his idea of “most” is probably something like 10% or so!! (And then the government will say the number was inflated, not to deceive the public, but to confuse the terrorists!) When the government guarantees to put a team of marshals on [b]every[/b] flight of a large aircraft – to include Fed Ex freight planes and such – and legally forbids those aircraft from even taking off without marshals on board, then the idea of arming pilots can be reconsidered (though even then I’d favor it). Forgive my cynicism, but I’m a retired federal employee – and I’m kinda like the cook who won’t eat in his own restaurant!!
Originally Posted By Ross: ... Also without any brass ejecting to get wedged in the controls, or roll down into components, a revolver may be a tad safer in a cockpit as well. …
View Quote
Really good point that I haven’t heard before. Now that you bring it up, semi’s don’t really shine for extreme close quarters combat anyway (the proverbial knife fight in a phone booth scenario). It’s east to limp wrist semi’s when shooting at odd angles; the slide can brush against something as it cycles, causing a malfunction; ejected brass can bounce back into the firearm; and trying to make a contact shot at someone can result in the slide accidentally being pushed out of battery and preventing the handgun from firing.
Originally Posted By GLOCKshooter: … Keep them guessing. Remove their options.
View Quote
Agree emphatically. The reason there are so fewer home invasions in the U.S. than in countries like Britain is that here in the states, the homeowner on the other side of the door [b]might[/b] have a firearm!
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 11:38:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2002 11:40:53 AM EDT by LWilde]
Walther P99: [img]http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/pubimage.asp?id_=674097[/img] -Ambidextrous mag releases -Three backstraps included for different hand sizes -Hammerless -Nothing protruding to catch on clothing, holster, etc. -Easy to reach and use slide release -Chamber loaded and pistol cocked indicators -Intuitive and natural aiming and grip position (Good angle of barrel to grips.). Pistol becomes easy extention of index finger pointing target.) -Decocker is integral to top of slide and easy to use -Very safe weapon with minimal training -Takes lots of abuse...good for military field use I've shot all kinds of factory and reloaded ammo from my P99 without any failures ofany sort. Even with hot Corbon loads, I've been able to regain a sight picture quickly and re-engage a target. [soapbox]
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 12:07:02 PM EDT
Ruger Super Redhawk in .454 Casull should do it.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 12:13:10 PM EDT
Sereiously, it will probably either be standardized with GLOCK or SIG, or the pilots choose their own (like CCW). A Colt 633 DOE 9mm SMG is a bit much, as is the MP5K-PDW. The Colt may have a short 7" barrel, but it is still a pretty damn big gun.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 12:41:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fian:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: In my best John McLaughlin Group voice... WRONG! All WRONG... The correct answer is HK MP5K-PDW, the choice of Special Operations members for airline takedown all over the world.
View Quote
I'll second this. This is what I would want.
View Quote
Not anymore. They are being replaced by short AR-15's for assault roles. Any current production automatic handgun will do for arming pilots. Let them pick their own, just no revolvers(unless they want to carry a J-frame as a second gun) and no antiques like Lugers or Broomhandles. As long as they are free to use commercial JHP ammo wherever they go-INCLUDING Newark-and not FMJ there is no real discernable difference between currently offered autoloading handgun cartridges. My apologies to revolver fans out there, but a year ago there were 4-5 hijackers on each flight. If they are truely suicidal and trying to bum rush the cockpit, defending with a revolver would reqire every shot to hit and for all but one or two to be one shot stops. That is waay too much to ask of any revolver/cartridge combination and revolvers reload way too slowly. This is one scenerio where even single stack autos are borderline-high caps are a DEFINITE plus for airmen in a situation like this.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top