Federal Air Marshall's Ammo Debate


October 4, 2004, 06:15 PM
Annie Jacobsen, who has been writing a series on "Terror in the Skies" after her experience on a flight this summer that had young Arabic males performing what many passengers believed to be a "probing" flight.

In this last episode, on the 2nd page she discusses FAM ammo choice of .357 HP


quote in part:
Are FAMS Using 'Cop-Killer Bullets?'

News reports on the FAMS ballistics have, so far, been extremely limited. Early this summer, the FAMS had granted an exclusive interview again to TIME Magazine writer Sally B. Donnelly. In Donnelly's article, 'My Life As An Air Cop,' she states she was the first journalist ever allowed to drill alongside [FAMS] recruits. In the article, Donnelly revealed that FAMS use hollow point bullets designed to mushroom inside the human body.

Why the FAMS wanted to release these gruesome ammunition details to the general public, I really don't know. But what I do know is that according to my anonymous sources, the facts presented by Donnelly are not entirely true. Hollow point bullets may be designed to mushroom inside the human body, but if they're the kind of hollow point bullets the FAMS uses -- SIG-357-HP's according to my sources -- then they travel about three times faster than other bullets. Couple this with the incredibly close quarters on an airplane, and you've got a problem. When fired at close range, the bullets used by the FAMS will likely travel not just through the targeted assailant, but also through up to four more bodies -- and possibly through the cabin wall of an aircraft.

Apparently, I'm not the only person with this conflicting information. Here's how Congress posed their ballistics question to Quinn:

Contradictory reports of the type of ammunition used by air marshals has sparked concern by travelers, pilots and others. The debate includes whether all passenger aircraft can withstand impact by the type of ammunition used by air marshals and whether the ammunition is the type that continues to travel through the human body. Please provide examples that clarify the impact assessments for each type of ammunition used including, but not limited to, the effect on an aircraft and a human body from being penetrated by the ammunition used by air marshals when fired at varying distances.

Equally disturbing, it's been suggested by multiple sources that the FAMS use these high velocity, hollow point bullets not because they're the appropriate ammunition for the job, but because Secret Service uses these bullets and that's where Director Quinn spent 20 years of his career.>

end qoute

My purpose in this thread is not so much to point out journalistic misinformation, but rather clarify what we do know about this topic from the collective firearms knowledge at High Road.

Then, I will point her in the direction of this discussion to further educate her. I think this is worth the effort since this series she has been writing has taken on a life of its own and has a huge following - a following who should have accurate info on ammo (aka 'cop killer bullets')

My first question - I thought frangible ammo was being used. ??

If you enjoyed reading about "Federal Air Marshall's Ammo Debate" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
October 4, 2004, 06:48 PM

Good Shooting

October 4, 2004, 07:01 PM
"When fired at close range, the bullets used by the FAMS will likely travel not just through the targeted assailant, but also through up to four more bodies -- and possibly through the cabin wall of an aircraft."

Is there any pistol round ever made that could pull off that kind of penetration even with a FMJ round let alone a HP?

"but if they're the kind of hollow point bullets the FAMS uses -- SIG-357-HP's according to my sources -- then they travel about three times faster than other bullets."

3 times faster than other bullets? Which bullets are those? Must be talking about paintballs or something.

Winchester loads in JHP -

357 SIG 125 gr. USA JHP = 1350 fps

45 Automatic 230 gr. USA JHP = 880 fps

357 Magnum 110 gr. USA JHP = 1295 fps

44 Magnum 210 gr. Super-X® Silvertip® Hollow Point = 1250 fps

9mm Luger 115 gr. USA JHP = 1225 fps

"according to my sources "

Sure would be interesting to find out who these sources are. Must be some 12 year old kid who spends too much time playing video games. Or someone who is really, really bad at math.

"cop killer bullets"

Now while I have never claimed to be a expert on bullet design I've always wondered about this term as applied to JHP ammo. It would seem to me that the design of a HP bullet, what with the flat hollow nose, would actually lessen the ability of a HP to penetrate a BP vest. Anyone with more knowledge please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Standing Wolf
October 4, 2004, 07:53 PM
The sky might be falling! The sky might be falling! Oh, dearie me, the sky might be falling!

People who are completely ignorant about firearms and ammunition really shouldn't try to write about them.

Shaughn Leayme
October 4, 2004, 08:00 PM
The ability to defeat body armour is a function of speed, bullet design, angle of penetration, distance and the weave and material used in the vest.

Now a hollow point can defeat a vest, if it exceeds the design parameters of the vest. Many hollowpoints fired from the 9mm, 357 sig, 40 S&W, 45 ACP have a rounded bullet profile, which can allow the bullet to slip between the fibres instead of being grabbed by the fiber mesh, something a bullet with a larger flatter meplat will have greater difficulty doing.

Now if we manufacture a bullet out of a dense material (copper, brass, tungsten, hybrid alloys, spent uranium) and with a profile intended to part the fibres and launched at a high velocity then many vests would be unable to stop these types of rounds and may not even slow it down.

I heared in regards to the FAM's that they could not find a frangible ammunition that would meet the performance requirements as laid out, in the tender process and it was eventually decided to go with a conventionally designed round.

It has been shown that the Explosive decompression that is a feature of many Hollywood movies is a fallacy and the odds of a single or even multiple bullets striking an important part in an aircraft is slight and unless you also hit the redundant back up, then you would probably not even know it, since you are not on the flight deck with the warning light flashing at you. The plane would also be headed to the nearest airport and after being interviewed you would be placed on a different flight and away you go.

October 4, 2004, 08:07 PM
I just :rolleyes: after the read the 3 times faster than other bullets part.

If they report facts on everything else like sports and business, they should also report facts and not some anti gun rubbish in the press. I talk to so many people that are also misinformed because of the media.

They probably get that garbage off some movie or something like that and take it to be reality. Wasn't that "cop killer" phrase in a Lethal Weapon movie?

October 4, 2004, 08:08 PM
People who are completely ignorant about firearms and ammunition really shouldn't try to write about them

In a perfect world, you are right. However, in the real world people like Annie do write, are widely read and discussion forums like ours can interact with her to teach her about an unfamiliar subject.

I'm trying this approach rather than bashing her.

If you are criticizing her based on a few misinformed paragraphs on firearms versus the body of work on making our skies safer from terrorism, then you're missing the point of this thread,

October 4, 2004, 08:21 PM
I guess she missed that episode of Mythbusters.

October 4, 2004, 08:34 PM
For starters, aren't armor piercing handgun rounds "cop killer bullets?"

And furthermore, it appears that the writer is oblivious to the fact that if HPs are "cop killer bullets", that 99.9% of all cops carry them.


Jim K
October 4, 2004, 08:34 PM
One of the big arguments used against armed pilots by the anti-gun gang and other supporters of terrorism was that bullets could penetrate the aircraft skin and result in "explosive decompression" or that innocent people might be killed.

Now hear this! Explosive decompression from a single bullet or even a dozen bullets is not going to happen. No one will get sucked out through a .357 bullet hole unless he is VERY skinny.

Plus, the ignorant need to get something clear. If terrorists take over a plane, EVERYONE ABOARD IS DEAD. Again, if terrorists take over a plane, EVERYONE ABOARD IS DEAD. And anyone killed by a bullet is lucky.

These guys are not looking for transportation to Cuba, or trying to rack up frequent flier mileage. They are going to use the plane as a weapon to kill everyone aboard and as many people as possible on the ground. They may want to hit something like a nuclear plant and kill hundreds of thousands of people.

If terrorists take over the plane, the only way it can be stopped from crashing into a planned target is if an Air Force fighter shoots it down. No matter what happens, EVERYONE ABOARD IS DEAD. No survivors. No last minute saves by guys dropping in from a helicopter. No super heroes grabbing the tail and pulling the plane to the ground.

If terrorists take over that plane, EVERYONE ABOARD IS DEAD. The only way to stop terrorists is to kill them. Got it now? See why holes in the cabin don't matter? See why killing an innocent person doesn't matter?


October 4, 2004, 09:11 PM
I just looked at the end of her article, where there is a discussion section.
(Kudos for allowing online responses from readers)


Several firearms enthusiasts have jumped in on the issues of HP, frangible and myths of cockpit decompression from bullet holes.

I doubt I could post this thread link on her discussion board w/o the appearnce of spamming, but after some more replies,I will email her this board's relatively polite and informative responses.

For those who haven't read her entire series of online articles, IMO, the day may come she will receive a Pulitzer for her dogged pursuit of the government over the myth of airline security. (she justs needs a little ballistics training ;^) )

October 4, 2004, 09:37 PM
But what I do know is that according to my anonymous sources, the facts presented by Donnelly are not entirely true. Hollow point bullets may be designed to mushroom inside the human body, but if they're the kind of hollow point bullets the FAMS uses -- SIG-357-HP's according to my sources -- then they travel about three times faster than other bullets. Couple this with the incredibly close quarters on an airplane, and you've got a problem. When fired at close range, the bullets used by the FAMS will likely travel not just through the targeted assailant, but also through up to four more bodies -- and possibly through the cabin wall of an aircraft.

Here has always been my problem with a news article like this.

I know the above statement is totally erroneous and completely lacking in any factual basis.

I don't know much about the rest of the article but when what you do know is reported completely wrong and falsely, how do you know what to believe of the rest?

October 4, 2004, 11:18 PM
That lady is an idiot.

Jim March
October 4, 2004, 11:33 PM
My only concern with 357Sig 125s is that IF you got a "clog failure" you might get a drill-through and endanger one other person. NOT three, but one, or a couple of real light "grazes" maybe.

BUT with very good JHPs like Gold Dots or something, I'd call the risk pretty dang low.


What would be better?

Either run a REALLY hot frangible (44Mag maybe?) or go to a large slow big-cavity hollowpoint with low sectional density, like the various "flying ashtray" 200grain 44Spl or light-loaded 44Mag slugs. Or maybe, pending a lot of testing, the new Speer 250grain 45LC Gold Dot moving at around 825 - 850fps.

Yes, these are revolver rounds. You can get a fatter JHP without worrying about feed issues.

If they're going to stick with 357Sig...does Cor-Bon have a Pow'R'Ball in 357Sig yet? Those are a "clog-proof" (or damned close to it) "pre-clogged JHP".

October 5, 2004, 06:16 PM
Does anyone know the velocity of a Sidewinder missile?

The discussion about injuring people in a plane caused by handguns is asinine. If the cockpit is breeched, the only alternative to a handguy is an F-16 jamming a Sidewinder (assuming the Air Force wants the plane to descend in tact) or a Maverick (assuming the Air Force wants the plane exploded at altitude). In any case everyone on board is suddenly and permanently dead.

I just do not understand why that little factoid is so hard for blissninnies to understand. The only alternative to a handgun is a freakin' F-16.

October 5, 2004, 06:27 PM
Where can I get some 4,000 fps .357 Sig ammo? :)

October 5, 2004, 06:51 PM
I don't know much about the rest of the article but when what you do know is reported completely wrong and falsely, how do you know what to believe of the rest?

That's actually the essence of the problem and hence this thread. If one were to read her entire series of articles since this last summer (accessible from the original post in this thread), then, like myself, might feel she went off track on this one area - where she was indeed wrong.

What has impressed me about Annie is her bulldog tenacity in trying to get answers from the government to some very urgent questions about our airline security. What is newsworthy in her articles is not the few conclusions she has drawn, but rather the apparent stonewalling she has encountered by various entities.

Her integrity is at stake. She has a responsibility to correct misinformation in this , albeit, tangent area in the greater dicussion of airline security.

Andrew Rothman
October 5, 2004, 08:26 PM
Here's the TIME article she quotes. Not bad.

Title: MY LIFE AS AN AIR COP , By: Donnelly, Sally B., Time, 03158446, 6/28/2004, Vol. 163, Issue 26

Section: Nation

As new marshals take to the skies, a TIME reporter is the first to train with them. A look at the rigors

ARMS LOCKED OUT IN FRONT OF ME, I sweep my .357 semiautomatic pistol back and forth across the panicked passengers. My heart is thumping wildly, my breathing too rapid. Fighting the tunnel vision that comes from fear, I try to remember to scan the plane for threats. Just seconds earlier, I had heard the first bloodcurdling yell--"They're stabbing people back here!"

My partner had gone to the back to take on the attackers, and I had drawn my gun, rushing to the front of the first-class cabin and shouting "Police! Police! Police!" I whirled and faced the passengers, with my back to the cockpit door that I am to protect with my life. In these close quarters, I feel confident about only one thing: my Sig Sauer 229 handgun and its hollow-point bullets designed to mushroom inside the human body.

I can't see my partner. I can't hear him either; stress can impair hearing as well. I am only a few feet from horrified people yelling their lungs out, but it is as if I were deaf. I also feel that my eyes are bulging with the same terror I see in the passengers' faces.

Suddenly I see a passenger jump into my aisle, grasping something in both hands. I start to aim at him, but under the pressure I am experiencing, my muscles aren't responding well; it's as if my arms were moving through setting concrete. I hear the pop, pop, pop of his weapon. One round hits my stomach, another my right arm. The last, just below my eye. Trained to keep fighting even if shot, I focus the front sight of my Sig at his heart and pull the trigger repeatedly, riding the recoil. My assailant drops to the floor. I look for my partner and see he has taken down the other attacker. The plane is secure.

If this scenario had been real, I would be dead. Instead, it was just another day of hellishly realistic training for federal air marshals, the armed, plainclothes agents who patrol the skies. In this case, the bullets were made of paint; the terrorists and passengers were actors. And I was standing in as a federal air marshal in training--the first journalist ever allowed into the program's secure facility to drill alongside recruits.

The men and women selected to be federal air marshals spend 11 weeks in one of the best--and most specialized--federal law-enforcement training programs. Before 9/11, the U.S. employed just 33 marshals. Since then, thousands have been hired (the precise number is classified). The government has spent $31 million improving facilities at the Federal Air Marshal Training Academy in Atlantic City, N.J., adding, among other things, mock airplane cockpits and a $400,000 NFL-size gym.

Nearly every air marshal was once a soldier or a cop, so most ease right into the male-dominated, boot-camp atmosphere. Even a sedentary office worker like me felt a little bolder when I put on the trainee uniform (gray T shirt, black cargo pants, black boots), strapped my leather holster to my side and listened to the first instructor tell the class, "You've got to have a winning mentality. You have to believe you're Superman. Or maybe the Black Knight in Monty Python." I laughed, but my classmates didn't; they just nodded in silent agreement.

There is a locker-room camaraderie at the academy, but the atmosphere is never really relaxed. The staff plays to the peer pressure that already exists in this group of macho, Type A personalities. "If you're lying in your own blood at 30,000 feet, it's your own fault," warned a physical-training instructor, letting the words linger for a few seconds. "If you can't stay in the fight, thousands will die."

The key to an air marshal's work is his weapon. These agents have the highest standards for marksmanship in the law-enforcement business. I learned that actually firing the gun is almost an afterthought. Much more important were my stance, my breathing, my grip and my focus on the front sight of the gun. If a human target was wearing body armor, I was told to aim at the lower abdomen. "People will bleed out more quickly," my instructor said, "and a moving head can be hard to hit."

Air marshals are required to be not only accurate shooters but also fast. In one test, agents must draw their guns and hit a target 7 yds. away with two shots in 3 sec. More than one marshal has flunked out of the academy for being .001 sec. late. Under pressure, I was quick but not very accurate. In one hijacking exercise, I "killed" two civilians.

Physical training at the academy is designed to ensure that air marshals are fit enough to endure a struggle. We did wind sprints, jogs broken up with calisthenics and a three-mile run through the rain. We kicked, punched and kneed one another through a thick pad. At one point, as I held my body in a Pilates position--sideways, supported by only my forearm and the side of my foot--I wondered where all the water on the concrete floor had come from. It was just sweat pouring off my face.

During one classroom session, an expert briefed us on the vast array of bombs available to terrorists, from so-called pregnancy bombs (strapped to a woman's stomach) to tiny ones set off by $5 watches to cell-phone-triggered devices. The instructor went over some of the four types and 700 models of hand grenades. Another bomb specialist noted, "You guys are the only law-enforcement agents who have to move toward an explosive device rather than away from it." He explained how to place blankets and luggage around an onboard bomb so that if it goes off, the damage is limited. Another instructor underscored the sophistication of the enemy. "Look," he said, "al-Qaeda is a serious military organization that is very methodical. They are not going to launch an operation to fail."

Increasingly, air marshals are being trained not just to respond to hijackings but to detect them in advance. "Every criminal act requires some surveillance," says Thomas Quinn, director of the federal air-marshal program and a 20-year veteran of the Secret Service. "That is why we are out there looking for threats." An instructor taught us how to recognize suspected terrorists whose photos we had seen by focusing on the central triangle of a person's face, which doesn't change much with age or weight. We were trained in the use of the specially configured PDAs that all air marshals carry. These contain 34 categories of suspicious behavior--"taking pictures," "not taking a seat," "wearing clothes incompatible with the season." When a marshal makes an entry, it is immediately relayed to the systems operation division outside Washington, where analysts decide what kind of action to take.

Once they're in the air, marshals, unlike cops on the beat, know there is no backup. "There's no waiting for the cavalry to arrive," says Quinn. My fellow students say they are ready. "The threat is always there," a marshal told me at graduation. "We're permanently switched on. We'll stay in the fight."

PHOTO (COLOR): DRILL Our reporter shoots a "terrorist," who drops his gun and falls in the aisle

PHOTO (COLOR): SHOOT On the target range, Donnelly learns how to move forward while firing a gun

PHOTO (COLOR): SUBDUE During a training exercise, she practices restraining a "terrorist"

PHOTO (COLOR): EVACUATE She learns how to use an emergency slide while holding a gun


By Sally B. Donnelly, Atlantic City

October 6, 2004, 08:30 PM
I don't know about the FAM's , but an NWA pilot was in the shop the other day and wanted a recommendation on which ammo to carry in the cockpit. I recommended 2 /1 Glasers over Hydra-shoks. The counter guy (I'm normally not behind the counter, the bench is my AO) recommended Gold Dots.

October 6, 2004, 08:48 PM
entropy - If any FFDO is carrying ammunition other than that issued he or she is in deep doo doo should the issue be raised.

FFDO's have strict policies about what they can do with their firearms and what can be shot through them. There is no type of frangible ammo authorized.

Since FAMs are federal LEOs they have a very stringent firearms and ammunition policy that is very restrictive.

Tom Quinn the FAMS director who is now the focus of Congress' Judiciary Comittee has on the record stated that "the FAMS uses a high quality hollow point ammunition".



October 9, 2004, 10:49 PM
I emailed her this thread. Also there were comments from informed firearms posters (including myself)in the discussion area that follows article.

This now appears at the end of the article -

<A Note to Readers from Annie Jacobsen:

Thanks to all the readers who have written in with their expert and personal opinions on the bullet currently used by the Federal Air Marshals: SIG .357 HP.

The range of information that has come in is fascinating and further supports Congress’ concern that the existing information out there on this bullet is contradictory and debatable.

To read more about the theory that I had hoped to convey -- that these bullets, when fired at close range, risk causing collateral damage due to over-penetration -- please visit About.com; AllExpert.com by clicking here.

Specification correction: according to the manufacturer, the SPEER Gold Dot .357 SIG HP Velocity is 1425 +/-50 FPS, which makes it about 1-1/2 times faster than other bullets. >

I am dissapointed. THAT IS NOT A CORRECTION. She doesn't "get it".
This will now cast dispersions on the rest of her work, which I thought was great.:banghead:

October 10, 2004, 02:12 AM
Shrug, if it's good enough for these guys, it's good enough for me:


It's not like they're using .338 Lapua rifles for christ sake.

October 10, 2004, 04:29 AM
All of that womens articles (including the first one) are chock full of mistakes and disinformation. We just notice the firearms parts because thats what we know about. Everything she has written about this is horse-puckey.

October 10, 2004, 06:52 AM
The pilot was told he could use whatever ammo he wanted. I would think frangible ammo would be the best choice for inside a cabin or cockpit.:o

October 10, 2004, 07:10 AM
This is an excellent example of why you should not casually accept anything you see in print.I,m sure she would call herself a "professional" journalist but she's hardly that. One quick call to the NRA, an ammunition maker or other source and she would have gotten it right !! She probably got her "facts " from a computer game.

Shaughn Leayme
October 10, 2004, 09:42 AM
If one has to fire a round in the flight deck of an airplane and misses it won't really matter if it is a frangible or not the bullet has a very good chance of going on its merry way and hitting something other than intended, since the reason for firing would mean the flight deck door has been breached and you will be firing into the passenger compartment, given that the intruder(s) is coming thru the door.

Frangibles can also cause functioning problems in some pistols and with the high cost, many people donot do a reliability test (200 - 500 rounds) and are basically going on the results of a magazine or two, not something to instill confidence, is it?

With all the electronic/digital displays showing up in modern aircraft, versus the old style guages, it really doesn't matter what type of bullet hits the instrument panel, you are going to lose screens and IIRC some of those have double duties.

If the screening/security on the ground is modeled along the lines that the Israeli's use, then this would be a somewhat moot discussion, until that time.....

October 10, 2004, 07:38 PM
This is an excellent example of why you should not casually accept anything you see in print

Excellent point. However, in the first few stories, there was corroboration by other passengers of the events taking place on the plane. I give her credit for going with the story and following up, however it appears she has hit a dead end for now on the big picture story and it is a stretch for her to be dealing with concerns of "collateral damage" over FAM ammo choices.

That's far from the first articles rasing questions over bizzare in flight behavior of young Syrians with expired visas. Behavior like congregating around the lavatory, handing off a package to each upon entering, one coming back to seat with blue chemical on hand...upon final descent (w/ seatbelt fastened sign on), several of them going up from coach to first class lavatory.

Looks like she's at a dead end.

October 10, 2004, 07:47 PM

Ask any question! Allexperts.com is the oldest & largest free Q&A service on the Internet
Volunteer GCH Answers

Subject .357 SIG Over Penetration
Question With all the research I have recently completed on the Speer Gold
Dot .357 SIG round, and its reputation for being able to
successfully and continuously penetrate barriers such as
windshields and metal car doors, do you feel this is the most
appropriate and safe ammunition for the US Federal Air
Marshals to be carrying on airplanes?
Answer In my humble opinion, the .357 SIG has very few self-defense or law enforcement applications. The problem with the 9mm's ineffectiveness (depending on ammunition used and whom you speak with)boils down, often, to its overpenetration, this due to relatively small diameter and rapid velocity. To then take a 9mm projectile and drive it faster (as the h.357 SIG does) does not make a lot of sense (at least there should have been a clear question that the development of the round was seeking to answer). A frequent problem with 9mm ammuntion is collateral damage due to overpenetration. The only reason it is not as prevalent with the .357 SIG is that the cartridge is not as common as the 9mm.

Of the .357 SIG ammuntion available, the Speer Gold Dot is among the hotter offerings, thereby increasing the risk of overpenetration and collateral damage should the projectile fail to expand and lodge in fleshy medium.

Asked for my opinion, my recommendation for the USFAM program would be the .40 S&W loaded with either MagSafe or Glaser Safety Slugs.

Stay safe!


"In my humble opinion, the .357 SIG has very few self-defense or law enforcement applications":confused:

October 10, 2004, 08:41 PM
There sure are a lot of "experts" out there. :rolleyes:

October 10, 2004, 09:02 PM
FFDO's do have very restrictive policies. Specially about firearms and ammunition.

I encourage him to re read the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). The FFDO SOP is contained in the Aircraft Operator Standard Security Program (AOSSP) which is the program followed by all domestic aircraft operators within the United States.

The FFDO SOP is identified as Appendix XXIV within the AOSSP.

While I will not post the policy or parts of it here. Your friend should have no problem getting a copy as an FFDO.

The correct answer is FFDO's may not carry (per POLICY) whatever ammo they want. Of course your friend *may* choose to do whatever he pleases. He just needs to know that he is not IAW policies and directives if he carries unauthorized ammunition in his issue (duty) gun


October 10, 2004, 09:41 PM
What 22rimfire said. Trust me.

I'm wondering if you've ever had any LEO come in and ask what ammunition he should carry while on duty. This seems to me to be a question from an amateur or poseur. A FFDO--like every other LEO--knows what he can and cannot run through his duty gun. Carrying an unapproved ammunition brings serious consequences.

October 11, 2004, 01:00 AM
Lets see, a Time magazine writer presented 'facts' that weren't exactly true..

Why would that surprise anyone?


Zone Five
October 11, 2004, 10:04 AM
entropy - your friend was wrongly informed!

...because entropy's friend is obviously not an FFDO.

October 11, 2004, 11:30 AM
Just playing the Devil's Advocate here.

entropy said;
an NWA pilot was in the shop the other day and wanted a recommendation on which ammo to carry in the cockpit.

Perhaps the pilot mentioned was asking for an opinion of the "best" ammo to carry.

It's not as if the Pilot walked in and said, "Hot Dang boys I can now carry me a gun when I'm flyin'. Gimme a box of your best bullets."

As we all should know by now, issued/authorized ammunition may not always be what is best for the sutuation. Especially when the Government is involved in deciding/issueing.

October 11, 2004, 08:05 PM
entropy and ALCON,

I can't believe I took the time to look up the exact place where in the FFDO SOP the issue of ammunition comes up.

The specific place to look is "Part IX (b)" of the SOP. I will not post the verbiage here as that would be against the SOP disclosure protocols.

Also anyone who may believe that FFDO's are LEO's - they are NOT. They do have restrictive policies like LEO's but do not have arrest powers a key (they key element IMHO) element fo being a LEO.


BTW - the part of .357 SIG ammo being 50% faster than "regular" ammo is too funny.

October 13, 2004, 03:49 PM
Well, I wouldn't exactly call him a friend, he is a customer at the gun shop. I was upstairs on some errand, and this guy was asking about ammo for carry as he said he was an NWA pilot. We figured he would know any restrictions. Sorry for any confusion, any thanks for the info, it will come in handy.
To explain the 'upstairs on an errand'; I am a gunsmith, and the shop is in the dungeon, er, basement.;)

April 12, 2005, 10:24 AM
Even a 1ft wide hole in an aircraft won't bring it down. Decompress yes, but that only crashes airplanes in the movies.

As far as a 357sig overpenatrating, it's a matter of bullet construction, just like every other caliber out there.

If you enjoyed reading about "Federal Air Marshall's Ammo Debate" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!