[cuchulainn]

Well, at least the reporter got a comment from a military guy who said it's a pretty implausible scenario.

from the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/politics/31RIFL.html?ex=1044680400&en=692e836db3081715&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Citing Danger to Planes, Group Seeks Ban on a Sniper Rifle

By MATTHEW L. WALD


ASHINGTON, Jan. 30 — A gun-control group has begun a new campaign against large sniper rifles, asserting that the rifles together with armor-piercing ammunition that bursts into flames on impact pose a serious threat to airliners at airports.

The guns, .50-caliber rifles, sell for thousands of dollars and are primarily purchased by military and law enforcement personnel, but hundreds are bought by civilians every year. Some manufacturers' marketing material emphasizes that the rifles can destroy aircraft and armored personnel carriers.

Tom Diaz, a senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, the gun-control group that has long campaigned for bans on the .50-caliber rifles, said: "This is not just a gun control issue. It's a national security issue."

The center produced a 32-page report that it is distributing this week on the potential threat to aircraft of the rifle, which has a range of more than a mile.

The Transportation Security Administration, however, does not see the rifles as a major threat. Robert Johnson, the agency's chief spokesman, said: "We are aware of it. We have considered it as part of a number of potential threats. We just don't feel it is high on the list of potential dangers."

Manufacturers and many gun enthusiasts say the rifles' critics are overzealous gun opponents who falsely raise fears about terrorism.

Ronnie G. Barrett, a manufacturer, said the idea of shooting down a moving plane with the rifle was "big time ridiculous" because a gunman would have to aim above the plane, to take account of gravity's effect on the bullet as it traveled, and then the plane would not be visible in the scope.

Other rifles could also be used against planes on the ground, Mr. Barrett said.

But a report to the Air Force in 1995 by the RAND Corporation identified .50-caliber rifles as a special hazard to "high value" planes at military airfields. Alan J. Vick, one of the two authors of the study, said that the possibility of using .50-caliber rifles against parked aircraft was worrisome.

"These weapons are heavy, and as a sniper weapon, using a bipod, laying down, shooting at some terrestrial target, they can be very accurate," Mr. Vick said. "I can understand why people would be worried about them as a terrorism weapon."

He and other experts, while sometimes skeptical that the gun could be used successfully against a plane in the air, said it could damage and possibly ignite a plane on the ground.

John Plaster, a retired Special Forces officer who has tutored police snipers, pointed out that such rifles were awkward to maneuver, weighing about 35 pounds.

"It's very unrealistic," Mr. Plaster said. "I have never heard of a commercial plane anywhere in the world that was seriously damaged while in flight by a .50-caliber rifle, ever. It's not by any means a choice weapon."

Sales literature from Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, says of one model, "The compressor section of jet engines or the transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it capable of destroying multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area."

A competitor, E.D.M. Arms, advertises on the Web that its Windrunner .50-caliber can be used to "attack various materiel targets such as parked aircraft, radar sites, ammunition, petroleum and various thinned-skinned materiel targets."

Investigators for the General Accounting Office called several arms dealers to inquire about ordering the guns and armor-piercing rounds. According to a transcript of a call to a dealer in Oregon, an agent asked, "If I theoretically wanted to use these rounds to take down an aircraft, say either a helicopter or something like that, I should be able to take a helicopter down, shouldn't I?"

The dealer answered, "Yeah, it'll go through any light stuff like that."

Caliber refers to the diameter of the barrel, and .50 caliber is half an inch. At the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Curt Bartlett, chief of the Firearms Technical Branch, said of the .50 caliber, "anything bigger than that would be getting into the range of cannons."

Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, said he would soon introduce legislation to regulate the weapons. Mr. Waxman said he had observed a demonstration at which marines used the rifles to shoot through a three-and-a-half-inch manhole cover, a 600-pound safe and "everything imaginable."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[gun-fucious]

how much longer will "chicken little" Tom Diaz's credibility hold out?

[Ebbtide]

Well, if a .50 cal is just short of being a cannon, my .45 ACP most be close too. And we all know that we can take out a tank and a japanesse zero with one of those. :rolleyes:

[Fed168]

I figured that Diaz must have run out of things to say. Wasn't this the same line he used last year?
Gotta love a slow news day.

[2dogs]

This is good- an innovative way to obtain security for the American people- let's ban anything and everything that could, maybe, one day possibly be used to cause harm.

I'm all a twitter!:rolleyes:

[4v50 Gary]

Crime free Los Angeles and perhaps even Commie Caliph is moving toward that direction. Buy your 50s while you can.

[2nd Amendment]

Well, we did take out at least one Zero with a .45. I forget who it was but while drifting down in a parchute he shot the pilot as the plane buzzed by. Pure luck I'm sure, but it had to be satisfying. :D

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well as .50 alarmist articles go, this is one of the better balanced ones I've seen so far - they actually asked some people who knew what they were talking about to comment instead of just regurgitating VPCs propaganda and substituting their name in the byline.

[Dan Shapiro]

"Sales literature from Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, says of one model, "The compressor section of jet engines or the transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it capable of destroying multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area."

Some how I bet that this was from military sales documentation
:rolleyes:

[Monte Harrison]

Tom Diaz, a senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center...Anytime I see this in an article, I stop reading it right there.

[gun-fucious]

i am so bad...

[Blackhawk]

Well, if a .50 cal is just short of being a cannon, my .45 ACP most be close too. And we all know that we can take out a tank and a japanesse zero with one of those. The .50 BMG is a whole different critter than a .50 AE, etc. Something like 16,000 FPE in RBCD's load, as I recall.

The one Hanoi Jane was manning, a commie 12.6 mm AA gun, gave us fits in Vietnam because it was automatic. About the only way a .50 BMG would be effective against aircraft is if it's automatic so the target can be hosed with the help of tracers to direct fire.

Waxman is, as usual, grandstanding.... :rolleyes:

[Marko Kloos]

Box cutters have brought down more civilian planes in this country than .50BMG rifles.

Coem to think of it, that would make a nice counter-propaganda poster.

[Drizzt]

Global News Wire
</sec>
PR Newswire (US)


January 31, 2003

LENGTH: 583 words

HEADLINE: 50 CALIBER SNIPER RIFLES THAT CAN DESTROY AIRCRAFT ARE EASIER TO BUY THAN HANDGUNS

BODY:




VPC Releases 'Just Like Bird Hunting' - The Threat to Civil Aviation From 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 /PRNewswire/ -- The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released "Just Like Bird Hunting" -- The Threat to Civil Aviation from 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles, which details the threat of military-bred 50 caliber sniper rifles to aviation and passengers throughout the United States. The 32-page study discusses the range and striking power of the 50 caliber sniper rifle and its ammunition in the context of potential terrorist attacks against civilian airports and aircraft.

"Increasingly popular 50 caliber sniper rifles, available at your local gun shop, are a lethal danger to the safety and security of Americans. We ask this Administration to consider the serious consequences of the 50 caliber sniper rifle in terrorist hands," said Tom Diaz, VPC senior policy analyst and study author. The 50 caliber sniper rifle is capable of firing accurately over thousands of yards and can utilize legally available armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive ammunition. The U.S. Army's manual on urban combat states that 50 caliber sniper rifles are intended for use as anti-materiel weapons, designed to attack bulk fuel tanks and other high-value targets from a distance, using "their ability to shoot through all but the heaviest shielding material." Various models at a wide range of prices are available to civilians from an increasing number of gun manufacturers.

Even the leading manufacturer of these deadly terrorist tools, which are easier to buy than handguns, touts their anti-aircraft capability. In a brochure advertising its Model 82A1 50 caliber sniper rifle, Tennessee-based Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. states, "The cost-effectiveness of the Model 82A1 cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than 10 USD U.S. dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft." In 1999 court testimony, Barrett Manufacturing head Ronnie Barrett testified as to the 50 caliber's ability to destroy aircraft: "If it is coming directly at you, it is almost as easy. Just like bird hunting. But yes, it is more difficult if it is horizontally, or moving from left to right, yes."

The VPC has warned President Bush, Secretary of the Office Of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and countless other state and federal officials charged with keeping Americans safe from terrorist activities of the dangers posed by 50 caliber sniper rifles.

Three years ago in its report, One Shot, One Kill, the Violence Policy Center warned for the first time that the unfettered sale to civilians of military sniper rifles presented a "serious threat to American national security." That report focused particularly on the dangers presented by the 50 caliber heavy sniper rifles, noting that these powerful weapons of war present a "whole new order of threat" by their ability to "knock down aircraft, including helicopters, and punch through concrete block, armored vehicles, and other materials that may be relied upon for executive protection." These devastating features are exactly why Barrett 50 caliber heavy sniper rifles, for example, are in the armories of U.S. Marine Corps snipers and at least 17 other armies around the world. Violence Policy Center

CONTACT: Naomi Seligman of Violence Policy Center, +1-202-822-8200, ext. 105

Web site: http:/ /www.vpc.org/

[gun-fucious]

They say daVinci worked on painting Mona Lisa's lips for 10 years
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=87755

[Standing Wolf]

"This is not just a gun control issue. It's a national security issue."

Goebbels would be proud.

[Travis McGee]

IMO 50 calibers or even 30 calibers could present a serious danger to jet liners in this situation:

A sniper lies in the weeds or is hidden in a van on the takeoff end of the runway, his like of sight is right up the runway.

He picks a large twin engine as his target, say a 757. As the plane approaches takeoff speed he fires directly into the engine, causing the turbine blades to shatter and the engine to explode (not every time, but often.)

The big fully loaded plane taking off when one engine disintigrates. Big big problem for the pilot.

Or worse, put two snipers in the weeds or in the van, one for each engine. Very high likelihood of causing a crash. Very low cost. <P>Very easy 12 foot diameter target, that just gets bigger as it comes straight at the sniper.

[Marko Kloos]

There are many things that could pose an equally serious danger to airliners. The list includes .50BMG rifles, box cutters, tanker trucks filled with propane, and other items equally easy to obtain.

That doesn't make it moral or constitutional to restrict law-abiding citizens from obtaining these items. If someone wants to bring down a jetliner with any of these tools, they're not going to give a rat's behind about the legality of obtaining those items. We can't keep drugs out of prison despite the most draconian drug laws; what makes these people think we can keep guns or propane trucks out of the hands of terrorists by passing yet another ban?

[Airwolf]

This is from an email that a fellow pilot passed along to me. Of course they weren’t trying to run this engine, but as it’s pointed out the aircraft did fine on the remaining 3.


Subject: "Chinese Airlines...What A Story!"

Gee; I wonder why they didn't just complete the planned flight schedule with the good engine. (;-))))))))))))))))))

Chinese Airlines. You will not believe the following story and photos but it actually happened.

It appears the only reason we really need to worry about the Chinese is because there are just so damn many of them. You might want to think twice the next time you fly on a Chinese Airline.

A pilot for a Chinese carrier requested permission and landed at FRA (Frankfurt, Germany) for an unscheduled refueling stop. The reason became soon apparent to the ground crew: The Number 3 engine had been shutdown previouoly because of excessive vibration, and because it didn't look too good.

The photos show the condition of the #3 engine when the Airliner arrived in Frankfurt with a load of Passengers. The engine had sometime previously encountered something hard, like rocks and instead of changing the engine the China Airlines decided to inmobilize the engine with lapbelts and send it off with three engines. Hey, superhuman pilots can do such things and if the pilots had refused they would probably wind up in a salt mine somewhere.

It had apparently been no problem for the tough guys back in China as they took some sturdy straps and wrapped them around two of the fan blades and the stationary stator blades behind, thus stopping any unwanted windmilling (engine spinning by itself due to airflow passing thru the blades during flight) and associated uncomfortable vibration caused by the severely out of balance fan blades. Note that the straps are seatbelts....how resourceful!

After making the "repairs", off they were sent into the wild blue yonder with another revenue-making flight on only three engines! Paris was the destination. With the increased fuel consumption, they got a bit low on fuel, and just set it down a few hundred miles from their destination for a quick refill.

That's when the problems started:

The Germans, who are kind of picky about this stuff, they inspected the malfunctioning engine and immediately grounded the aircraft. (Besides the seatbelts, notice the appalling condition of the fan blades.) The airline operator had to send a chunk of money to get the first engine replaced (took about 10 days). The repair contractor decided to do some impromptu inspection work on the other engines, none of which looked all that great either.

The result: a total of 3 engines were eventually changed on this plane before it was permitted to fly again.

Yikes!!

http://flymeaway.net/images/engine1.jpg


http://flymeaway.net/images/engine2.jpg


http://flymeaway.net/images/engine3.jpg

[gun-fucious]

or the two guys in the weeds could have a small catapult and hurl canadian geese into the engine

[Apple a Day]

I was about to say: you'd have better luck standing at the end of the runway with two of your buddies, a surgical tubing slingshot, and a couple of frozen chickens. Bird strikes have killed more pilots and brought down more aircraft than any caliber gun.
You'd have to be incredibly lucky to shoot down an airplane with one shot (the "golden BB" for all you zoomies). People watch too many movies!:banghead:

[Lord Grey Boots]

I'd suggest that in recent times, commercial aircraft have had more problems with bird strikes than .50 rifle fire.


Ban birds?

[ReadyontheRight]

...said it could damage and possibly ignite a plane on the ground.

So could a Volvo.

[Airwolf]

One of the tests on the Triple 7's engines was a bird ingestion test. The high-speed film of the test was a trip to watch.

The bird was sliced into neat little patties not more than a few centimeters thick from beak to tail by the titanium fan blades.

As a pilot I'd worry a hell of lot more about sucking Jonathan Livingston and a few of his friends through at the same time than a couple of rounds of .50BMG.

Every commercial airliner has to be able to be able to abort on the available runway before reaching V1. If the failure occurs after V1 you have to be able to continue the takeoff in the remaining runway and climb out. These calculations are made before you leave the gate. If you can't make the limits, you don't go. Period.

Losing 2 engines? Luck and skill just took front and center in determining the outcome of the flight.

Also, engines are designed to contain all the pieces and prevent them from exiting the nacelle from the sides. Uncontained engine failures are very rare. Even seizures are accounted for by designing the nacelle attachments to shear before transmitting failure loads to the rest of the airframe.

Sorry, but this BS is just more in the relentless march of the VPC et al. to ban all guns. It has nothing to do with terrorists or safety, just freedom.

[Travis McGee]

Airwolf:
Can a 757 size aircraft take a .50 caliber through the turbines and keep putting out power, not disintigrate? I don't know the answer. Are engines given static tests with bullets etc, along with birds?

[Airwolf]

I'm a General Aviation pilot so I'm not sure about all the tests that are conducted for engine certification. I *do* know they test for bird and water ingestion as well as containment (they rig a blade to shatter with an explosive charge and then detonate while the engine is at speed).

I would doubt they test specifically for responses to bullet entry (unless they use a projectile to substitute for gravel or rock ingestion).

Again, a commercial airliner must be able to lose an engine and either have enough runway to stop or enough runway and performance to continue the takeoff otherwise they cannot go.

[geekWithA.45]

Engine Damage:

Before he retired, my dad was a metallurgical QC guy for Pratt & Whitney. According to him, when I asked many years ago, freakazoid shots aside, jets will simply eat and spit out anthing bullet sized, and are known for taking a surprising amount of damage before needing to be taken offline.

Hidden Agenda:

Buried in the HCI materials on .50 cal (heavy) sniper rifles is a call for bans on heavy and medium sniping rifles.

Now, (scratching head) just WHAT is a medium sniping gun? They don't say, but my guess is that it's anything larger than .22.

[Travis McGee]

Airwolf and Geek:
Thanks for the info! I hope that this is able to counter all of the various .50 caliber shoot-down scenarios the antis are trying to gin up to ban various weapons.

[trapshooter]

The tactic of nitwits like Diaz is to get someone to admit that something is possible, then immediately start talking about the consequences of the event, totally disregarding probability.

IOW, if it is possible to do, then "we have to stop it", blah,blah.

Disregarding that the possibility has a probability of occurence lower than winning the lottery, or having your living room be selected as the site for the Second Coming of Christ.

Once you engage them on thier terms, you lose the battle of perception, where the true level of risk is ignored, and everything discussed is the worst-case.

In the case of Diaz and his cohorts, everything revolves around engaging in 'debates' involving worst-case scenarios involving firearms, in order to scare the maximum number of people to the maximum degree possible, to achieve the results they want. Fear is a big motivator, particularly among the 'soccer-mom', 'bliss-ninny' target audience of gun control/banning proponents.

You cannot say, for instance, "When has X ever happened?", because that is a weak response that admits the possibility, however slight.

What is the best way to steer the argument in a winning direction, from our perspective? Diaz and his ilk love for us to start quoting the Second Amendment, and the tyrannical government stuff. Then they can paint us as a bunch of nutbags bunkered up somewhere in Montana or Idaho waiting for the revolution.

We have to steer things to a level that maximizes our advantages.

I have something I have to do that can't be avoided, but let's talk about this, maybe in another thread.

[trapshooter]

To continue:

The war of words with the 'control/ban' types is not about truth. It is about the perception of truth. Two vastly different concepts. For them to "win" any confrontation, what is true does not matter. It's what people think is true that matters. Thus, they can make any outrageous statement (23 kids/day, assault rifle, sniper rifle, etc.), and as soon as we concede any fragment of that statement (it's only 6 kids, or 2, or 1), it will be turned into "SEE! They admit it!". In fact, the concession doesn't even have to be made by 'us', or anyone on 'our' side. It just has to be made by someone people believe, or want to believe. Like an elected official.

Any debate team members, here? (I wasn't). There has to be a way to steer this type of argument back to reality, or at least to a level more advantageous to us. Facts alone will not suffice, as the average person is not a debate judge, with a scorecard handy. Besides, for every number we have, they'll make two up, if they have to. After all, these people think it's ok to rewrite the Constitution, history, the news, or whatever, for a 'good' cause. Again, we're dealing solely in perception. But what is sauce for the goose...

This is (high duh factor, I know) an uphill struggle. Most major

and minor media outlets are on the wrong side of this issue. They will, for the most part, gleefully participate in scaring the bejesus out of the general public at every opportunity. For every one person espousing points we would agree with that gets air time, they will get 2, or 4, or ten.

I hesitate to suggest it, but if they can play on emotions, maybe we should, too. It is a strategy that should be exploited more. If Wayne LaPierre is going on a major 'news' program, he should take some poor victim, preferably female, on the show and play up the 'if only I could defend myself' angle, with lots of tears, etc. Yeah, it's cynical and exploitative. But that is exactly the kind of stuff that is killing us, no pun intended.

[jimpeel]

IMO Seagulls or even Sandpipers could present a serious danger to jet liners in this situation:

A Seagull lies in the weeds or is hidden in a dump on the takeoff end of the runway, his line of sight is right up the runway.

He picks a large twin engine as his target, say a 757. As the plane approaches takeoff speed he flies directly into the engine, causing the turbine blades to shatter and the engine to explode (not every time, but often.)

The big fully loaded plane taking off when one engine disintigrates. Big big problem for the pilot.

Or worse, put two Seagulls in the weeds or in the dump, one for each engine. Very high likelihood of causing a crash. Very low cost. <P>Very easy 12 foot diameter target, that just gets bigger as it comes straight at the Seagull.

[Carlos Cabeza]

I am totally sick of hearing the word "terrorist" !!!
I can't even stand to watch the news anymore..........because all that is ever discussed seems to be the worst possible scenario or the horrible things that "could" happen. I hope that most people are not as stupid as the VPC's and the HCI's think we are. The news is so biased anymore you have to be a hamster to fall for that crap. I have been curious about the big fifties but never sought to purchase one because I really don't have any use for it, BUT If .50's become a target for the 9V$$!3$ that use fear to breed insecurity, I will DEFINITELY buy one and see to it that at least four of my closest shooting buddies all buy one..........................as an INVESTMENT IN FREEDOM !!!!!!!

BRING ON THE PLATINUM VISA CARD !

[50 Shooter]

Here's my favorite picture of Diaz.

I guess my pic is to big.

[jimpeel]

The news is so biased anymore you have to be a hamster to fall for that crap.

http://www.hampsterdance.com/hampsterdanceredux.html

[OF]

How the HELL do these idiots keep getting the press coverage they do???

It boggles the mind.

- Gabe

[Carlos Cabeza]

Jim, That's funny !!

I HAVE SEEN THE MASSES, AND IT DOESN"T LOOK GOOD..............

[cuchulainn]

The Million Hampster March!

[alan]

I suspect that one could "take out" an airliner or helicopter with a 30-06 too, and most rifles firing the 30-06 are a whole lot easier to handle than 50's are.