Dan from MI
Member
Sheep is right......
BTW - They are from Sickago, I mean Chicago? I bet the Joyce Foundation is behind this then.
.50 Caliber Terror News
- Thread starter jdberger
- Start date
- Status
Sheep is right......
BTW - They are from Sickago, I mean Chicago? I bet the Joyce Foundation is behind this then.
Call call call call
email email email email
Time's awasting.
Look, campaigns that I've worked on all say that for every phone call, email or letter that they get, 100 people agree. Of those 100, 40% vote. That is quite a bloc and elections are coming up.....1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election.
Call call call call
email email email email
Contact info is Here:
Information About Contacting Your Senator
email email email email
Time's awasting.
Look, campaigns that I've worked on all say that for every phone call, email or letter that they get, 100 people agree. Of those 100, 40% vote. That is quite a bloc and elections are coming up.....1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election.
Call call call call
email email email email
Contact info is Here:
Information About Contacting Your Senator
DeseoUnTaco
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
- Messages
- 290
The brochures that are advertising these rifles talk about using them to "destroy" airplanes and other materiel. They mean "destroy" in the sense of "render unfit for flight" or "render inoperable". They are capable of doing that. One shot from a 50 cal at a plane during take-off or landing could definitely cause some very expensive damage to it, and would render it unfit for flight for a long time, but (from the basis of what I know as a non-expert) it would not cause that plane to crash and burn.
Hitting the plane while at altitude: Impossible. Out of range. The plane could only be hit just after take-off or just before landing.
Hitting the body of the plane (during take-off or landing): it could zip all the way through, causing damage the plane, the luggage, and perhaps passengers. The plane would continue whatever it's doing.
Hitting the wing (fuel tanks): Fuel would start leaking and the plane would need to get back on the ground ASAP, but there would be no explosion.
Hitting an engine (hard to do!): Might be able to cause an engine fire which could be dangerous, but the pilot would probably be able to shut off fuel to that engine and get it on the ground. Pilots are trained for dealing with engine fires and flying with one engine out.
Hitting a hydraulic line (lucky shot): I assume it would still be possible to get the plane on the ground because I assume that critical hydraulic systems are redundant.
Hitting the cockpit and shattering a window (lucky shot): I'm not sure what would happen to cockpit glass if it got hit by a 50 BMG. If it shattered and the plane is moving and 500mph, I would assume that pilots would lose control and be in trouble. I assume this is some very tough laminated glass which would not shatter, in which case the pilots would be able to get the plane back onto the ground.
Has anyone who is a real expert in aviation safety gone through and done an analysis of what are the danger scenarios for a 50 cal bullet vs. a jetliner? I'm not an expert but my analysis above is that... not much would happen to it. It seems like there is a lot of hand-wringing about them these days but the people with the doom-and-gloom are hysterical and uninformed about guns so I don't believe them.
If someone could get a mount with a cluster of 50 cal machineguns and really hammer the plane right after take-off, that might put it at risk, but these "sniper" type rifles would be lucky to make one or two hits, and it doesn't seem like they would do anything.
I think I'm going to write an email to Salon's "Ask the Pilot" column about this. He's a smart guy and he seems to like answering questions like this.
Deseo,
A well thrown rock can take down an airplane. That is not the point.
The point is that the prohibition is incremental. First .50s, then .30 rifles with scopes, autoloading shotguns, autoloading handguns, knives, pointy sticks, etc...
Explain to the senators in no uncertain terms that you won't stand for it.
A well thrown rock can take down an airplane. That is not the point.
The point is that the prohibition is incremental. First .50s, then .30 rifles with scopes, autoloading shotguns, autoloading handguns, knives, pointy sticks, etc...
Explain to the senators in no uncertain terms that you won't stand for it.
DeseoUnTaco
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
- Messages
- 290
Would it? I just sent an email to Salon's Ask the Pilot column. With some luck we'll get an authoritative answer to what a 50 cal could really do to a jetliner. I'm pretty the answer is "not very much" but we'll find out.
Yes I agree. I honestly don't feel like terrorism is a risk in my life. I'm much more likely to be endangered by my own government than I am to be harmed by a terrorist.
Right, they know they can't just ban everything so they are going to chisel away. 50 cals are already illegal in my state, even though there has never been a report of criminal misuse of a 50 cal.
Alas, it's hardly worth writing to my senators over this. They are the worst two senators in Senate. It would require a brain transplant to get them to vote differently.
Nonetheless, I do write to them on big issues. I write to them saying, "vote no on the AWB", etc, just so I can say to myself, "I did something about this, rather than passively accepting it." But on smaller things like a bill to ban export of 50 cals... I know that my senators will just throw it in the trash even if they got a million letters.
SMMAssociates
Member
DeseoUnTaco:
I'm not an expert, but the explosive decompression you're alluding to just doesn't happen.
Some years back a good portion of the top of an airliner on the way to Hawaii blew off - fatigue, who knows. One flight attendant apparently was sucked out of the aircraft. Everybody else made it home, largely undamaged.
A smaller hole - a window, for example - isn't going to do that at all. The aircraft already leaks at least that much air. It's "made up" by compressors that maintain pressurization at altitude.
(The reason for the drop-down Oxygen masks is to provide breathable Oxygen should the compressors fail. I suppose they'd drop if a window popped, but that may not be necessary.
I'm not an expert at this by any means, but I did drive by a Holiday Inn Express the other night. And ask a few people.
Most of the "bring down an airplane" stuff is anti hype.
I'm not an expert, but the explosive decompression you're alluding to just doesn't happen.
Some years back a good portion of the top of an airliner on the way to Hawaii blew off - fatigue, who knows. One flight attendant apparently was sucked out of the aircraft. Everybody else made it home, largely undamaged.
A smaller hole - a window, for example - isn't going to do that at all. The aircraft already leaks at least that much air. It's "made up" by compressors that maintain pressurization at altitude.
(The reason for the drop-down Oxygen masks is to provide breathable Oxygen should the compressors fail. I suppose they'd drop if a window popped, but that may not be necessary.
I'm not an expert at this by any means, but I did drive by a Holiday Inn Express the other night. And ask a few people.
Most of the "bring down an airplane" stuff is anti hype.
Dan from MI
Member
I'll call my sinators, but then again I have Stabmenow and Carl Lenin 
http://www.keithabutler.com - KEITH BUTLER FOR SENATE!!!!!
http://www.keithabutler.com - KEITH BUTLER FOR SENATE!!!!!
DeseoUnTaco
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
- Messages
- 290
Oh yeah, I know that "explosive decompression" is a myth, especially so at ground level (take off and landing). You can shoot holes in the body of a plane, knock out the passenger windows, whatever, nothing much will happen. The pilots will want to land the plane ASAP but there won't be a catastrophy.
I was refering to shattering the cockpit front window specifically. Of all the places on a plane that could bring a plane down, that seems like the only one. If the front cockpit window were completely shattered, and the plane is moving at 500mph or so, it seems like there would probably be enough wind in the cockpit that the pilots would be unable to control the plane. Think about it: you couldn't really control your arms or body in a 500mph wind, much less fly a plane.
Would a 50 cal bullet shatter these windows (the front cockpit window), or merely poke a (not so dangerous) hole? I'm guessing it would just poke a hole, because these are heavy laminated glass that's specifically designed to not shatter.
But I'll say it again: explosive decompression is a myth, it's "safe" to shoot holes in the body of an airplane, it's "safe" to shoot out cabin windows. The Israelis have done research on what happens when you shoot guns in airplanes and have found that nothing happens, even at cruising altitude. Obviously, there wouldn't be an air marshall program in the US, or an armed pilots program, if bullets were a threat to the body of the plane.
SMMAssociates
Member
DeseoUnTaco:
Oops - misinterpreted a bit....
Good point.
Off the top of my head, it would just poke a hole, if that. Aircraft windows have to stand a certain amount of trauma - hail, rocks, etc. Military aircraft are supposed to take a few hits and keep on ticking, and that would include the windshields and such. I'm sure a heavy jet would be the same.
(I think that some general aviation - "private" - aircraft can opt for less damage-resistant windows. If it wasn't for Flight Simulator I wouldn't know what I was talking about at all, though.)
Harking back to WWII newsreels, the bombers and fighters were all coming back with holes in them, including the windows. It may be more important to mount the glass (or plexiglass) so it can't come out regardless of the damage.
If you look inside the cockpit canopies of some modern jets, you'll see zig-zag patterns that look to be metal. I think that'd a shaped charge designed to remove some of the canopy when the ejection seat is fired. Somebody here know? (You can't just open the canopy at 500+ mph - nothing would be reliable. You've got to pop the whole thing clear or punch a hole in it. I vote for the latter on a price/complexity basis.)
There probably is a danger of punching a long hole through a bunch of people, but that's going to take some luck, good or bad.
BTW, there may be some real concern against using one of these against a missile in it's boost phase, or maybe just on the pad. IMHO, you don't need a .50BMG unless you're trying for a real long shot, and that may not even work, depending on how many shots you could get off.
The Challenger failure, just to talk about one that everybody knows about, depended on the hole in the gasket being more or less exactly where it could do some damage. I'm not sure what would have happened had the "flame" been pointing elsewhere, but that one had to burn a hole in the main tank and then ignite whatever leaked out. I forget what the shuttles are fueled with, but the flame may have had to burn through just the right part of the tank....
Solid fuel rockets (very common) are practically indestructable, btw, unless the concussion effect of a bullet would ignite the fuel. I don't know.... (It'd be cool enough, I think, that leftover heat wouldn't be an issue. Dunno about tracers, though.)
All we really have, I think, is anti hype designed to demonize and incrementally ban one gun so they can go on to the next one. Meantime, they will try to write the law so that, for example, any gun that's accurate at more that 300 yards is considered a sniper rifle to be banned. (I think this is already percolating.) They want to ban certain guns because they're not accurate enough, and others because they're too accurate....
Unfortunately, we're largely preaching to the choir here, too. Those who wish to enslave us aren't going to change their agendas, and those who support them don't seem to get it.
Oops - misinterpreted a bit....
Good point.
Off the top of my head, it would just poke a hole, if that. Aircraft windows have to stand a certain amount of trauma - hail, rocks, etc. Military aircraft are supposed to take a few hits and keep on ticking, and that would include the windshields and such. I'm sure a heavy jet would be the same.
(I think that some general aviation - "private" - aircraft can opt for less damage-resistant windows. If it wasn't for Flight Simulator I wouldn't know what I was talking about at all, though.)
Harking back to WWII newsreels, the bombers and fighters were all coming back with holes in them, including the windows. It may be more important to mount the glass (or plexiglass) so it can't come out regardless of the damage.
If you look inside the cockpit canopies of some modern jets, you'll see zig-zag patterns that look to be metal. I think that'd a shaped charge designed to remove some of the canopy when the ejection seat is fired. Somebody here know? (You can't just open the canopy at 500+ mph - nothing would be reliable. You've got to pop the whole thing clear or punch a hole in it. I vote for the latter on a price/complexity basis.)
There probably is a danger of punching a long hole through a bunch of people, but that's going to take some luck, good or bad.
BTW, there may be some real concern against using one of these against a missile in it's boost phase, or maybe just on the pad. IMHO, you don't need a .50BMG unless you're trying for a real long shot, and that may not even work, depending on how many shots you could get off.
The Challenger failure, just to talk about one that everybody knows about, depended on the hole in the gasket being more or less exactly where it could do some damage. I'm not sure what would have happened had the "flame" been pointing elsewhere, but that one had to burn a hole in the main tank and then ignite whatever leaked out. I forget what the shuttles are fueled with, but the flame may have had to burn through just the right part of the tank....
Solid fuel rockets (very common) are practically indestructable, btw, unless the concussion effect of a bullet would ignite the fuel. I don't know.... (It'd be cool enough, I think, that leftover heat wouldn't be an issue. Dunno about tracers, though.)
All we really have, I think, is anti hype designed to demonize and incrementally ban one gun so they can go on to the next one. Meantime, they will try to write the law so that, for example, any gun that's accurate at more that 300 yards is considered a sniper rifle to be banned. (I think this is already percolating.) They want to ban certain guns because they're not accurate enough, and others because they're too accurate....
Unfortunately, we're largely preaching to the choir here, too. Those who wish to enslave us aren't going to change their agendas, and those who support them don't seem to get it.
DeseoUnTaco
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
- Messages
- 290
That sounds right to me. I'm sure cockpit "glass" is heavy stuff and might even deflect a 50 cal bullet, especially if the velocity is not perfectly orthogonal.
And I can't think of any other single object on the plane that could cause it to fall out of the air if struck by a 50 cal bullet.
In all the anti hysteria, I have yet to see any evidence presented that this gun is a real threat to air safety.
The other thing they bring up is using this gun for assassination. Yes, it seems like that is a more realistic threat because clearly, these guns are long-range, accurate, and will fly through regular body armor (which some politicians probably wear). The hysteria is more about air travel, though, because it has more immediacy to "Joe Citizen". Also on the assassination issue, maybe our leaders should ask themselves why they are so hated that they worry so much about that.
I found this diagram: http://www.ppg.com/gls_ppgglass/aircraft/b747win.htm
It seems like shooting a window would destroy it rather than poking a hole, since tempered glass is under stress and explodes when it is cracked. It would basically be like a car windshield breaking, but the wind would push out the glass fragments. The bullet would probably be deflected though.
It seems like shooting a window would destroy it rather than poking a hole, since tempered glass is under stress and explodes when it is cracked. It would basically be like a car windshield breaking, but the wind would push out the glass fragments. The bullet would probably be deflected though.
SMMAssociates
Member
DeseoUnTaco:
I can think of a few politidiots I'd like to test that on, but they really should ask themselves why . The average person does relate more positively to the airline issue, though. Another "for the children" thing.
Kurush:
Somehow I think that'd be bad for business.... (Destroying the window, that is.) It's a laminated structure, like an auto windshield, which should result in a vinyl-backed sheet of glass fragments, still in place. However, whether the whole thing would powder, like a car windshield is supposed to (actually, not powder, but become safe to poke your head through), or try to limit the cracking, I don't know. The latter might be better - it's going to be fatally hard to see through one of those powdered windows. You can ignore cracks....
(Good catch, though.)
At any reasonable distance it could deflect the bullet unless hit square on. Again, it's going to be very hard to get that hit.
Can't think where (or when, with who, etc.), but thinking about the laser pointer issue a while back, the same sort of thing applies. "Yeah, you could do some damage, but it'd be nearly magic." A laser could light up the interior of an aircraft cockpit, but think about how the light beam would get there.
Regards,
I can think of a few politidiots I'd like to test that on, but they really should ask themselves why
. The average person does relate more positively to the airline issue, though. Another "for the children" thing.Kurush:
Somehow I think that'd be bad for business.... (Destroying the window, that is.) It's a laminated structure, like an auto windshield, which should result in a vinyl-backed sheet of glass fragments, still in place. However, whether the whole thing would powder, like a car windshield is supposed to (actually, not powder, but become safe to poke your head through), or try to limit the cracking, I don't know. The latter might be better - it's going to be fatally hard to see through one of those powdered windows. You can ignore cracks....
(Good catch, though.)
At any reasonable distance it could deflect the bullet unless hit square on. Again, it's going to be very hard to get that hit.
Can't think where (or when, with who, etc.), but thinking about the laser pointer issue a while back, the same sort of thing applies. "Yeah, you could do some damage, but it'd be nearly magic." A laser could light up the interior of an aircraft cockpit, but think about how the light beam would get there.
Regards,
Maybe. I can tell you from personal experience that a BB gun will destroy auto glass. It would be interesting to see someone like Mythbusters test this. In any case it hardly matters, it would take at least 2 seconds for a bullet to travel a mile and hit an airplane, the airplane is going at least 180 mph (that's the takeoff speed of a 747) so the plane will be at least 500 feet from where it was when you pulled the trigger.
SMMAssociates
Member
Kurush:
(Mythbusters is where I found out about differing types of windshield for small aircraft. Those guys are nuts, but in a fun kind of way.)
Getting the right "lead" to hit a moving aircraft ought to be extremely difficult from the ground (and not easy in the air), but aircraft MG's and cannons, as well as anti-aircraft guns, have been doing it for years. A single-shot (even in the form of a semi-auto, 'cause you won't have time for more than one or two shots) has to be a LOT harder. I'm sure it could be learned, but where do you go to practice?
I still contend that the shooter would only be able to pull something off when the aircraft is coming at him, or going away from him, and would probably have to be inside the fence line to do it, too.
As to the BB's - yup.... It's common to carry (EMS, or just in your own glove box for last-resort emergencies) some variant of the machinst's "automatic" center punch to powder a window. No doubt a BB would work as well if the hit is "right". However, you don't want to fly through a hailstorm and trash your windshield either. I'm guessing there are standards, and the glass is nominally "bullet resistant" to start with.
(Mythbusters is where I found out about differing types of windshield for small aircraft. Those guys are nuts, but in a fun kind of way.)
Getting the right "lead" to hit a moving aircraft ought to be extremely difficult from the ground (and not easy in the air), but aircraft MG's and cannons, as well as anti-aircraft guns, have been doing it for years. A single-shot (even in the form of a semi-auto, 'cause you won't have time for more than one or two shots) has to be a LOT harder. I'm sure it could be learned, but where do you go to practice?
I still contend that the shooter would only be able to pull something off when the aircraft is coming at him, or going away from him, and would probably have to be inside the fence line to do it, too.
As to the BB's - yup.... It's common to carry (EMS, or just in your own glove box for last-resort emergencies) some variant of the machinst's "automatic" center punch to powder a window. No doubt a BB would work as well if the hit is "right". However, you don't want to fly through a hailstorm and trash your windshield either. I'm guessing there are standards, and the glass is nominally "bullet resistant" to start with.
meathammer
Member
Watched the vids on their website.
.50 caliber rifle=Boogieman 2005
Hey legislators, want to fight potential terror? Work on SECURING OUR BORDERS!
"Freedom States Alliance" I really wish they had a contact email address.
Thanks for the links jdberger. Even though my head hurts now.
--meathammer
.50 caliber rifle=Boogieman 2005
Hey legislators, want to fight potential terror? Work on SECURING OUR BORDERS!
"Freedom States Alliance"
I really wish they had a contact email address.Thanks for the links jdberger. Even though my head hurts now.
--meathammer
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Here's the lunacy of the entire anti-.50 cal argument:
Since there is no real "tragedy" to point to, they have to resort to the threat of "the possibility of a tragedy." You could use this argument to make anything illegal. Sex, for example, could lead to the possible tragedy of the conception of a monster like Adolf Hitler and should therefore be banned in California. Education could lead to the possible tragedy of a person learning to engineer a hydrogen-powered car, which could then be used to kill a poor bunny rabbit crossing the road, so education should be outlawed in California.
It's not these examples that are patently ridiculous; it's the argument that anything should be banned because it could lead to a possible tragedy. These people need to be stopped for their own good.
Since there is no real "tragedy" to point to, they have to resort to the threat of "the possibility of a tragedy." You could use this argument to make anything illegal. Sex, for example, could lead to the possible tragedy of the conception of a monster like Adolf Hitler and should therefore be banned in California. Education could lead to the possible tragedy of a person learning to engineer a hydrogen-powered car, which could then be used to kill a poor bunny rabbit crossing the road, so education should be outlawed in California.
It's not these examples that are patently ridiculous; it's the argument that anything should be banned because it could lead to a possible tragedy. These people need to be stopped for their own good.
- Status