Jimbo1
Member
Stand-off Munitions Disruptor (SMUD). Now thats funny, I don't care who ya are.
Air Force to go to .357?
- Thread starter mickmten
- Start date
- Status
SMUD
Yeah, I noticed that -- guess there's always someone who wants to mark their own territory and come up with their own name. An M-14 is really a "SMUD"... wonder what an M-1 would become.
A couple of years ago, this very same publication listed all the weapons in the Air Force and there wasn't this variety. Someone got the idea that maybe some of the older stuff is a lot better than what we're using now. Who knows -- maybe they're reading our comments, too?
Yeah, I noticed that -- guess there's always someone who wants to mark their own territory and come up with their own name. An M-14 is really a "SMUD"... wonder what an M-1 would become.
A couple of years ago, this very same publication listed all the weapons in the Air Force and there wasn't this variety. Someone got the idea that maybe some of the older stuff is a lot better than what we're using now. Who knows -- maybe they're reading our comments, too?
DMK
Member
Actually, a 357Mag revolver makes a lot of sense when you consider the gun's mission.
As a sidearm for aircrews, the gun will get loaded daily, carried in a holster for long hours, then unloaded and put up. It will hardly ever get cleaned or lubricated. Once in a while someone will get shot down and their primary mission will be to avoid contact, lay low and wait for extraction. If someone does find them, they want something that will stop someone RFN.
Low maintenance, no magazine springs to worry about, easy to shoot, easy to load, no safeties to disengage or cocking the slide required to bring into action.
The Airforce, Army and Navy had the right idea for years with .38 revolvers, they should have just chambered them in a more powerful caliber. On the other hand, since they are limited to FMJ, I'd probably prefer a revolver chambered in a big bore like .44 special or 45ACP.
I propose a 3"-4" 6 shot stainless K-frame with a beadblasted matte finish. A 7 shot N frame would be better, but might be too heavy and bulky for the cramped confines of a military aircraft. Tritium sights would be a big plus since night missions are highly likely, plus a downed aircrew would hide in daylight and only move at night.
Issue the guns with a tanker type shoulder holster, a couple speed loaders on pouches and maybe a spare box of 20 rounds in a sealed rubberized battle pack thing.
As a sidearm for aircrews, the gun will get loaded daily, carried in a holster for long hours, then unloaded and put up. It will hardly ever get cleaned or lubricated. Once in a while someone will get shot down and their primary mission will be to avoid contact, lay low and wait for extraction. If someone does find them, they want something that will stop someone RFN.
Low maintenance, no magazine springs to worry about, easy to shoot, easy to load, no safeties to disengage or cocking the slide required to bring into action.
The Airforce, Army and Navy had the right idea for years with .38 revolvers, they should have just chambered them in a more powerful caliber. On the other hand, since they are limited to FMJ, I'd probably prefer a revolver chambered in a big bore like .44 special or 45ACP.
I propose a 3"-4" 6 shot stainless K-frame with a beadblasted matte finish. A 7 shot N frame would be better, but might be too heavy and bulky for the cramped confines of a military aircraft. Tritium sights would be a big plus since night missions are highly likely, plus a downed aircrew would hide in daylight and only move at night.
Issue the guns with a tanker type shoulder holster, a couple speed loaders on pouches and maybe a spare box of 20 rounds in a sealed rubberized battle pack thing.
DMK
Member
Perhaps off topic, but I have a case of NATO .38Special in battlepacks that I picked up a few years ago. It's pretty darned hot. It feels like +P to me. I used it as practice ammo in my 642 and it's not much easier to shoot than my Speer +P carry ammo.
The strange thing is, it's softpoint. Was softpoint allowed as a defensive round in combat? Perhaps a loophole in the hague convention? If they made this stuff in .357 it would definitely do the job.
9mm enough?
You would think they usually test everything to death before they make a decision on replacing calibers. Reminds me of the time I hit a deer with a large 4-wheel drive with a winch. I was driving very slow on the outskirts of a small village, some jerk is feeding deer along major highway, buck and 2 does come down a hill and I nailed the buck, hit with winch, ended up under vehicle squeeling. I back off, someone calls county police, deer heads for front yard of church. Cop comes, deer lying down wounded, very much alive yet. He (the cop) pulls out his sidearm, 9mm auto, and from about 2 feet proceeds to fire at head of deer, bullets bouncing off into ground. I suggested putting one in his ear, and move fast. He did both, with deer kicking like a chicken with a head off, but dead very quick. I asked him what he thought about that pistol defending his life, he just looked at me but never answered. Now, I am just relating what I saw, and no, I don"t want to be shot in the head with a 9mm just to prove it can be done, I have no knowledge of the type of bullets he used, which can be very important. I carry magnums in the north woods, though.
You would think they usually test everything to death before they make a decision on replacing calibers. Reminds me of the time I hit a deer with a large 4-wheel drive with a winch. I was driving very slow on the outskirts of a small village, some jerk is feeding deer along major highway, buck and 2 does come down a hill and I nailed the buck, hit with winch, ended up under vehicle squeeling. I back off, someone calls county police, deer heads for front yard of church. Cop comes, deer lying down wounded, very much alive yet. He (the cop) pulls out his sidearm, 9mm auto, and from about 2 feet proceeds to fire at head of deer, bullets bouncing off into ground. I suggested putting one in his ear, and move fast. He did both, with deer kicking like a chicken with a head off, but dead very quick. I asked him what he thought about that pistol defending his life, he just looked at me but never answered. Now, I am just relating what I saw, and no, I don"t want to be shot in the head with a 9mm just to prove it can be done, I have no knowledge of the type of bullets he used, which can be very important. I carry magnums in the north woods, though.
gwalchmai
Member
Sorry, jim, I'm unclear. Did the cop miss the deer until he put one in its ear? And once he hit the deer, did it die pretty quickly?
9mm have killed a lot of folks. I carry one occasionally, I like 1911s better, but they're just too heavy for me, and I usually carry a j-frame. But I don't use FMJ, either.
9mm have killed a lot of folks. I carry one occasionally, I like 1911s better, but they're just too heavy for me, and I usually carry a j-frame. But I don't use FMJ, either.
The deer's head was on ground, the range was such that he could not possibly miss, he probably was shooting at hair a bit, which might have given him glancing shots. Death was very quick, kicking and tussling around were reactions, I would think. Autopsy analysis was not included in final report. jim
gwalchmai
Member
OK, thanks!
shooter503
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
- Messages
- 440
A lot of discussion here about FMJs versus other loads. Is there a definition for an FMJ bullet? For instance, when does a "copper wash" bullet become a true FMJ? Is there a Geneva Convention definition of FMJ?
Titan6
member
Hmmmm
The COS AF gets to carry his choice of weapon while everyone else carries what he testifies to congress are less effective weapons....
Let us see:
6 rounds of .357 vs
15 rounds 9mm vs
15 rounds .40 vs
12 rounds .45 ACP (not the venerable 1911 something more modern)
I think that the .40 or .45 will do nicely. With FMJ the bigger the better.
The COS AF gets to carry his choice of weapon while everyone else carries what he testifies to congress are less effective weapons....
Let us see:
6 rounds of .357 vs
15 rounds 9mm vs
15 rounds .40 vs
12 rounds .45 ACP (not the venerable 1911 something more modern)
I think that the .40 or .45 will do nicely. With FMJ the bigger the better.
RevolvingCylinder
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 782
What does the Hague Convention have to do with the United States? We are not bound by any agreement made there. Hollowpoints are permitted. The powers that be(politicians and politicians in military uniform[commanders]) won't allow the ammunition to be issued just as they provide special care and treatment for those that aren't protected by the Geneva Convention.
I'd love to have the choice of carrying a .357 Magnum DA revolver. I'd even choose a .38 K-frame.
But please put an end to issuing foreign weapons. They make me feel ashamed to have something with an Italian name on my side. American companies make better weapons anyway. But we'll just see who buys their contract this time around. Hopefully they won't bar Smith & Wesson from submission as they did last time.
USAFA06STX
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 46
RevolvingCylinder, you have been misinformed if someone told you that the United States is not bound by the Hague Convention.
The United States is bound by the Hague Convention of 1907 (Hague IV) as we did sign it (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/Pays?ReadForm&c=US - This page lists all of the treaties that the United States has signed with regard to International Humanitarian Law). This and other pertinent treaties are stressed to our military's officers today.
The use of hollow point bullets falls under the Laws of War Laws and Customs of War on Land - Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 23 that states that it is "expressively forbidden to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering" (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm). At the time it was understood that bullets (such as hollow points) that "expand or flatten in the human body" caused what was termed as "unnecessary suffering" in the convention to lawful combatants during military conflict between two states. The use of such ammuntion made it much more difficult for medics and doctors (and the Red Cross) to help a soldier that had been shot when compared to a soldier that had been shot by FMJ bullets.
The exception to this is the 7.62x51 BTHP (MatchKing) used in military "sniper" rifles as the bullet is designed to provide maximum accuracy at long range. Testing found that the wound pattern of the BTHP is similar to a FMJ round used in the same rifle at similar ranges and conditions because bullet fragmentation was not a designed characteristic of this round (compared to most other JHPs).
The United States is bound by the Hague Convention of 1907 (Hague IV) as we did sign it (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/Pays?ReadForm&c=US - This page lists all of the treaties that the United States has signed with regard to International Humanitarian Law). This and other pertinent treaties are stressed to our military's officers today.
The use of hollow point bullets falls under the Laws of War Laws and Customs of War on Land - Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 23 that states that it is "expressively forbidden to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering" (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm). At the time it was understood that bullets (such as hollow points) that "expand or flatten in the human body" caused what was termed as "unnecessary suffering" in the convention to lawful combatants during military conflict between two states. The use of such ammuntion made it much more difficult for medics and doctors (and the Red Cross) to help a soldier that had been shot when compared to a soldier that had been shot by FMJ bullets.
The exception to this is the 7.62x51 BTHP (MatchKing) used in military "sniper" rifles as the bullet is designed to provide maximum accuracy at long range. Testing found that the wound pattern of the BTHP is similar to a FMJ round used in the same rifle at similar ranges and conditions because bullet fragmentation was not a designed characteristic of this round (compared to most other JHPs).
Titan6
member
Absolute Truth
Soldiers can and have been brought up on charges for modifying their ammo or carrying unauthorized loads. Sounds crazy when you consider what LEOs carry but true.
Soldiers can and have been brought up on charges for modifying their ammo or carrying unauthorized loads. Sounds crazy when you consider what LEOs carry but true.
kBob
Member
Vern,
The US Navy and some USAAF crews in WWII were issued "Victory Model" .38 Special S&W revolvers of the type later called the Model 10. These were parkerized guns and I understand that the final polish on the metal before Parkerization was not as fine as on commercial guns. When the USAF became a sepperate branch they retained the .38 Special as a standard for Aircrews and Air Police issue. They would later by a number of commercial S&Ws in that caliber and have S&W develop a light weight two inch barreled gun in that caliber specifically for aircrew use.
The .38 Special revolvers of one type or another remained standard for USAF Aircrew and Air Police until the adoption of the Beretta M9 in the early 1980's. I shot with some AIr Police in Germany that still had the Model 15 in commercial finish and no lanyard loop in the Summer of 1982.
The US Army retained some fixed wing aircraft and began encouraging the development of and standization of Helocopters when the USAF went on its own way. The standard issue US Army handgun continued to be the S&Ws from WWII. These were carried through Korea and were still issue when Vietnam began.....and ended. As late as 1982 my OH-58 pilot was issued a WWII Victory model in .38 Special (they were made for export during WWII in .38 S&W to UK and Commonwealth nations) with the original parkerized finish and lanyard loop on the butt. Grips were still the WWII issue smooth wood. For Army air crews of the early 1980's the revolver was generally carried on the mesh survival vest in a leather holster attached over the very bottom of the left ribcage and stomache. There was also a "Tanker Style" Holster for those that did not wear the mesh vest It went over the right shoulder with the gun being carried above the left hip and there was a loop with a snap to attach the bottom of the holster to the belt. In this way it did not interfer with wearing the special chemical protective mask issued to air crew and tank crews (but not other track crews) under the right arm.
I did not notice that the Model 15s kicked worse than I expected on the day I whot with the Air Police. I was shooting a model 19 which is basically the same gun in .357 though with a six inch barrel. I was shooting both .38 Special Geco 148 crain Wadcutters and a Version of the 158 grain copper washed .357 that was advertised as being rather hot. The Model 15 recoiled somewhere in the middle. What the Model 15 with GI Ball .38 Specials did was BARK. It seemed way lowder than a .38 Special aught to and had a noticable in day light muzzle flash. As with a hot .357 the shooter could feel the over pressure. I woundered if those GI rounds were loaded with a slower powder than most .38 Special rounds are loaded with.
Our local Wally World no longer carries lead RN, SWC, or WC ammunition but offers the 130 grain FMJ loads. Still knocks over steel plates out at 25 meters and rings the non falling ones further out. Still don't know that I wouldn't rather have a lead SWC though.
As to comments someone made about why some of us like a fairly hard cast SWC but not a RN FMJ.....well some folks like Chevys, GMCs, Toyautos and Nissans and Some understand that a Ford F-150 is what Gohd intened men to drive.
Now I talked with Marty Fackler about how one of his accolites did a test that proved that the shoulders of the SWC do not touch the medium and only the meplat does its cutting. The guy mixed fine sand in the gell and while the meplat showed erosion the shoulder and sides of the bullet were not eroded indicating that the temprary streach caused by the meplat's passing pushed the tissue away from the bullet at such a rate as to prevent the shoulders from cutting. I also have read M&S reports on the effectiveness of the SWC being no better than RNL or RN FMJ in street shootings. Still you got to wonder what Keith and them other old time SWC guys were thinking, after all they just claimed that the shape did a better job of putting animals down in their hand gun hunting than other solid shapes and what whould they know?
One last thing....The Washing DC police force was still issuing the WWII manufactured Victory Model at least as late as 1986 and some were in such shape that the cylinders turned freely or the hammer would not work in normal double action mode. Some of the multitude of various law Enforcement and security agencies in DC had only just gone over to modern semi autos in the fall of 1994.
-Bob Hollingsworth
The US Navy and some USAAF crews in WWII were issued "Victory Model" .38 Special S&W revolvers of the type later called the Model 10. These were parkerized guns and I understand that the final polish on the metal before Parkerization was not as fine as on commercial guns. When the USAF became a sepperate branch they retained the .38 Special as a standard for Aircrews and Air Police issue. They would later by a number of commercial S&Ws in that caliber and have S&W develop a light weight two inch barreled gun in that caliber specifically for aircrew use.
The .38 Special revolvers of one type or another remained standard for USAF Aircrew and Air Police until the adoption of the Beretta M9 in the early 1980's. I shot with some AIr Police in Germany that still had the Model 15 in commercial finish and no lanyard loop in the Summer of 1982.
The US Army retained some fixed wing aircraft and began encouraging the development of and standization of Helocopters when the USAF went on its own way. The standard issue US Army handgun continued to be the S&Ws from WWII. These were carried through Korea and were still issue when Vietnam began.....and ended. As late as 1982 my OH-58 pilot was issued a WWII Victory model in .38 Special (they were made for export during WWII in .38 S&W to UK and Commonwealth nations) with the original parkerized finish and lanyard loop on the butt. Grips were still the WWII issue smooth wood. For Army air crews of the early 1980's the revolver was generally carried on the mesh survival vest in a leather holster attached over the very bottom of the left ribcage and stomache. There was also a "Tanker Style" Holster for those that did not wear the mesh vest It went over the right shoulder with the gun being carried above the left hip and there was a loop with a snap to attach the bottom of the holster to the belt. In this way it did not interfer with wearing the special chemical protective mask issued to air crew and tank crews (but not other track crews) under the right arm.
I did not notice that the Model 15s kicked worse than I expected on the day I whot with the Air Police. I was shooting a model 19 which is basically the same gun in .357 though with a six inch barrel. I was shooting both .38 Special Geco 148 crain Wadcutters and a Version of the 158 grain copper washed .357 that was advertised as being rather hot. The Model 15 recoiled somewhere in the middle. What the Model 15 with GI Ball .38 Specials did was BARK. It seemed way lowder than a .38 Special aught to and had a noticable in day light muzzle flash. As with a hot .357 the shooter could feel the over pressure. I woundered if those GI rounds were loaded with a slower powder than most .38 Special rounds are loaded with.
Our local Wally World no longer carries lead RN, SWC, or WC ammunition but offers the 130 grain FMJ loads. Still knocks over steel plates out at 25 meters and rings the non falling ones further out. Still don't know that I wouldn't rather have a lead SWC though.
As to comments someone made about why some of us like a fairly hard cast SWC but not a RN FMJ.....well some folks like Chevys, GMCs, Toyautos and Nissans and Some understand that a Ford F-150 is what Gohd intened men to drive.
Now I talked with Marty Fackler about how one of his accolites did a test that proved that the shoulders of the SWC do not touch the medium and only the meplat does its cutting. The guy mixed fine sand in the gell and while the meplat showed erosion the shoulder and sides of the bullet were not eroded indicating that the temprary streach caused by the meplat's passing pushed the tissue away from the bullet at such a rate as to prevent the shoulders from cutting. I also have read M&S reports on the effectiveness of the SWC being no better than RNL or RN FMJ in street shootings. Still you got to wonder what Keith and them other old time SWC guys were thinking, after all they just claimed that the shape did a better job of putting animals down in their hand gun hunting than other solid shapes and what whould they know?
One last thing....The Washing DC police force was still issuing the WWII manufactured Victory Model at least as late as 1986 and some were in such shape that the cylinders turned freely or the hammer would not work in normal double action mode. Some of the multitude of various law Enforcement and security agencies in DC had only just gone over to modern semi autos in the fall of 1994.
-Bob Hollingsworth
Vern Humphrey
Member
The Army and Air Force may have had a stock of revolvers left from WWII, but they issued a lot of new Smith and Wessons in Viet Nam. I saw a lot of them.
DMK
Member
I'll have to check the headstamp when I get home. But here's a pic of it:
cheygriz
member
A better meplat would help some, but it's still a FMJ. Going back to a .45 would be stupid, since it's no better with FMJ than the 9MM.
But remember, one of the reasons we can't use something like the Federal expanding FMJ, WHICH IS AN FMJ, is that the "brass hats" wants a pistol round that will defeat light body armor and vehicles. The 9MM outpenetrates the .40 and .45 by a mile. (By the way, 9MM Nato, as issued to our troops is +P)
If they would adopt the expanding FMJ, either 9MM, .40 or .45 would be effective against unarmored targets.
But as long as the "brass hats" expect the handgun to be an anti tank round, we're stuck!
But remember, one of the reasons we can't use something like the Federal expanding FMJ, WHICH IS AN FMJ, is that the "brass hats" wants a pistol round that will defeat light body armor and vehicles. The 9MM outpenetrates the .40 and .45 by a mile. (By the way, 9MM Nato, as issued to our troops is +P)
If they would adopt the expanding FMJ, either 9MM, .40 or .45 would be effective against unarmored targets.
But as long as the "brass hats" expect the handgun to be an anti tank round, we're stuck!
It was my understanding that the NATO 9mm is actually hotter than the +P+ 9mm that Federal makes. One of my books has the NATO load with a muzzle velocity of 1,350 fps.
Of course we keep coming back to the problem that FMJ handgun ammo isn't very effective. I wonder what the good general carries in his .357?
Of course we keep coming back to the problem that FMJ handgun ammo isn't very effective. I wonder what the good general carries in his .357?
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
I'm no legal expert, but understanding is that any ammo that is expanding by design is illegal under the Hague accords. There are exceptions such as the 168 match BYHP in 7.62 where the hollowpoint has proven to increase accuracy in match shooting competitions. So, it's excepted as an "artifact of manufacture" or some other such legalese.
Except that .45 has a .451" diameter and 9mm has a .355" diameter, so unless 45 ACP ball amo contracts it's going to create a wider wound cavity.
As for the original topic we'll see what happens. The USAF adopted the AR-15, as a base defense rifle, before the Army did, so there is precedent for them to jump the gun in that regard. The SIG M-11 in 9mm is already in DoD inventory, and the USCG/DHS SIG 40 S&W P226/229 purchase has put those pistols in the inventory as well. I'd not be surprised to see the USAF adopt the 226 and 229 in 40 S&W.
Gosh you're absolutely correct. How dare we disagree or question anyone. Especially if they wear or have worn a uniform. How the heck do you know what other posters have done?????
I served in the Army for fourteen years (medical discharge) and I'm about ready to hit my 7th anniversary as a cop. So am I just a pimple on Murta's posterior tthiel?
By the way this is THE HIGH ROAD. Read the rules wonderboy. You are to restrain yourself from using profanity.
And that's how I "deal with it" Mr. Tthiel.
I served in the Army for fourteen years (medical discharge) and I'm about ready to hit my 7th anniversary as a cop. So am I just a pimple on Murta's posterior tthiel?
By the way this is THE HIGH ROAD. Read the rules wonderboy. You are to restrain yourself from using profanity.
And that's how I "deal with it" Mr. Tthiel.
more info
Gentlemen --
Keep it civil. I was wondering if the inclusion of Rep Murtha in the original article would generate some knee-jerk comments and it's happened a few times here. Never seems to add anything to the discussion. I guess there are other venues for political rants. If you want to talk guns and bullets, let's do that...
I did a bit more digging around and it looks like Moseley wants another sidearm for the Air Force, something along the lines of .40 or .45 caliber. There are tests underway right now to see what would be the most effective. Who knows -- maybe we'll see the full-scale introduction of the M1911?
There's been some really good info on this thread, I hope the folks who are doing the testing right now read this board and might be able to offer some of their comments and observations. I know that when the M9 was selected there was a lot of haggling over the politics infovled. Hope we don't see that again.
Mick
Gentlemen --
Keep it civil. I was wondering if the inclusion of Rep Murtha in the original article would generate some knee-jerk comments and it's happened a few times here. Never seems to add anything to the discussion. I guess there are other venues for political rants. If you want to talk guns and bullets, let's do that...
I did a bit more digging around and it looks like Moseley wants another sidearm for the Air Force, something along the lines of .40 or .45 caliber. There are tests underway right now to see what would be the most effective. Who knows -- maybe we'll see the full-scale introduction of the M1911?
There's been some really good info on this thread, I hope the folks who are doing the testing right now read this board and might be able to offer some of their comments and observations. I know that when the M9 was selected there was a lot of haggling over the politics infovled. Hope we don't see that again.
Mick
- Status
