What's the truth about 50 cal guns vs. jetliners?

[DeseoUnTaco]

The latest hysteria is that 50 BMG rifles could be used to take down jetliners. For example: http://www.50caliberterror.com/

There was a thread a while back where I analyzed what I thought were the risks, and concluded that a 50 cal "sniper" rifle could not effectively shoot down a jetliner. A half a dozen 50 cal machineguns mounted in a cluster, with some tracer ammo, might be able to, but a single 50 cal rifle would be basically useless.

But I admit, I'm no expert on these things, so I asked an expert, and here is what I found. The quoted parts are from my email to him, and then there's his response:

> [this part from me]
> However, I can't find any evidence that these rifles
> are actually capable of bringing down an airplane in
> flight, and from what I know about guns (a lot) and
> what I know about airplanes (not much) it seems like
> these powerful rifles don't pose any special threat to
> jetliners.

[this part from the expert]
First off, I'm not an NRA member and *not* the type of guy who gets worked up over the Second Amendment, but my feeling is that invoking "terrorism" in this discussion is a cheap shot (no pun) and a ploy. Not that Conservatives haven't been doing the same thing ad nauseum, with far more menacing implications, but still. The truth is, there are so many ways for a perpetrator to damage or bring down a plane. This is just one of them, and not a very efficient one. Terrorists have limited resources and don't normally put their eggs in a basket with such a questionable likelihood of success. Why should somebody waste his time messing around with rifles when a simple, undetectable bomb can do the job guaranteed?

> Hitting the plane while at altitude: Impossible. Out
> of range for this rifle. The plane could only be hit
> just after take-off or just before landing.

Well, I see your point, and you're right, but what do you mean by "just before?" FYI, at five miles from a runway, a landing plane is typically about 2,000 feet over the ground. On takeoff it depends, but the gradient is usually much steeper.
[note: He may not realize that these rifles can't be used for aimed fire at elevations of 2,000 feet, and that it would be necessary to "lead" the target to get a hit at that speed, and that the only effective way to aim in a situation like that is to use a machinegun with tracers, not one of these sniper rifles, and even with an MG with tracers it would be an extremely challenging/lucky shot]

> Hitting the body of the plane (during take-off or
> landing): the bullet could zip all the way through,
> causing damage the plane, the luggage, and perhaps
> passengers. The plane would continue whatever it's
> doing.

Probably.

> 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.

Not necessarily ASAP. There are often numerous separate tanks, and it likely wouldn't be all that rapid of a leak. A tank *could* explode, but in most cases would not.

> 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.

It might cause a fire, but there are always fire extinguishing systems for the engines. The greater likelihood would be internal damage causing some type of failure or mandatory shut-down. There's the possibility of internal damage resulting in a catastrophic failure, where pieces of the turbines or compressors actually burst from the cowling, but this is impossible to predict. In any case, flying with a failed engine is not a big deal.

> 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.

They are, yes. Loss of a hydraulic system would not result in a crash.

> 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 at 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.

I really don't know what would happen, but cockpit glass is *very*
strong. I once saw a video of two men trying to shatter a cockpit windshield
with a sledgehammer, and they could not so much as crack it. That said, the
danger here would be the window fracturing and causing a decompression. Decompressions alone aren't apt to be perilous, but combined with a blown out windshield...who knows? Planes have survived windshield blow-outs before. In any case, this would take a very lucky shot.


Best,
Patrick Smith

He said I could post this if I attributed it to him and included a link back to his website and book. I appreciate the time he has taken to answer these questions, and I hope the moderators won't mind a commercial message here:

Patrick Smith, 39, is an erstwhile pilot and air travel columnist.
Patrick has visited more than 55 countries and always asks for a window seat.
He lives in Somerville, Massachusetts.
-----------------------------------------------------

Are you a frequent flyer, nervous passenger, or world traveler?

ASK THE PILOT
Everything You Need to Know About Air Travel

by Patrick Smith
published by Riverhead Books, a division of Penguin Group

Amazon.com Editors' Choice: Best Travel Book of 2004
Amazon.com Customers' Choice: Best Travel Book of 2004

"Anyone remotely afraid of flying should read this book, as should anyone who appreciates good writing and the value of great information."
-- The New York Times

The author of Salon.com's popular air travel column tells you all there is to know about the strange and fascinating world of commercial flight.

--Straight talk on safety, security, and the nuts and bolts of flying
--The history, color, and controversy of the airlines
--The poetry and drama of airplanes, airports, and travelling abroad

Available through Amazon.com and most major booksellers. To order a signed
copy, click here: http://www.askthepilot.com/signed.html

Visit the ASK THE PILOT website at http://www.askthepilot.com to see excerpts, reviews, and links to the author's columns at Salon.com.

 

[CAnnoneer]

I can't imagine how a sniper rifle can be used against fast-moving targets (e.g. a plane?!). It makes no sense to me technically. This must be a just pretext for political play.

 

[CAnnoneer]

This must be just a pretext for political play, is what I meant to say. That's what happens when the same word can be used as an adverb and an adjective.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

A few sheets and bulkheads of of aluminum and steel. Someone should reconstruct a "typical" airplane section and shoot it with various rifle calibers. One would likely find they all penetrate the plane. Of course, this wouldn't help us. It would in fact demonize all rifles as "powerful airplane taker downers". It would likely be prudent to note that the "explosive decompression" scenario posed ad infinitum by Hollywood has proven to be grossly false in the world of real people and physics.

It would be nice to give these naysayers a chance to hit...say a car-sized vehicle at 100 yards moving at 60mph with a small .22LR rifle and see if they can do it. Then tell them to do the same thing with a 50lb rifle at an object moving in the sky at 500mph at a few thousand feet of elevation. Give them all the mathematical formulas required to calculate lead for bullet flight time, then how to calculate for crosswinds, which one couldn't measure at 2000 feet of vertical distance since there are no airborne indicators.

I bet they couldn't even keep a 40x optic centered on the plane while in flight.

 

[carebear]

If you mean a political play by those who want to ban all guns one at a time by demonizing them with lies (Feinstein, schumer et al) then the ".50's shoot down planes" issue is just that.

This guy, however, is presenting his informed opinion why such a scenario is unlikely in the extreme, thus it is a "good thing" for our side.

 

[Kurush]

Great interview carebear. The antis don't care about the truth, but evidence like this can help win over moderates.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I sure don't want to be the test case for an airplane shot with a 50 BMG.

 

[Nehemiah Scudder]

Why can't we have a 5 mile DMZ around the airports? That'd kill a couple of birds with 1 stone.

 

[SMMAssociates]

During WWII, just for example, US Forces in the Pacific Theater had a devil of a time dealing with Japanese Kamikaze aircraft while using .50BMG style weapons set up in antiaircraft configurations, as well as other even more powerful weapons.

(About the only guaranteed technique from a ship was having a 16" round pop nearby.)

The idea that a single round from a physically heavy gun that's "handheld" might take down a heavy jet is pretty silly.

It could happen, of course, but any old hunting rifle probably would have a better chance ("leading" the bird, etc.). A big hole v.s. a little hole probably is irrelevant except for the larger diameter of the damage area.

As I see it, the other problem is doing this from something other than a large anti-aircraft mount, 'cause this would only work near an airport (preferrably on the runway's centerline - a side shot would be much more difficult), is that you'd be awfully visible to the guys standing in the tower over there with binculars wondering what that gadget was.... Even with the incredible effective range, you'd likely have to be in the airport's fence line, too!

Nonsense....

Which, of course, is part of the anti's stock in trade....

 

[chris in va]

I think what the anti's are saying is a 50 could be set up toward the end of the runway in someone's house where the jet is coming/going TOWARD you, in essence hanging still in the air. They don't mean firing at it perpendicular.

Pretty goofy regardless. I'd suspect a terrorist would rather fire off a heat seeker than a 50 cal.

 

[beerslurpy]

If 50 caliber worked as an airplane-downing round, the germans and americans would have stuck with 50 caliber machine guns instead of switching entirely to 20mm and 30mm cannons. The simple fact of the matter is that you can shoot the hell out of any large plane (be it a bomber or passenger liner) with 50 cal and it will keep on flying. And that is assuming you can get close enough to actually score hits. Your chances of hitting a plane at 30k feet with even a hail of 50 caliber fire from machine guns is infintesimally small.

The germans were arguably those who most advanced the use of artillery as an anti-aircraft weapon. It is telling that they completely abandonded all weapons short of the massive 88mm flak round. And its employment consisted of using a dense hail of shells against relatively low flying prop planes to produce arguably inconsistent success.

In other words, it is complete horsecrap.

The only single shot weapon capable of shooting down a jumbo jet is a radar guided missle with a decently big warhead to break up the airframe. Even a heat-seeking missle will only go after one of the many engines on a jumbo jet, with only a chance of a one hit kill.

 

[carebear]

Great interview carebear. The antis don't care about the truth, but evidence like this can help win over moderates.

Kurush,

Much as I'd like to claim it, this un's the great job of DeseoUn Taco.

 

[boofus]

During the Korean War the US air superiority fighter was the F-86 Sabre. It was armed with 6 .50cal machineguns. I remember reading somewhere that an average of ~12,000 rounds were fired for every enemy MiG shot down.

Now try that with a bolt action or even semi auto .50cal rifle. If you assume the rounds come in 10 round magazines and it takes 90 seconds to fully load a magazine. On average it will take you 30 hours to load enough magazines to bring down a small plane. The average amount of ammunition required would weigh ~4200 pounds, if you don't count the weight of the magazines. Like to see feinstein carry that around.

Say you take careful aimed shots. Maybe one shot every 2 seconds to try to be accurate. It would take avg 6.6 hours of continuous shooting to bring down a plane, and that's without accounting for barrel cool down or mag changes!

So you are looking at paying $3000-8000 for the rifle, another $3500 in ammunition, 30 hours of loading magazines, hauling at least 4250 lbs of gear to the airport, 6.6 hours of shooting to bring down a plane, on average. That's if you can keep the plane in range for 6 hours and hit it occasionally. A larger plane like an airliner would take even more hits.

 

[taliv]

erstwhile pilot != expert

 

[Tylden]

This is so typical of the ploys the anti-gun liberals use. Sadly, many people believe whatever they read in the papers or hear on the news and accept it as fact. Whether or not it's true or not doesn't matter....it did make quite a splash in the news and scared a lot of people in an effort to convince them that "guns are evil". In a way, this is almost a terrorist act within itself.... sometimes freedom of the press can be a dangerous thing indeed.

 

[Kurush]

Much as I'd like to claim it, this un's the great job of DeseoUn Taco.

Whoops! Anyhow great work DeseoUnTaco.

 

[jefnvk]

Your chances of hitting a plane at 30k feet with even a hail of 50 caliber fire from machine guns is infintesimally small.

Would a .50 round even go 5 miles straight up?

Anything a .50 can do to a plane, a .30 can probably also do. The ballistic differences between them, while impresive, probably isn't the spread needed to do any more damage.

 

[Geno]

Jet tires are 70+ steel ply, and bullets literally bounce off

I recently saw a show on a department and a terrorist situation. The police tried to shoot-out the jet's tires to stop it...they had to take cover quick!!!! The bullets bounced right back in their faces. They later learned that the tires are 70+ steel ply!!!! I seriously doubt a .50 BMG would take them out.

I save seen, have video footage of .50 BMG being shot into full tanks, and full gas cans...they do NOT explode. Even partially empty/full tanks/cans do not explode. To create the "explode scene" as on TV, one has to make it happen by setting a fire source beside the tanks for when shot and fuel SPLASHES out.

There are some great videos on the markets that talk about these sorts of issues. They were produced in the late 80s early 90s. All this business about the feared .50 BMG is just a sickening, political joke. Makes me want to build one from a legal-to-buy kit just to tick 'em off. Course, I'd choose to make and register mine as a single shot pistol to make it more dangerous...concealable!! Oooooo!

Doc2005

 

[CAnnoneer]

At distances where you would care to use a scope, you would have to shoot well in front of the plane anyway, making the scope useless.

If there is no scope, what kind of a sniper rifle will it be?

The only plausible way to down a plane with a rifle is to satisfy all of the below conditions:

1) plane must be at very low altitude, prob. no more than a few hundred meters
2) rifle must be set on auto and fired at with 50 to 200m lead depending on the speed of the plane
3) rounds must hit something to start a fire, or take out the pilots

The chances for all of this happening - extremely slim.

The chances of this happening with a bolt-action sniper rifle - virtually nil.

Methinks, why don't the sides ask for an expert opinion from the Air Force and the Marines. Maybe because they know what the answe will be:

"What?? Hahahahahahahaha "

 

[Vang]

Nehemiah, do you realize how many people live within 5 miles of an airport? I mean, all of downtown Chicago is within 5 miles of an airport.

 

[Cavalry]

They say a .50 can disable a plan wile on the ground or during landing, but I ask this, why no fuss about the 700 nitro express?

 

[Kurush]

Would a .50 round even go 5 miles straight up?

Sure, if you live on the moon Otherwise no chance.

 

[rick_reno]

They'd say a 50 could bring down the moon if they thought it would sell.

 

[thebucket]

What do you mean a .50 BMG isn't dangerous to airplanes? Look what boxcutters did to 4 of them! If boxcutters are that dangerous, guns must be Satan's Own Black Anti-Aircraft Hand!

Oh and to Sarah Brady and company!

 

[Boats]

88mm FlugzeugAbwehrKannone

Over 200 documented bullet holes in Butch O'Hare's Hellcat which he RTB.

The VPC's Tom Diaz and Dianne Feinstein are in bad need of .50BMG suppositories. One itty-bitty round ain't that dangerous.