On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:37:56 GMT, "Casey Wilson"
wrote:

My conviction of the miniscule damage to be caused by a sky marshall or
pilot popping off a few caps at a terrorists has been reinforced. The
diameter difference between a 9mm (.38") and a .44 Mag wouldn't make any
difference. Let's give the good guys the bigger cannon.

What's the point in having the bigger cannon? Do the advantages,
whatever they may be, outweigh the disadvantages of heavier weight,
larger size and less of an ammo load? In addition, if it's being used
because of superior penetrating power, in case of hijackers using body
armor, what if there's no body armor? How many bodies can a teflon
coated steel jacketed bullet pass through before it stops in the last
body?

I'd think that frangible bullets would be the better option to
minimize collateral damage and take the risk that the hijacker might
be wearing body armor. Or perhaps bring both loads? In which case
the 9mm automatic makes more sense as the clip can be quickly changed
to match the situation.

Corky Scott

PS, frangible bullets wouldn't penetrate the skin of the airliner
either.