"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
(B2431) wrote in message
...
Let's see, you guys didn't issue 357 magnums during the war, better
check again
on the pistol caliber. The piece in question was heavy and bulky and
rarely
carried for those reasons.

As stated earlier in reply to Als post, the 9.3mmX74mmR cartridge was
equivalent in POWER to a .375H&H Magnum! Check with a gun expert on
that.

Seriously overdone for a survival gun. Are these escaping aircrew or elite
paratroopers?

Flare pistols launching grenades is a non starter even for you.

You obviously don't know **** about the
Leuchtpistole/Kampfpistole/Sturmpistole.

Again, for survival after escaping from an unflyable aircraft? The idea is
"not to die of exposure, hunger or angry wildlife", not "stand off all of 3
Shock Army singlehandedly". Every ounce of grenades, heavy-calibre
ammunition, et cetera you carry is an ounce less of food, water, radio
beacon, spare batteries, flares, dye markers and other items that might
actually improve your chances of living until rescue.

279,000 of them were issued
in WW2 and all the grenade ammo was used up for them. They were put to
good use and there long before the strap-on GLs we use today on our
rifles.

And they were thoroughly predated by assorted "rifle grenades" that ranged
from the Heath Robinson to the rather practical.

**** off, will you? The US got the lion's share of advanced German
technology including all those funny "black project" triangles, discs,
and cylinders flying around using EM propulsion systems.

Haven't seen a single one at an airshow.


They may be ugly but they work, they are light and small enough to carry
and
ARE carried. Given the choice of a heavy, bulky "super weapon" left
behind or
one of those "ugly weapons" in my kit guess which one is more effective
when
needed?

Gee, I don't seem to recall ANY stories of success with that butt-ugly
M6.

Have you looked?

At least the German bomber crews used the Sauer Drillings in
combat on the Russian front as well as the 27mm
Leuchtpistole/Kampfpistole/Sturmpistole.

Why are bomber crews engaging in ground combat when they ought to be flying
bombers?

Tell you what, put on a flightsuit. How many pockets do you have? How
much can
you carry? Now put on your survival vest and address the same questions.
OK,
part of your bailout kit has all kinds of wonderful things, how much can
you
put in the aforementioned pockets? Unless the kit bag makes a
comfortable back
pack you will get rid of it if you have to go cross country. A basic
rule of
thumb is it's better to wear what you need than carry it. You survival
vest has
a holster for a pistol. How long will you carry that wonder weapon you
described?

Quite a few SF aircrews today carry the HK SOCOM pistol.

Oh, you mean the Robocop Gun. Pray tell, what does it do that a Glock 21
doesn't?

I'd be
willing to bet they would carry the new HK MP-7 PDW if they could
procure one.

Doesn't square with the aircrew I've talked to: but then they're only
actually flying the missions, what do *they* know?

I *have* heard of US aircrew drawing M16s and M4s as personal weapons for
high-risk ops, which makes a lot more sense, but then they seriously
considered the risk of being forced down somewhere very unfriendly.

If you need a combat weapon, take a combat weapon and accept the weight and
bulk. If you need a basic survival weapon, get something as light and
compact as possible. Don't haul a heavy, overpowered, break-action weapon
around and insist it's wonderful: it's too big to get out of an aircraft
with, too heavy to carry, too powerful for small game and too slow-firing
for a firefight.

--
Paul J. Adam