A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pilot shot in head



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 7th 05, 03:47 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...

"John Galban" wrote in message
Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.


I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A
Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit.



It'd be easier _without_ the scope.



Maybe, but most pistol scopes are pretty low power with a fairly large
FOV. I still think it would be difficult no matter what.


Matt
  #2  
Old May 7th 05, 03:51 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...

"John Galban" wrote in message
Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.

I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A
Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit.



It'd be easier _without_ the scope.



Maybe, but most pistol scopes are pretty low power with a fairly large
FOV. I still think it would be difficult no matter what.


I dunno...I can hit a 12" pie plate at 100 yards with a 1911 with standard
sights. I doubt it's be that hard.



  #3  
Old May 7th 05, 08:20 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...


"John Galban" wrote in message
Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred
feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call
that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by
chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane.

I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A
Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit.



It'd be easier _without_ the scope.



Maybe, but most pistol scopes are pretty low power with a fairly large
FOV. I still think it would be difficult no matter what.



I dunno...I can hit a 12" pie plate at 100 yards with a 1911 with standard
sights. I doubt it's be that hard.


So can I. We all make lucky shots occasionally. However, few can hit a
pie plate at 100 yards EVERY shot when shooting off-hand. Actually,
even a machine rest won't do that as the standard 1911's tend to scatter
their hits more than 12" at 100 yards inherently. And if the pie plate
is moving at 80 MPH, the odds get MUCH worse.

I don't think Doug Koenig could do that with any consistency and he's a
lot better shot than you or me.


Matt
  #4  
Old May 8th 05, 02:03 AM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

Maybe, but most pistol scopes are pretty low power with a fairly large
FOV. I still think it would be difficult no matter what.



I dunno...I can hit a 12" pie plate at 100 yards with a 1911 with

standard
sights. I doubt it's be that hard.


So can I. We all make lucky shots occasionally. However, few can hit a
pie plate at 100 yards EVERY shot when shooting off-hand.


Context, again: He only had to hit ONCE. We don't know how many times he
FIRED.

Actually,
even a machine rest won't do that as the standard 1911's tend to scatter
their hits more than 12" at 100 yards inherently.


Hmmm...last time I tried, I did about three out of four. A .44 Mag

And if the pie plate
is moving at 80 MPH, the odds get MUCH worse.


See remarks about Sporting Clays....yes, we use scatter guns, but the
targets are 6", not 16 feet.

I don't think Doug Koenig could do that with any consistency and he's a
lot better shot than you or me.


You'd be surprised. Shoot the moving poppers at at IPSC match some time.


Matt


The other Matt


  #5  
Old May 8th 05, 03:16 AM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
Actually,
even a machine rest won't do that as the standard 1911's tend to scatter
their hits more than 12" at 100 yards inherently.



Hmmm...last time I tried, I did about three out of four. A .44 Mag


A 1911 in .44 mag? What brand is that?


And if the pie plate
is moving at 80 MPH, the odds get MUCH worse.



See remarks about Sporting Clays....yes, we use scatter guns, but the
targets are 6", not 16 feet.


Yes, shotguns don't count. :-)

Matt
  #6  
Old May 8th 05, 10:10 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
Actually,
even a machine rest won't do that as the standard 1911's tend to scatter
their hits more than 12" at 100 yards inherently.



Hmmm...last time I tried, I did about three out of four. A .44 Mag


A 1911 in .44 mag? What brand is that?


It chopped my line which was supposed to say "A .44 Mag is much better at
long range shooting". Hence, the 100 yard matches and hunters.


And if the pie plate
is moving at 80 MPH, the odds get MUCH worse.



See remarks about Sporting Clays....yes, we use scatter guns, but the
targets are 6", not 16 feet.


Yes, shotguns don't count. :-)


Yes, and remember the 6" vs. 16 foot context.



  #7  
Old May 9th 05, 04:12 AM
W P Dixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I believe Mr Whiting is speaking of a standard issue 1911 Colt .45. Which
does have an awful pattern even at 50 yards. There are some mods that can be
done, as in with some of the new modified 1911's. Which very few of those
are "real" 1911's, but aftermarket copies. A Kimber 1911 come to mind. Which
is a very nice weapon with alot better patterns than it's old standard US
military version. Just a good old Colt .45! Great for close combat, but not
a reach out and touch someone kind of weapon.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
ex-marine rifle coach

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
Actually,
even a machine rest won't do that as the standard 1911's tend to
scatter
their hits more than 12" at 100 yards inherently.


Hmmm...last time I tried, I did about three out of four. A .44 Mag


A 1911 in .44 mag? What brand is that?


It chopped my line which was supposed to say "A .44 Mag is much better at
long range shooting". Hence, the 100 yard matches and hunters.


And if the pie plate
is moving at 80 MPH, the odds get MUCH worse.


See remarks about Sporting Clays....yes, we use scatter guns, but the
targets are 6", not 16 feet.


Yes, shotguns don't count. :-)


Yes, and remember the 6" vs. 16 foot context.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CFI without commercial? Jay Honeck Piloting 75 December 8th 10 04:17 PM
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep C J Campbell Instrument Flight Rules 117 July 22nd 04 05:40 PM
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep C J Campbell Owning 114 July 22nd 04 05:40 PM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.