US Air Force survival gun?

From: (robert arndt)

snip

What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
utility!


Rob

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.

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

With all the crowing you have done in the NG about your superior weapons and SS
super brains you still LOST that war. Get over it.


The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
You would think they would do better than that.

Rob

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?

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?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote in message ...
From: (robert arndt)

snip

What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
utility!


Rob

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.

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

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

With all the crowing you have done in the NG about your superior weapons and SS
super brains you still LOST that war. Get over it.

**** 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. Wright
Patterson had the German discs, MacDill AB did, and Area 51 did. No
alien reverse-engineering required... just a few thousand German
scientists and technicians from the SS Technical Branch
Einwickstellung IV, Peenemunde, AVA Gottingen, etc...


The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
You would think they would do better than that.

Rob

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

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

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Rob

From: (robert arndt)


(B2431) wrote in message
...
From: (robert arndt)

snip

What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
utility!


Rob

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.

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

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

I know the Kampfpistole series and I know we were discussing aircrew survival
weapons for which it would be extremely impractical. I know they made a lot of
them and that the users rarely used the grenade round since it had very little
usable effect. I also know aircrews would not likely be issued grenades of any
type other than smoke. This leaves its only use to an aircrew would be as a
flare pistol. In which case it wouldn't be very high on anyone's list as
something you want to grab on the way out.

I also know it is possible to argue a point without the vulgarity.

Why do you even bring up "strap on GLs?" I assume you are referring to the
bloop tubes mounted under the M-16 series. What does it have to do with aircrew
survival weapons?

A survival weapon has to serve other purposes than killing the enemy.

With all the crowing you have done in the NG about your superior weapons
and SS
super brains you still LOST that war. Get over it.

**** 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. Wright
Patterson had the German discs, MacDill AB did, and Area 51 did. No
alien reverse-engineering required... just a few thousand German
scientists and technicians from the SS Technical Branch
Einwickstellung IV, Peenemunde, AVA Gottingen, etc...

Please note you say we got all that stuff 60 years ago and not ONE of those
wonder weapons has been successfully fielded. The only response you have ever
made to this is "it's classified" as if you actually have had access and no one
else has. One of the many reasons you lost the war was because of the waste of
money and time spent on those dead end projects.


The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
You would think they would do better than that.

Rob

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

Case closed? Where are your cites?

Please note the very limited ammunition issued for either "weapon" so what they
were doing was committing suicide.

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

I was in spec ops and very few aircrewmen were in a position to need anything
besides a sidearm and we issued those people GAU-5s, M-16s and shotguns. How do
I know this? I was the guy issuing them in the 9th SOS.

As for submachineguns they are really nice for spraying bullets, but need quite
a bit of training to use. Many Spec Ops types would find them handy dandy, but
not aircrews.

Now, about your favourite song, Horst Wessel was a pimp, a bully and a street
thug who died in a common street brawl.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...

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.

Respectfully, doesn't that depend on what you are most likely to need
to do in order to survive?

WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
enemy lines in time of war.

--

FF

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...

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.

Respectfully, doesn't that depend on what you are most likely to need
to do in order to survive?

WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
enemy lines in time of war.

Not really. The "angry wildlife" he mentioned is just expanded
to include assholes standing on two legs and armed with
rifles...

"Escaping from an unflyable aircraft" doesn't mean launching a
full scale attack on the nearest military garrison just because
you are in the neighborhood and in a bad mood.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

From: (Fred the Red Shirt)


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

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.

Respectfully, doesn't that depend on what you are most likely to need
to do in order to survive?

WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
enemy lines in time of war.

--

FF

Aircrews are taught escape and evasion(E&E). Unless you are Rambo with an
unlimited amount of ammunition an no need to eat or drink you will have almost
no chance of surviving or affecting the war if you take on the enemy. You can,
however E&E and see what information you can pick up on your way. That
information and your skills have more effect on the war than you getting killed
trying to take out an enemy or two. For one thing very few aircrewmen are
infantry qualfied, USMC excepted, and the bad guys probably are.

You are better off finding a way to make sure you are rescued and can survive
until you are.

In this sense the survival kit is essentially the same as what you would need
if you were lost in the words.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
enemy lines in time of war.


Someone ought to tell the military survival school instructors, then, because
they are teaching people the wrong stuff.

(SteveM8597) wrote in message ...
WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
enemy lines in time of war.


Someone ought to tell the military survival school instructors, then, because
they are teaching people the wrong stuff.

How so? Don't they teach both?

--

FF

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

(SteveM8597) wrote in message ...
WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
enemy lines in time of war.


Someone ought to tell the military survival school instructors, then, because
they are teaching people the wrong stuff.

How so? Don't they teach both?

I'm sure that they must...I've had numerous military 'survival
school' courses, Arctic, Winter-bush, Summer, Summer-bush,
Sea-survival. None of them even mentioned the Enemy (other than
panic is your enemy)
--

-Gord.