US Air Force survival gun?

In article ,
Stephen Harding wrote:
My brother works as a cop at Amherst College and he's always
getting wildlife complaints over there. Get the skunk out of
the dining common; a fox was seen wandering around the library;
moose in a parking lot!

However one parents weekend, with the college attempting to
look its best (this is generally a well-to-do population),
he got a report that a red tailed hawk plucked a squirrel right
off the lawn in front of students and parents, carrying it
struggling away, most likely to become baby hawk food.

The parents and students wanted the police to do something about
it!

Figures.

Since Amherst and my own fair town of Northampton are official
"No Nuke" zones, and there haven't been any nuclear events, even
with Westover RAFB not too distant, perhaps a "No Predation" zone
would be useful.

It should work just about as well.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:23:20 -0500, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:08:59 -0700, Mary Shafer wrote:

On another note, I'm getting tired of the vitriolic political
disputatiousness on Usenet already and it's a long time to November.
Particularly the nasty attack stuff. It's unoriginal, it's tedious,
and it's irritating. It also says more about the attacker than the
attacked. Whatever happened to the concept of reasonable people
avoiding unreasonable topics in inappropriate places? Has anyone ever
changed their mind because of such an attack (well, except about the
manners and morals of the attacker)?

I agree completely, and I will no longer participate in any thread that gets
into the political area.

Sorry about the recent past, I just got a little carried away!!

I think a big part of the problem is we all have opinions about these
topics. It's easy to fight fire with fire (or something--you know
what I mean) and slip into the same style that others are using. It's
contagious, I guess I'm trying to say.

Even when I sort of agree with some of the opinions, the style makes
me cranky and irritable. That's why I try not to post on these
topics. I'm not good at flaming people; I'm better at writing them
off as uninformed barbarians with limited vocabularies and stupid
ideas, justifying my ignoring them henceforth.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 06:42:31 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

There is the promotion of the idea that animals are our friends
and only humans are the real aggressive creatures. I think the
"gentle Bambi" side of wildlife is emphasized at the expense of
reality.

Forget bears; I know someone whose cousin was killed by a mule deer.
Not in a collision between deer and car, but in a face-to-face
encounter. I suspect that more people are killed or injured in such
collisions with deer than are killed or injured by bears (black,
grizzly, and polar) every year.

The closest I've ever come to being attacked by a wild animal is being
nipped by a rock hyrax on Table Mountain, though. Hyraxes are the
closest living relatives of elephants, not that you'd guess that by
looking at either of them. Although now that I think about elephants,
there was that one bull elephant who seriously considered charging our
vehicle in Samburu (or was it Masai Mara?) a few years ago.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 21 Apr 2004 22:47:01 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" wrote:

The US Air Force used to put a gun in their pilot survival packs, the
M-6 Scout. See: http://www.milesfortis.com/church/akc13.htm

Does anyone know what the Air Force uses today?

I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
possible.

Thanks for your help.

Kel-Tech makes a nice 9mm or 40S&W (your choice) folding carbine.
I would guess that it weights about three pounds (unloaded).

Al Minyard

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!
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

The Sauer drilling had a 9.3X74R rifle barrel, not a .357 Magnum.

The 9.3mmX74mmR cartridge was equivalent in POWER to a .375 H&H
Magnum- ask any gun expert.

It also
weighed about 15 pounds and could not be carried in aircraft other
than bombers. It was wooden stocked, commercially built, desperation
weapon issued to bomber crews on the Eastern front.

Which was superbly made and quite effective in stopping enemy
personnel and light armor.

Was it a nice drilling, sure.

Krieghoff still makes outstanding Drillings for $2-5K!

Was it an effective survival weapon?

Not really, but it came in handy on the Russian front for killing.

Not by any stretch of the imagination. It was way too heavy, would
not fit in a survival kit, used ammunition unique in the German military,
etc. No one in their right mind would consider it any sort of military
weapon, much less a "survival" gun. Of course Goering was not in
his right mind :-)

Al Minyard

Rob

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 21 Apr 2004 22:47:01 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" wrote:

The US Air Force used to put a gun in their pilot survival packs, the
M-6 Scout. See: http://www.milesfortis.com/church/akc13.htm

Does anyone know what the Air Force uses today?

I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
possible.

Thanks for your help.

Kel-Tech makes a nice 9mm or 40S&W (your choice) folding carbine.
I would guess that it weights about three pounds (unloaded).

Al Minyard

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!
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

The Sauer drilling had a 9.3X74R rifle barrel, not a .357 Magnum.

The 9.3mmX74mmR cartridge was equivalent in POWER to a .375 H&H
Magnum- ask any gun expert.

It also
weighed about 15 pounds and could not be carried in aircraft other
than bombers. It was wooden stocked, commercially built, desperation
weapon issued to bomber crews on the Eastern front.

Which was superbly made and quite effective in stopping enemy
personnel and light armor.

Was it a nice drilling, sure.

Krieghoff still makes outstanding Drillings for $2-5K!

Was it an effective survival weapon?

Not really, but it came in handy on the Russian front for killing.

Not by any stretch of the imagination. It was way too heavy, would
not fit in a survival kit, used ammunition unique in the German military,
etc. No one in their right mind would consider it any sort of military
weapon, much less a "survival" gun. Of course Goering was not in
his right mind :-)

Al Minyard

Rob

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(SteveM8597) wrote:

I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
country but
not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the
situation
in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would
consider a
survival situation, just common sense.

Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray, although
I've
also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.

I've lately been thinking hard about an Alaska trip and noted
bear gun recommendations from the National Park Service.
Here's what they have posted in one spot (note that guns
can't be carried in *some* of Alaska's national parks):

"If you are inexperienced with a firearm in emergency situations, you are
more likely to be injured by a gun than a bear. It is illegal to carry
firearms in some of Alaska's national parks, so check before you go.

A .300-Magnum rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun with rifled slugs are appropriate
weapons if you have to shoot a bear. Heavy handguns such as a .44-Magnum may
be inadequate in emergency situations, especially in untrained hands.

State law allows a bear to be shot in self-defense if you did not provoke
the attack and if there is no alternative, but the hide and skull must be
salvaged and turned over to the authorities.

Defensive aerosol sprays which contain capsaicin (red pepper extract) have
been used with some success for protection against bears. These sprays may
be effective at a range of 6-8 yards. If discharged upwind or in a vehicle,
they can disable the user. Take appropriate precautions. If you carry a
spray can, keep it handy and know how to use it."

(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

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

The ol' Black Bear actually accounts for many more attacks against
humans in
the US than does the Grizzly, which makes sense being as they are more
widely distributed and have a larger population. I carried a 12 guage
pump

Are you certain of that? I've read quite consistently that
the black bear is really very slow to attack a human, even
when it has cubs. Attacks are extremely rare.

I would think.
A few years ago in The Smoky Mountains National Park I
witnessed some fool approaching two bear cubs hand out
stretched like he was offering a nut to a chipmunk. Momma
bear charged him, he turned and ran (laughing like the idiot
he was) and the three bears headed for the dense brush.

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...

I haven't heard any credible stories of Black Bear attacks either.
They're pretty willing to just go about their business and amble
along. I think that the Bears (and us) face more danger from the
Charging Buick than anything else.

I believe a back country camper was killed in the Rocky Mountain
National Park last summer just before I was out there. Drug out
of his tent at night.

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