Air Marshal Bullets "Too Powerful" ???

Status
Not open for further replies.

David

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
804
Location
USA
From today's Washington Times:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060613-123248-2105r.htm

Air marshals warn their bullets are too powerful
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Federal air marshals say their guns are loaded with bullets capable of running through more than one person, metal doors and thick glass -- too much firepower for an airplane.

"Not only is the person getting shot in danger, but everyone on the plane is because of the distance it travels," said one air marshal who testified in a recently completed House Judiciary Committee investigation of policies marshals deemed dangerous.

Several marshals say their bullets can penetrate most of the material in planes, leaving pilots and the plane's hydraulics and flight-control system vulnerable if a weapon is discharged. Cockpit doors have been hardened with steel, but the walls on either side of the door have not.

Another marshal told the House committee agents should be issued ammunition loaded with frangible bullets, which break into smaller pieces on impact and thus have limited power to exit the target and continue.

"An aircraft is made up of composites, plastics, and aluminum. If a round were to penetrate through the front plastic/composite windshield of the aircraft, the results would be catastrophic at 500 miles per hour. We should be using frangible ammunition. It's a no-brainer," the Nov. 27 memo said.

The House Judiciary report, released last week, included the committee's concerns about the ammunition, but the Transportation Security Administration's response was redacted from the report.

Federal Air Marshal Service Director Dana Brown is reviewing the agency's use of a .357-caliber handgun and Speer Gold Dot .357 SIG round, nonfrangible ammunition, said FAMS spokesman Conan Bruce.

Mr. Bruce said air marshals used to use frangible ammunition but switched weapons and ammunition after researching testing by outside groups. The change was approved by former FAMS Director Thomas Quinn, a former Secret Service agent.

Massad Ayoob, a ballistics authority and director of the Lethal Force Institute, calls the ammunition "an excellent load" that the Secret Service uses to protect the president. The bullet is designed to expand in the body to cause greater physical harm.

"If you get a peripheral hit in the arm, it has enough power to keep going and kill whoever it hits," said Mr. Ayoob, who explained that the bullet moves 1,350 feet per second.

"It's no trick to change the ammunition load they are using now to 1,500 feet per second to get a 10-inch, very substantial wound, and it would minimize the likelihood of an exit," Mr. Ayoob said. "That would reduce penetration by a few inches and widen the wound, which brings about a faster cessation of the action."

Federal air marshals have tough shooting requirements and "are among the best shooters in law enforcement," Mr. Ayoob says.

Don Strange, former special agent in charge of the FAMS Atlanta field office, said the ammunition FAMS agents use is good for the Secret Service and other law enforcement but not in the "tube of an airplane."

"It would penetrate at least the first body, but it can also penetrate a second and possibly third body," Mr. Strange said.

Mr. Strange has more than 30 years of federal law-enforcement experience but says he was fired from FAMS by Mr. Quinn for criticizing the agency's choice of ammunition, dress code and other policies.

When Mr. Strange informed officials at FAMS headquarters of his concern about the weapon's load, "I told them I hoped the reason we were using it was not because Quinn wants us to, and they said that is the reason."

Philip Van Cleave, a former deputy sheriff and president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said he was surprised to learn the marshals are not using frangible firepower.

"It's ironic that the very people who are carrying the guns are complaining, that tells you something there -- they don't want to be underarmed, but they want to be able to protect passengers," Mr. Van Cleave said.

Several thousand pilots are trained to carry guns to protect the cockpit, however David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, declined to say what kind of weapons or ammunition are used by federal flight-deck officers.

"The federal air marshals are competent and experienced law enforcement, and I would take any recommendations they would make very seriously," Mr. Mackett said.

The House investigation said in its report released last week that policies dictating dress and boarding procedures in sight of passengers undermine the marshals' anonymity and suggested that any marshal who initiated changes fell victim to retaliation.

In its response to the committee, the Transportation Security Administration, which manages FAMS, said the policies have been changed. Air marshals who spoke to panel lawyers disagreed with the TSA's claims in interviews with The Washington Times.

******
:what: :uhoh: :what:
 
Last edited:
while generally the fear of "overpenetration" is groundless, in this case it may have some validity. They're using 357 Sigs in a very enclosed space, the bullet may punch through the hull of the plane or it may even go through a bad guy and down several rows of people.

But I feel all of this is moot anyway and the concept of air marshalls is a bit redundant. IMHO 9/11 was the last hijacking we'll ever see. At that time you could hijack a plane with a sharpened pencil because everyone knew they'd come out safe if they just stayed in their seats and let the thing be flown to Pakistan or wherever. Now if anyone tries to hijack a plane they will be jumped by every passenger on board, and air marshalls won't be able to see, let alone shoot, the hijackers due to the mass of everyone else pummelling them.
 
I thought there were fairly FEW pilots trained and approved by the TSA to carry guns aboard aircraft. I've read that TSA really doesn't like the idea and drags it's feet wherever possible. I'll have to do some more research, however, since I can't really back that up at the moment.
 
Snap,

All the handguns that were purchased for the armed pilot program are being sold of as surplus. I'd say few, if any armed pilots ever carried and I doubt the program will be reinstated.

David
 
What? I just went searching and found this article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1393211/posts

It's on some other forum and over a year old, but I was hoping it held true today. Any links to documentation of the Federal Flight Deck Office program weapons being sold off as surplus?

Edit: Looks like the Time article there was bovine excrement, if these guys are to be believed:

http://www.secure-skies.org/

Check out the "Members of the Public" link at the top.
 
I don't know about documentation, but I'll talk to one of the people that issupposedly handling some of the weapons. The last thing I heard was TSA was no longer going to operate the program. This was last fall. The actual number of flights made by armed flight crews is a "secret". I think the obstructionist in the TSA made sure that number was very low.

David
 
Doggieman

...................But I feel all of this is moot anyway and the concept of air marshalls is a bit redundant. IMHO 9/11 was the last hijacking we'll ever see. At that time you could hijack a plane with a sharpened pencil because everyone knew they'd come out safe if they just stayed in their seats and let the thing be flown to Pakistan or wherever. Now if anyone tries to hijack a plane they will be jumped by every passenger on board, and air marshalls won't be able to see, let alone shoot, the hijackers due to the mass of everyone else pummelling them.[quote/]

+1 to Doggieman--my thoughts exactly.

Sam

(Hey, one of these days I'll learn to use the "quote" feature correctly.)
 
To someone who mentioned a hole in the fuselage of the plane...So? That'd have no effect whatsoever.

The only overpenetration damage to worry about would be other passengers, crew, or damage to the cockpit windows, hydraulic lines and electronic equipment.

A hole in the aircraft is nothing but a matter for repair when they're on the ground later, and possibly a slight, if annoying whistle at pressurized altitude until someone sticks something over it. It won't have any other effect, a la Hollywood. :rolleyes:
 
To someone who mentioned a hole in the fuselage of the plane...So? That'd have no effect whatsoever.

The only overpenetration damage to worry about would be other passengers, crew, or damage to the cockpit windows, hydraulic lines and electronic equipment.
Likewise, all electrical and hydraulic systems in commercial aircraft are triple redundant, with backup lines physically spaced from the primary ones.
 
And, grim as it may sound, I can easily visualize a situation in which you might have to shoot through a passenger to hit the terr in order to keep him from blowing up the whole plane.
 
I've always thought it was a poor choice for air marshalls. It's been my experience at the range that .357Sig produces an awfully loud report with a lot of muzzle blast. Not something I'm want to experience inside an enclosed airplane. I think either standard or +P 9mm would be more than adequate for the task.
 
"It's no trick to change the ammunition load they are using now to 1,500 feet per second to get a 10-inch, very substantial wound, and it would minimize the likelihood of an exit," Mr. Ayoob said. "That would reduce penetration by a few inches and widen the wound, which brings about a faster cessation of the action."
Is this possible for .357 SIG? I have never heard of commercial loads at 1500 fps.
 
Read Col. Charlie Beckwith's book Delta Force. He said that the .45ACP reigned supreme for pistol calibers. It is an ideal round for hostage situations. He specifically used the example of airplane hostage takedowns. He said that it you shoot a hostile in an airplane with a 9mm, the 9mm will go through the hostile, through a chair in the airplane, and into the person sitting in the next chair, and possibly keep going after that. However, a .45ACP will tear into the hostile, deforming and expanding so much that when it exits, if it exits, the round will probably get stuck in the chair behind the hostile. So it is that high velocity rounds do pose a greater risk to other passengers on planes.
 
I usually eschew the whole "caliber wars" idiocy, but for the .357SIG is a "small and fast" round ... the purpose of which is penetration.

Why they aren't packing .45acp with its hard hitting, but less penetrating capabilities is beyond me.

Hell, might as well issue 'em 5.7mm Steel Core :rolleyes:



The problem with Glasers and other frangible ammo is that its just not as effective in stopping a threat and its more important that you stop a hijacker RIGHT EFFING NOW! especially if he has his hand on some sort of explosive device.
 
Three words: Glaser safety slugs.
Glasers are a very poor choice for any serious PD use IMHO. They simply do not penitrate enough to reliably stop an assalant. Sure you will mess him up, but he will still be functional and able to do damage for quite awhile until he bleeds to death or you get a headshot.
 
"Not only is the person getting shot in danger, but everyone on the plane is because of the distance it travels,"
Apparently .357 SIG is so unbelievably powerful it will ORBIT THE EARTH, allowing it to repeatedly penetrate the plane, and kill everyone on board, rather than just everyone who happens to be along a particular straight line.
 
I think the problem the air marshals are alluding to with this statement:

"Not only is the person getting shot in danger, but everyone on the plane is because of the distance it travels,"

Is the fact that a plane is a long narrow cylinder and that there is no way to shoot a bad guy without half the plane standing right behind them, and the .357 sig isnt going to stop moving in just one bad guy. Anyone seated in a row behind the target had a decent chance of getting shot too.
 
Just a reminder...

...if an air marshal discharges a firearm inside an in-flight airplane, he's doing so because if he doesn't EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE.
 
Good point ct,

I hereby volunteer to absorb that over-penetrating round (with the consequent 3 in 4 chance of survival) on any hijacked flight I'm on if it prevents an F-16 from putting a Sidewinder into the wing.
 
I've always thought it was a poor choice for air marshalls. It's been my experience at the range that .357Sig produces an awfully loud report with a lot of muzzle blast. Not something I'm want to experience inside an enclosed airplane.
Seems like a good opportunity for someone to develop an integral suppressor that is concentric back on the barrel. No small task, for sure. Too bad that private individuals can't help solve such problems as they arrise the way we did 100 years ago (think Browning and Maxim). :rolleyes:
 
if an air marshal discharges a firearm inside an in-flight airplane, he's doing so because if he doesn't EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE.
Or he's a human being and makes an error in judgment.

Either way, I'll agree that the .45ACP would be my choice - heavy and slow. Make it a nice JHP instead of ball, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top