Air Marshal Bullets "Too Powerful" ???

[22rimfire]

I chronographed my duty load through my issue pistol. All I will say is that the ammunition that is issued is “high quality hollow point ammunition”. This has already been published by an aviation magazine as a direct quote from the former FAMS Director, Tom Quinn.

Shooting this “high quality hollow point ammunition” over my chronograph screen at about 8’ from the muzzle I got an average velocity for 13 rounds that is 71 FPS below the ammunition manufacturer specifications.

Maybe that answers some questions, maybe not.

M.

 

[nyresq]

Shooting this “high quality hollow point ammunition” over my chronograph screen at about 8’ from the muzzle I got an average velocity for 13 rounds that is 71 FPS below the ammunition manufacturer specifications.

are you sure you were looking at the correct info from Speer, there are two 125gr loads. you have to match the product number from the box as speer loads two almost identical 125 gr loads. the normal load and the reduced recoil/flash load that is issued.
check the product number on the end of the box, its a five or six digit number.
the difference as quoted from speer is around 80-100 fps between the normal and reduced load.

 

[22rimfire]

nyresq,

Sorry I can't comment any more than this.

Can you provide a link on the manufacturers web site to the two types of ammunition you reference? I could only find one load listing, that being for the exact type of ammunition we are issued as our daily duty round.


M.

 

[nyresq]

Rim, I attached a speer info sheet showing the two different loads, I have never fired the other load so I have no idea if it really is any different, but here is the sheet from speer.

Rimfire,I sent you a pm

 

[22rimfire]

I don't boubt your information I just do not understand why any company would produce virtually the exact same load but one has a MV of 1375 FPS and the other 1350 FPS.

A 25 FPS variation does not seem like any reason to do a sepeate load.

Now do not take this the wrong way, but I am not confirming or denying that the 125 grain Speer Gold Dot is the standard FAMS issue duty ammunition.

All I will confirm is that when I shot some of my duty ammunition over my chronograph it was 71 FPS below the factory specifications - draw your own conclusions.

*****IF****** the ammunition I shot is one of the above loads you show I am not sure how with a factory 25 FPS spread my results would make any difference at all. The results would be 1304 and 1279 FPS respectifly.

Cheers,

M.

 

[USMCRotrHed]

damage to aircraft fuselage

There were some comments made earlier about the damage caused to the aircraft skin. (Sorry, don't know how to use the quote feature). One person even said that in WW2 aircraft would routinely come back riddled with holes. another person said that if a hole was caused that it would just be repaired with a doubler at the next stop.

WELL....I work in the airline maintenance industry so I have a little knowledge here I'd like to share. modern airliners are pressurized aluminun tubes with a skin that is about an 1/8th inch thick. If the skin is penetrated or even weaken a little, a huge hole will result do to the rapid depressurization as the cabin equalizes it's pressure with the 36,000 foot altitude most airlines fly at. This hole and depressurization could, and has, sucked people out of the airplane. WW2 aircraft could survive this because with 1 exception, they did not have pressurized cabins.

I've enclosed a picture of what happened to one airliner at 24,000 due to depressurization from a crack, not even a bullet hole.

I for one think the air marshalls have a legitimate concern.

Go here http://www.aloha.net/~icarus/ for more info on this flight if interested.

 

[BluesBear]

You simply type

and paste the text you want to quote and then follow it with /quote also in []

Or you can click on the quote icon and then paste the text.
(The quote icon is the 4th from the right, it looks like a text balloon from a cartoon)



Now that I've educated you on how to quote something, other members can educate you about holes in pressurized aircraft.

 

[KingAirDriver]

Nice pic and info USMCRotrHed!

I just thought I'd share a bit more, too, about pressurization. Planes are full of holes and leak from everywhere. The way that they stay pressurized is that more air is pumped into the cabin than escapes it. There is a valve, called an "Outflow Valve," which regulates the amount of air escaping the cabin. If a larger leak or hole were to develop, the outflow valve would close and now the air would escape through the new leak, but the cabin would/should remain pressurized. If the hole is large enough, then too much air would escape and the cabin would begin to depressurize. It's obvious though that catastophic failures can and do happen, by what USMCRotrHed has shown us, but that's the basics of how it all works.

 

[carebear]

That outflow valve is about a foot square and is nowhere near closed under normal operating conditions. A single .357" diam hole, or even dozens, couldn't equal that much air escapement.

The "bullet hole leads to catastrophic depressurization" idea is a "Goldfinger" trope and has been debunked by everyone from NASA engineers, to airline pilots to the guys on Mythbusters. The evidence has been presented in numerous threads here on THR and can be searched for. A quick check on Snopes or even some concentrated googling will also bring it up.

Explosives are a threat due to the potential for massive damage to the skin and weakening of the structure of the fuselage. Bullets alone just aren't a realistic threat.

 

[nyresq]

an 18 foot wide transverse rupture in the skin is a different world from a hole the size of a dime..... and planes loose air from every joint in the skin, there are no miracle epoxy glues used on the skin to make an air tight tube... it leaks and is designed to leak.
At the FAA tec center in atlantic city I sat through a class with an NTSB instructor who showed us films of some FAA tests back in the early 90's for the Air Marshal service and concluded that over 100 rounds in an area of 3 feet around would be needed to cause any major depressureization and cause a failure in the skin. I doubt anyone would fire 100 rounds in the same exact spot...
now bombs were a different story... a quarter pound of c-4 in an overhead compartment seperated the top half of the plane with no problem...

 

[pcf]

WELL....I work in the airline maintenance industry so I have a little knowledge here I'd like to share. modern airliners are pressurized aluminun tubes with a skin that is about an 1/8th inch thick. If the skin is penetrated or even weaken a little, a huge hole will result do to the rapid depressurization as the cabin equalizes it's pressure with the 36,000 foot altitude most airlines fly at. This hole and depressurization could, and has, sucked people out of the airplane. WW2 aircraft could survive this because with 1 exception, they did not have pressurized cabins.

Hey lets not forget to mention that the 737 in question at the time of the incident was the second most heavily used 737 airframe in existence. Heavy use had caused serious metal fatigue at rivet points and this was the primary factor in why the plane's hull failed in the way that it did. The rivets were unable to contain the rupture in the hull. The problem has been addressed and is unlikely that it will ever happen again with a domestic carrier.

 

[USMCRotrHed]

I'll agree with most of what has been posted about my comments about rapid decompression. But....The outflow valve is not open enough to slide a dime through, let alone open a significant amount during flight. The fuselage is not designed to leak. If it were there would be no need for an outflow valve. The leaks come mainly from seals around the doors. I just inducted an aircraft for maintenance tonight that is over 20 years old. It has recorded 29,360+ cycles (being pressurized and depressurized) and over 55,700 flight hours, it's not one of the older ones either. The Hawaiian 737 had 89,000+ cycles, because several flights in Hawaii are less than 30 minutes. It would have "blown" it's top much sooner had it been struck with something that is measured in fps.

So, do you want to chance a bullet being fired through a new airliner, or possibly in one that may have metal fatigue and just needing a weak point to be penetrated. The simple fact that it could happen no matter how unlikely makes it a concern in aviation.

 

[nyresq]

The FAA has done numerous tests over the years and has concluded that handgun rounds do not pose any rapid decompression threat to a pressurized aircraft. If the FAA thought that handguns could bring down a plane when fired inside, or if they thought anyone would be "sucked out the side of a plane" they would ban normal handgun ammunition onboard planes and mandate special frangible ammo for FAMs and any federal agents flying armed.
But alas they haven't.
And there has only been less then a dozen recorded cases of cellular phones interfierence causing problems with electronic navigation equipment in the last 20 years (all with older more powerful and less focused bandwith types), but they are banned with further testing being done as we speak in anticipation of lifting that ban in the near future.

blow open the side of a plane with a couple of rounds? I think I'll go with the FAA Tech center on this one, and say not gonna happen...