Less than lethal

HAWKENHAWKEN Senior MemberPosts: 1,685 Senior Member
Why haven't they considered putting a short barrel, 12 ga, shotgun in the pilots cabin of airplanes? They make them loaded with 1" square bean bags, with a velocity over 1000 fps. They would stop an agressor, at least temporarily, without damaging the plane or other passengers......Robin
I don't often talk to people that voted for Obama, but when I do I order large fries!
Life member of the American Legion, the VFW, the NRA and the Masonic Lodge, retired LEO
«1

Replies

  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    :popcorn:

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,834 Senior Member
    Not a bad idea...however, considering the problem they have keeping armed pilots in the cockpit, I imagine a shotgun, even using non-lethal, would be a stretch for the liberal administrators...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,458 Senior Member
    Problem is how determined these terrorist are. A bean bag to the gut might take one down, but it isn't taking enough fight out if him. If he is trying to ignite an explosive device, would you want a few bean bags stopping him or a few .38 cal slugs?
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • Uncle BSUncle BS Member Posts: 380 Member
    Do rubber bullets work?
    cpj wrote: »
    Wow. I never knew I enjoyed grilled foreskin.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    A pretty good idea, really. But it's probably not a politically correct thing to have. It could put your eye out! Seriously, the FAA doesn't want ANY sort of defensive weapon available to pilots and crew, period.

    Current mindset of people is now, however, that passengers seem to be willing to gang up on any troublemaker immediately. And with cockpits locked these days, the pilots are probably safe, just not the passengers.

    Of course there's never a total guarantee against a dedicated fanatic but so far (knocking on wood), there haven't been any terrorist successes.

    Regarding the beanbag gun, they do take the person down, terrorist or not, and after that, it appears that passengers are more than willing to help. Statistically in a planload, you're gonna have a couple of ex-servicemen, ex-LEOs, and general athletes for backup.

    I also don't think a bullet will damage any jetliner sufficiently anyway. A bullet causing explosive decompression is BS.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,458 Senior Member
    Sam, several of my friends are commercial airline pilots, and they all carry. They make it sound like the problem isn't with the faa or the airline company's, but that it is some of the pilots that want nothing to do with having a gun.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,802 Senior Member
    I'm all for pilots packin' heat, even though there was that incident with that pilot recently going nutzo. That can happen anywhere. But in the interest of the public I am all for having a sky marshall on every plane with a backup. That backup could be a pilot or co pilot. Whatever, as long as there were a couple people armed and ready for trouble. It's insane these days to fly without some form of defense against the whackos and terrorists.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • orchidmanorchidman Senior Member Posts: 7,702 Senior Member
    HAWKEN wrote: »
    Why haven't they considered putting a short barrel, 12 ga, shotgun in the pilots cabin of airplanes? They make them loaded with 1" square bean bags, with a velocity over 1000 fps. They would stop an agressor, at least temporarily, without damaging the plane or other passengers......Robin

    I thought the 'Judge' was designed for this purpose...............
    Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,802 Senior Member
    I would like to see something truly inovative, a smooth bore judge with a 6 inch barrel. Also they could make a quick change barrel for it in 45 Long Colt with proper rifling. This could be done and would be a lot more practical.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • gunrunner428gunrunner428 Senior Member Posts: 1,018 Senior Member
    Legally, Snake, a smooth-barreled handgun, even firing .410 shotshells, is a no-go, falling under Class III regulations if not more severe. This is why any .410-chambered handgun I've ever seen has rifling, with a "straightener" choke-tube type insert with straight "rifling", to counteract the spin in the shot load and hopefully give something resembling a decent pattern with the shot pellets - T/C Contender, and the old "Thunder Five" monstrosity.

    Having not handled the Judge at all, I don't know if they have a similar arrangement for the effective use of shot loads, but I can guarantee you won't ever see one with a smooth bore in the American market/legal atmosphere.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,802 Senior Member
    You are correct. I don't know what I was thinking of. I got caught up in this discussion and forgot about the good folks at the ATF, the scumbags, LOL!!! So I guess the Judge is what it is.

    Maybe in a larger guage it would work. How bout 28 or 20 gauge? At the ranges that would probably be encountered on an airplane, the rifling might not be a big deal anyway.

    Then again, if this is to be used by government employees I'm sure the legality of a short smooth bore could be dealt with.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,458 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I would like to see something truly inovative, a smooth bore judge with a 6 inch barrel. Also they could make a quick change barrel for it in 45 Long Colt with proper rifling. This could be done and would be a lot more practical.

    Snake, are you feeling OK, or did your account get hacked?
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    I think when all is said and done a great case can be made for a 5 inch barreled (S&W) revolver chambered for .45 Colt for use with frangible ammo.
    Lots of training.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Sam, several of my friends are commercial airline pilots, and they all carry. They make it sound like the problem isn't with the faa or the airline company's, but that it is some of the pilots that want nothing to do with having a gun.

    Thanks for the info, Sir. I'm still suspicious of anything pro-gun or even gun-neutral coming from the current administration, though.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,259 Senior Member
    Nothing new under the sun- - - - - - -

    autoburg.gif

    Ithaca Auto and Burglar- - - - -sold in .410, 28 Gauge, 20 Gauge, and a very few in 16 Ga. It was originally designed for bank guards, truck drivers, and other close up and personal defensive work. The big knob on the grip is to prevent the action latch from cutting the web of the shooter's hand during recoil.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Those shotguns were great with Remington Kleenbore paper hull cartridges, I loved that stuff when I could still lay My hands on a case of a thousand.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    Dumb question ... IF pilots are allowed to carry what happens when they land in unfriendly states like New York (especially LaGuardia and JFK in NYC), California, etc?
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,458 Senior Member
    Stand by, trying to get you an answer.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,458 Senior Member
    They are authorized by the Federal Air Marshals, some what deputized. Remember that while a fed agent, an air marshal only has jurisdiction in a plane.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    orchidman wrote: »
    I thought the 'Judge' was designed for this purpose...............

    Add one of these to the mix:

    New details emerge about Jet Blue pilot's midair meltdown
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-jet-blue-pilot-20120328,0,802613.story
    That would be fun.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,458 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    Add one of these to the mix:

    New details emerge about Jet Blue pilot's midair meltdown
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-jet-blue-pilot-20120328,0,802613.story
    That would be fun.

    Ummmm a pilot who wanted to kill his passengers would be wasting his time using a gun....
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Ummmm a pilot who wanted to kill his passengers would be wasting his time using a gun....

    Not all, just the one he do not like, much.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    Not all, just the one he do not like, much.

    That is silly, did you forget what happened on 9/11/01 ???? no firearms were used to hijack those planes.

    Edited to add:

    There is no law that will ever prevent anyone from wringing off someones head and stuffing in their game bag.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    DoctorWho wrote: »
    That is silly, did you forget what happened on 9/11/01 ???? no firearms were used to hijack those planes.

    Edited to add:

    There is no law that will ever prevent anyone from wringing off someones head and stuffing in their game bag.

    I do not think you got my drift.
    If you want armed guards on board, have trained armed guards on board.
    Pilots are trained to fly the plane, let them do there job.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    I do not think you got my drift.
    If you want armed guards on board, have trained armed guards on board.
    Pilots are trained to fly the plane, let them do there job.

    The Pilot should have the means to repel attacks.

    Do you think Hi-jackers care a bit about letting the Pilot do his or her job unmolested ?
    That is the problem with lame reasoning.

    Armed personnel among the passengers is as risky as armed corrections officers in direct contact with unshackled / unrestrained prisoners in the prison areas.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    From who?
    The trained armed guard?
    The attack should not get that far where the Pilot needs to repel it.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Control of the cockpit is the hi-jacker's main objective, the idea is to make that objective as impenetrable as possible, light but very strong bulkheads and cockpit doors for starters, and then armed Pilots to defend said cockpit from attack.

    The better idea would be to prevent hi-jackers from ever boarding, however since that is impossible, the better idea is to at least prevent the hi-jackers from taking control of the plane,
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Defend the cockpit by all means, sit the guard on the pilots lap if you must, just let him fly the plane.
    Or train the guard just to land the plane in case the pilot goes down with all guns blazing.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    That is silly Winnie the Pooh logic.

    The Pilot will not be outside the cockpit, nor should the Pilot open the door, the idea is to prevent a hi-jack by preventing access to the cockpit, as long as that door is shut, the plane cannot be hi-jacked, portholes allowing the pilot to safely shoot a hi-jacker intent on breaching the bulkhead or door would be a good idea.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • PFDPFD Senior Member Posts: 1,202 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I am all for having a sky marshall on every plane with a backup.

    I can't personally vouch for these statistics but I'll sure listen to any story of the last time an air marshal made an arrest.

    $200 million per arrest? Seriously, what would happen if the air marshals program were disbanded? My taxes might go down by a half a cent next year but at least it's a step in the right direction.

    I believe any would-be terrorist is way more concerned with being thwarted by the passengers than a chance encounter with an air marshall.

    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/04/the_effectivene.html

    April 8, 2010
    The Effectiveness of Air Marshals

    Air marshals are being arrested faster than air marshals are making arrests.

    Actually, there have been many more arrests of Federal air marshals than that story reported, quite a few for felony offenses. In fact, more air marshals have been arrested than the number of people arrested by air marshals.

    We now have approximately 4,000 in the Federal Air Marshals Service, yet they have made an average of just 4.2 arrests a year since 2001. This comes out to an average of about one arrest a year per 1,000 employees.

    Now, let me make that clear. Their thousands of employees are not making one arrest per year each. They are averaging slightly over four arrests each year by the entire agency. In other words, we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest. Let me repeat that: we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest.
    That's all I got.

    Paul
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.