Major Variola (ret) wrote:

...

Interesting questions: How hard is it for someone to actually hit an airplane with a rifle bullet? How often do airplane

At 12:16 PM 1/4/05 -0500, John Kelsey wrote: maintenance people notice bulletholes?

...

My understanding is that a single bullethole in a plane

is not likely to do anything serious to its operation--the hole isn't big enough to depressurize the cabin of a big plane, and unless it hits some critical bits of the plane, it's not going to cause mechanical problems.

FWIW Recall that a few 'copters have been taken down with AK fire, though the birds/round is likely low. And copters are more delicate than a multi-engined fixed wing.

It appears that the Iraqi resistance fighters figured out that of several of them simultaneously fire full-auto AK's in front of a chopper flying overhead, sometimes they'll get lucky. Of course, these are low, slow targets. We're discussing a terrorist trying to take out a commercial jet with a 50 BMG, right? Even at takeoff, a passenger jet is moving at 150-200 mph, a *lot* faster than a clay pigeon, or the choppers the Iraqis hit.

Hitting the cabin would be pretty effective though. And certain parts of big planes are vital, perhaps moreso on fly by wire Airbus planes.

I understand that there is redundancy in the critical components. Hitting the pilot AND copilot at takeoff would probably be effective, but you've got one (1) shot before its out of range, and its moving fast. A tracer into a fuel tank may also be effective.

A homemade mortar through the roof of your van (IRA style) onto a stationary, taxiing plane would be pretty spectacular, sitting ducks... lots of cameras... easy getaway or repeat fire..

But that's not the 50 BMG scenario. The most effective way to use the 50 BMG would probably be to hit an engine intake rotor while the jet is still on the ground, starting its takeoff roll. This probably won't kill anyone, but would have a big economic impact as people decided not to fly. ...but that's still a damn difficult shot. The target is moving, the bullet has non-trivial flight time (well over a second at long range). Getting a first shot hit is highly improbable. All in all, the 50 BMG vs jet scenario is just plain bogus.

Of course the BMG crap is all about eroding rights, not reality.

I honestly don't think that many politicians wake up in the morning and think to themselves 'What rights can I erode today?'. I think it's more 'what can I do that will make me *look* good?' . It doesn't matter if their action is actually effective, it matters that it makes them appear to be 'doing something' and makes for a good 5 second sound bite. 50 BMG rifles are used, very rarely, for hunting. For an example, see: http://www.fcsa.org/articles/1994-1/elk_hunt.html More people are into very long range (1000 yard and up) target shooting. Those are the only 'legitimate' civilian reasons to use a 50 BMG. It's like owning a McLaren F1 - you can't use it much, but its very, very, cool. As a result, it's difficult for most people to come up with a justification to own one beyond 'because it's very, very cool'. [I'm deliberately leaving aside the 2A rights issue (which in a better world would be then end of the argument) since it doesn't seem to get much traction with most politicians or sheeple any more]. 50BMG rifles look very, very, tactical. I've never seen one with a walnut stock. They are the canonical 'scary looking gun'. So, the politician sees a type of gun: * Which theoreticly could be used to do Very Bad Things. * Owned by a group of people too small to be significant voting block. * For which its difficult to come up with a practical use. * Which looks very photogenicly scary. ...and he or she thinks 'Wow, a lot of people will feel safer it I ban these, and I can make them think I'm protecting them. Also, getting on TV with one of these is a great visual.' Actual reality doesnt enter it. Peter Trei