Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!att!cbnews!military
From: jsloan@ncar.ucar.edu (John Sloan,8292,X1243,ML44E)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Side arms for Fly boys.
Message-ID: <1990Oct24.150606.15472@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 24 Oct 90 15:06:06 GMT
References: <1990Oct19.032953.13630@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: jsloan@ncar.ucar.edu (John Sloan,8292,X1243,ML44E)

>From article <1990Oct19.032953.13630@cbnews.att.com>, by fmrco!curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell):
> mean.  Clearly, a downed pilot wasn't about to fight off a lot of enemy
> troops with his .38, but it could come in handy.  

A former co-worker was a pilot in Viet Nam, first in a prop-driven
light observation plane (his tales of getting fired upon by SAMs would
raise your hair), later in a large multiengine jet.  Anyway, he told me
once that the aircrews typically carried two .38s, in shoulder holsters
under each arm. One carried conventional ammo, the other specialized
rounds like .38 caliber flares and the like. The reason they used a
revolver is that a semiautomatic wouldn't feed the specialized
cartridges. Both guns were .38s so that they could interchange
ammunition, and of course so that they wouldn't have to carry an
additional flare gun and special loads etc. for that. And of course,
carrying a couple of .357 mags could get cumbersome, particlurly in
the tight confines of the cockpit.

Although the .38 may be questionable in and of itself, in this context
it made a lot of sense to me.

--
John Sloan              +1 303 497 1243              jsloan@ncar.ucar.edu
NCAR/SCD, POB 3000      AMA#515306, DoD#0011              ...!ncar!jsloan 
Boulder CO 80307        1990 BMW K75S Pilot     jsloan%ncar@ncario.BITNET
Logical Disclaimer:  belong(opinions,jsloan). belong(opinions,_):-!,fail.