I was a helicopter crewman in army. Most of us had revolves with tracers. The idea being someone is going to pick you up pretty quickly and being able to signal your position was more important than shooting bad guys.
@@jasoncornell1579 I think the point was more that they act like a flare AND antipersonelll ammo all in one round. Getting confused and shooting bullets at S&R aircraft or flares at enemy combatants is bad. Having one kind of ammo that does both reduces confusion and carried weight.
So, instead of just replacing the aluminum cylinders with steel ones, lets trash the the entire lot and buy brand new guns identical to the old ones, but with a steel cylinder... thats our government
Especially considering there's no nomenclature that designates "Max 130gr .38 SPL" printed on the gun anywhere. I understand that it's for military use, but still... You'd think they'd at least print such an important guideline on the frame of the the gun SOMEWHERE...
@@ajcole4585 I don't think that would be an adequate solution, as the barrel would need to be upgraded as well. Best to just stick with 130gr if you can find them...
@@pastorofmuppets325 Its not the weight of the bullet that matters. You could shoot 158gr bullets through them. It's the powder type and quantity that you use. I don't know the government pressure spec, but you could possibly get away with loading them with 125gr bullets and get a slightly higher velocity.
I’m mildly amused by the irony of SAC crewman ejecting, and goes from being armed with multi-megaton gravity bomb to a low pressure .38 The .38 would be rather easier to tote around though!
When I was a kid, late 1960s - early 1970s, there was a series of articles called "I have this old gun" in The American Rifleman magazine. I went through my dad's stack of old "American Rifleman" (which went back to perhaps 1960? Lots of full back page Sam Cummings Interarms advertisements?!). I read every one of those "old gun" articles. I wonder if anyone ever collected all of these articles into one file/book??? Ian could use it as a bedtime book for his kids...
"I can just imagine what it was like to shoot one." No, you can't. With wadcutters, both this and the S&W were torturous. They were farkin' PAINFUL. I had to familiarize fire one. Never again. OMG. The charter .357 lightweight is a damned dream next to this monstrosity.
To think that they could've shaved off the same amount of weight by keeping the steel cylinder and removing material from various parts of the frame, _without_ risking the exploding-cylinder problem.
I actually have a genuine holster for one of these. For the longest time I thought it was a generic 1911 holster until someone who knew what the stamps on it meant.
@@tdestroyer4780 then you aren't trying hard enough. If you apply a bit of pressure it'll fit just fine! Hell, I shoot almost exclusively buffalo bore 357 magnum out of my 38 special revolver from the 60's and it works like a charm
I have a Detective Special around this age. I really don't think it needed to be lightened anymore, it weighs about as much as my phone empty. These things kick hard too.
An all-aluminum ultralight snubnose would be great in rimfire! With modern aluminum if this gun was made today could probably handle standard pressure .38 Special. But it might be better in .32 H&R Magnum (which can also safely fire .32 Long and .32 Short), .22 Magnum, or .22LR. But S&W J-frames and Ruger LCRs are only at most a couple of ounces heavier. Still, for weaker rounds like .22LR we could comfortably shoot even lighter revolvers. It would be pretty cool to see a revolver weighing less than 10oz. The technology exists. A longer-barreled version of the same gun would also be neat. Even with less powerful rounds than .38 Special, revolvers can be very useful. Snake guns, survival guns, backup guns (maybe a backup to your backup), deep concealment, plinking, utility, animal dispatch and slaughter. S&W can make a 13oz .357 Magnum, so I expect a 10oz .22LR could be made. It would be fun and useful, and might be a very nice backup gun in .32 Long.
Also, instead of loading a low-pressure .38 Special that was externally interchangeable with ANY .38 Special, why not just order a .38 S&W revolver that would be fine with an aluminum cylinder AND the whole cylinder and frame would be a few millimeters shorter and lighter?
That’s what I was thinking the whole time watching the video. If the goal is to make a gun that is as light as possible, why would you chamber it in .38 Special, when the same amount of gun powder could probably be stuffed in a much shorter case, and then you could make the gun itself shorter, and, well, lighter? After all, doesn’t .38 Special have a very large case, because it was originally a black powder cartridge? Given that it’s a special weapon only issued to bomber crews, you would think it wouldn’t be much of a logistical problem even if the thing used ammunition specially developed for it. It’s not like you are going to supply a downed bomber crew in Siberia with more revolver ammunition. So is there some valid reason for using .38 Special?
I am far from an expert on these small 38s but I can pass on my experience. I was but a SAC tanker (KC 135), bomber (FB111) and T-39/RC-135 executive support pilot. I also spent 3 years as a security police commander. In tankers during the Vietnam war we flew with a S&W .38 Combat Masterpiece with 4"barrel in our survival vest. In the FB-111 we carried the same weapon in a shoulder holster for transporting nuclear weapon release codes. The light weight versions were only used for anti hijack on executive support flights with passengers. My memory, however, is that it was a 5 shot that we carried in an ankle holster loaded with 2 rounds of 3" lead pellet bean bags in a plastic "bullet" designed to stun but not penetrate the pressurized aircraft skin. The next 3 rounds were unjacketed hollowpoints designed to kill but hopefully not penetrate - but not enough that they probably would. Also carried the marine version of the compact M-16 that was designated the GAU-5. LOVED IT. But, for pure fun you couldn't beat the M-60. The hot barrel swap was its biggest drawback in my mind. Stopping a runaway by breaking the belt was easy and could be recovered quickly. But for looking sharp and impressing the tourists, nothing beat our bone handled nickel plated .357's. Your program is great from the perspectives of informative content, unique items and entertaining presentation.
First off, I am an official old fart, having survived my 70th Birthday and looking forward to 71 in 2 months. In 1971 I was Stationed at a small base just out of DaNang called Camp Haskins. We moved from Phu Bi to that base when the Marines were pulled out due to Vietnamasion. Long story short, there was some black market guns available in the local villages, I came by two Airforce revolvers each with their military markings ground off. I had them for a month or so until another soldier on my base talked me into trading them off for a Thompson Sub-Machine gun. Now the little revolvers were small enough to fit in a little box I had built into my little stand I had built from scrap lumber I got from the S4 guy who did on base repairs, I had built in a small box like hidden drawer for my watch and such when I walked out to the showers that were built between our hooch and our neighbors. The Thompson, not so small so I took it to my workspace where we kept our M-16's and other defensive weapons needed should we be over run. It was just we communicators and the higher ranking officers who were allowed into our shack so it was safe there. I didn't think I could have gotten the revolvers home, I knew damn well I would go to Leavenworth should I attempt to bring the Thompson home. I later sold the Thompson to another soldier for 50 bucks, the amount I had into the revolvers (another wish I could have brought home) before I went home.
You seem so knowledgeable and articulate on these matters that you should be a full professor at Harvard or the like. Your 411 on gun matters is very interesting and super entertaining.
Speaking of ground off US property markings. a Great uncle of mine who was a cop in San Francisco in the 1950s and 60s bought an Ithica made M1911A1. He ground off the US property markings and had the old sights cut out for adjustable Bomar style revolver sights. Every time I bring it out around gun people I have to specify I didn't do that.
@@TylerLL2112 Why? Because of the act committed? Or because of your lack of reading comprehension when it comes to youtube comments? You might have ADD if you really struggle to read that.
leathery420 No, sorry for the misunderstanding man, it hurts to read that a Ithica 1911 was defaced like that. There was nothing wrong with my ability to read it.
@@TylerLL2112 Ah no problem. I suppose I was quick on the reaction with that one and for that I apologize. It's just cutting up a m1911a1 I'd expect to hurt the heart more than the brain. My bad.
leathery420 Hey, I didn’t specify what hurt from reading it. It for sure hurt my heart. I appreciate your apology. I understand that it’s hard to always understand what people intend with their comments. I could have done more to convey what I meant. Have a good one!
I had a very little weight they could have put sleeves in the cylinder, somewhat akin to solder sleeves of an aluminum automotive engine. A 38 special round that the military used was a very warm load.
They are making different versions of the new King Cobra, not to be confused with their 1980's/90's King Cobras plus they are still slowly turning out SAA's.... very slowly.
They are but I’m not impressed with the performance for the price. Paying for the name and honestly it’s not worth another $400 over the Smith and Wesson
I used to have a 11.4 oz (323.2 g) S&W model 340. It can shoot .357s. It's like trying to hold onto a scalded rabbit when you shoot it with hot loads. I didn't shoot it much.
You are either underestimating the weight difference between a 1911 and this, overestimating the weight of a cushion, or not realising that this is to go in your pack, so a seat cushion being removed wouldn't reduce weight in the correct placing.
What really makes this gun for me is all the unique Air Force markings prominently placed in many locations. Not something you often see on US service weapons. Yes service weapons are usually marked, but not to the extent that this thing is.
I think this gun was actually quite sensible . , 700 ft/s is decent velocity , not that far off many snubnose resolvers . I mean it is basically a psychological prop as its use would be so rare . And is not likely to be used beyond 7 yards , if I was a pilot I would choose this model over the steel cylinder version, if I had to carry on me all the time.
My grandpa was an airman in WW2 and I remember he complained that his handgun was too heavy for him to be able to hit anything with it until they let him start shooting it with both hands. His main issue though was that he would never actually need it (I guess he figured if he had to bail out in enemy territory, fighting his way out of an entire country was a ridiculous proposition) so it was really just a heavy piece of junk he had to haul everywhere. He hated it so much that when he got his discharge orders he just left it on his cot in China. So I can defintely see why the air force wanted lighter handguns.
if they absolutely had to use aluminum, couldn't they have just been designed to shoot 38 s&w instead to avoid using the wrong ammo. Its not like it would be a step down in power or anything.
Idk, that stubster seems more like a self forever sleep noise machine to me instead of a self defense pew pew. Like a hey were arent telling you to you know.... which is totally cool if you do.. I mean you have all this knowledge of our super secret vaporwave delivery system... and if you have to bail.. well we are give you six to party with, but you only need one ;) ;) nudge nudge. We are the chair force you know, people think we are stupid but that's just cause we want them too; leaves a bit of wiggle room.
There's a lot of misunderstanding about this gun. It was supposed to be used as a weapon of last resort; if after safely landing a pilot recognized his situation was untenable, he was expected to shoot himself, and had six tries to get it right. I mean, that had to be the plan for this gun... Right?
Makes no distinction between two differently made revolvers, asks for unsafe specifications, throws the gun away and replaces them with parts that were safe rather than replace the unsafe parts. Sounds about right for the 1970's military.
Safer to just load it with very high pressure +P+ rounds and throw the pistol at the enemy. First you may cause the superman effect (doesn't flinch when shot but ducks when the gun is thrown at him), and then if they pick it up and shoot it at you, the 2" barrel will cause a miss and the pistol will grenade in their hands.
Not that familiar with ounces, know that its about 30 grams I actually had to double check how much 11 ounces was cos that seemed way to little for a gun.
There is no reason whatsoever for this revolver to be built to this spec. The difference between a light or heavy breakfast consumed by the crew (and whether the crew took a pre - flight dump), would make more of a difference to the ejection seat than a couple of ounces of steel or aluminum.
@@invictusprima4437 Yeah, you can be assured that not everyone understands the basics of thermodynamics ;D. No really, why would you do something this stupid other than for the muzzle flash XD. If you want something that small, than take a pistol or a a sub machine gun, chamber it in 22. hornet,22. mag, 22 long, 9mm, 45. or really any other pistol caliber. They are all sufficient deadly.
It's primary purpose was to force you to break contact since the lightweight gun would just flip out of your hand and over your shoulder, necessitating the need to gain more distance from the enemy in order to fire again.
Told a friend (who is in the Air Force) about this. His response? "That is such an Air Force complaint; 'my gun's too heavy!'" (implied valley girl inflection is implied)
@M Via My old man was an nco at the air force (Turkish). He served 23 years growing tomatoes and rabbits behind anti-aircraft class barracks. They called their seniors "abi" (big brother). When i served, i kinda thought i got this, being accustomed to military and all. Boy, i was a mechanized infantry and i got scolded for calling my platoon sergeant, "sergeant". Point is whatever country you're in, air force is relax and chill. Army, isn't. (Or marines in some countries)
Most of those guns were carried in parachute packs as a survival weapon. They weren't carried as a sidearm. It was the weight limits of early ejection seats that made the overall weight of every item in the pack important.
Pistols and Revolvers were carried as sidearms when I was on active duty and I worked at Cargo and Fighter bases.
5 лет назад
Unfortunately the Air Force kept issuing the M-41 ammo. I was an U.S. Air Force Security Police Officer (Law Enforcement Specialist) 1983-1989. My issue handgun was a S&W M-15 Combat Masterpiece 38 Special. The issue 130 grain FMJ M-41 ammo was a joke, one step above throwing rocks.
in 1974 I had access to a S&W model 15 and some m41 ammo (USAF 1lt), shot some pop cans filled with sand, round knocked can over with entry hole, bullet stayed in can, probably hit like an old S&W .38 (not special) load.
On the weight during ejection topic that rings true to me, as in the British RAF pilots were having their Hi-Powers literally being ripped off of their vests during an ejection so they procured and started issuing Walther PPs to fast jet pilots which were used until actually pretty recently. I think the PPs actually came from the police who dropped them as they were too unreliable (I think it was possibly a maintenance regime issue rather than the guns themselves though IIRC). This is kind of borne out in an incident during the '91 gulf war when a Tornado was shot down and the crew captured and an Iraqi soldier tried to fire the PP into the air in celebration but it jammed.
I never understood why the Brits never put much into their small arms, I've heard that soldiers still are issued Hi-powers to this day. Do you know if that's true?
@@kylewhite8434 the Browning HP went out of British Army service completely around 20 years ago. Now the SIG and various HK are issued. As a former Browning user I have to say it's a fantastic weapon, but it doesn't have the capacity of modern pistols. We take small arms very seriously by the way.
Hi-Power was in service until 2013ish, special forces got SIG sauer 226s and 228s at early 90s. 2007 they started to replace Hi-Powers with SIG sauer 226Rs and special forces got Glock 17&19 around 2013/14.
Reminds me of the Roscoe "Satuday Night Specials" made of zinc alloy . Back in the day Roscoe was police jargon for Saturday Night Special or any cheaply made revolver .
I had one of those red ring toy snub nose. It fit in the left arm zipper pocket of my faux USAF parka. Circa 1971-73. It looked like the revolver used by Shaft.
My dad was in the Air Force from 56 to 73. He was a small arms instructor. I showed him this video and he remembers those guns, and not fondly. Said they had a lot of snap and not very accurate.
We carried similar steel S&W revolvers in our USAF survival vests in SAR (helicopter) squadrons. But if we were forced down we also had M-16s or could dismount an M-60 for some actual firepower.
I recently bought an airplane and I need to run some new fuel line between the tanks and the motor. I'm trying to locate thin walled fuel tubing. Why? Because it weighs less. If you have an airplane, you look at getting the lightest weight EVERYTHING. Little bits of weight add up. It's an 'airplane thing' to get the lightest possible---whatever.
