Jump to content
The Education Forum

Air Guns? How powerful were they in '63


Jim Feemster
 Share

Recommended Posts

TO ANYONE: Would it have been possible for say a CO2 air gun to power a projectile thru JFK's head?

No.

And if so what sound would its use have produced?

It would have produced the sound of disappointment from those attempting such folly, such as: "Damn it--I told you it wouldn't work!"

Wound anyone know of weapons like this in 1963?

There were obviously air guns in 1963. However, none (to my knowledge) were capable of accomplishing what you are talking about.

EDIT for clarity:

I should have said "in my opinion" regarding the above--and, I didn't intend to be as sarcastic as it sounds... :tomatoes

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Greg,

Just thought the sound of an air gun might be a reason some only heard 3 shots.

jim

Hi Jim,

Do you mean that you were wondering if the reason ONLY 3 shots were heard by some is that the remaining

shots were unheard as a result of the relatively inaudible air gun sound? I think that's what you are asking.

IMO, the amount of mass that a projectile would need to possess in order to inflict the kind of damage that

JFK suffered exceeds the upper limit of 1963 "air power" technology. IOW: the mass of the bullets required

to do the job was too high for "air" alone to power. Again, that is my opinion only. Although I have a fairly

good working knowledge of the subject, I'm no expert by any means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Greg,

Just thought the sound of an air gun might be a reason some only heard 3 shots.

jim

Hi Jim,

Do you mean that you were wondering if the reason ONLY 3 shots were heard by some is that the remaining

shots were unheard as a result of the relatively inaudible air gun sound? I think that's what you are asking.

IMO, the amount of mass that a projectile would need to possess in order to inflict the kind of damage that

JFK suffered exceeds the upper limit of 1963 "air power" technology. IOW: the mass of the bullets required

to do the job was too high for "air" alone to power. Again, that is my opinion only. Although I have a fairly

good working knowledge of the subject, I'm no expert by any means.

Greg/Jim

you are looking at over 1000 FPS for a .22 but some home(overgassed) gas powered can reach double that figure. But with such a small (throat wound type )projectile penetration would be a problem.Unless just delivering to blood supply levels in the Derma .

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Greg,

Just thought the sound of an air gun might be a reason some only heard 3 shots.

jim

Hi Jim,

Do you mean that you were wondering if the reason ONLY 3 shots were heard by some is that the remaining

shots were unheard as a result of the relatively inaudible air gun sound? I think that's what you are asking.

IMO, the amount of mass that a projectile would need to possess in order to inflict the kind of damage that

JFK suffered exceeds the upper limit of 1963 "air power" technology. IOW: the mass of the bullets required

to do the job was too high for "air" alone to power. Again, that is my opinion only. Although I have a fairly

good working knowledge of the subject, I'm no expert by any means.

Greg/Jim

you are looking at over 1000 FPS for a .22 but some home(overgassed) gas powered can reach double that figure. But with such a small (throat wound type )projectile penetration would be a problem.Unless just delivering to blood supply levels in the Derma .

Ian

there's a much simpler answer-Mitch Werbell invented the Sionic supresser and Jack Cannnon the Glaser Safety Slug which would look vwey similar to the many projectiles seen on the XRays. They along withn George Nonte make an interesting combination. All 3 had connections to intelligence. A friend who retired from CIA told me the old China hands were pretty extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Air guns were used in warfare as far back as the 18th century and for large game like wild boars more recently so do I doubt a human head or throat would have been much of a challenge in 1963.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Air guns were used in warfare as far back as the 18th century and for large game like wild boars more recently so do I doubt a human head or throat would have been much of a challenge in 1963.

Reccommended to be used by Olympic class sprinters only .There is nothing angrier than a "stung Bore"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

you are correct . i thought that may be the case.

In the past i had a Mossberg 22 cal. w/ 5 shell clip. It shot 22 shorts and only sounded like a pellet gun but still potentially leathal.

Another time while in the U S Army stationed in Germany I was picked to qualify with German weapons. I shot a 45 " grease gun " a World War Two machine gun. You can actually see the 45 slugs come out of the barrel and follow their paths down range. But even with this slow velosity the gun was in extensive use even into the early seventies. Also the sound wasn't ear shattering.

jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very cool stories, Jim. I love Mossbergs, in general. I still own a 12 Guage Mossberg Shotgun to this day. Very reliable. However, it's anything but quiet! :D

One more consideration regarding the 45 grease gun still in use into the 70's: It is quite desirable (operationally speaking, that is) to employ a weapon that will "severely wound" individual soldiers of the enemy, as opposed to blowing them away, because their fellow soldiers will be faced with the choice of either abandoning their fallen comrades or dragging/carrying them out. If the weapon kills the enemy soldier, you've only taken out one guy. However, if it doesn't kill him but only severely wounds him, you've taken out a minimum of 2 or 3.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...