.

Okay, so my title is not quite accurate! But it did get your attention

Prior to the issuing the Sig M17 or the M18 (P320) pistol to pilots, the US Air Force is ensuring the firing mechanism will not discharge during an ejection from a damaged aircraft.

Link to Article which includes photos not posted below:
www.SoldierSystems.net/2017/12/28/AFOTEC-Conducts-Egress-Testing-of-Modular-Handgun-System/


AFOTEC Conducts Egress Testing Of Modular Handgun System
Thursday, December 28th, 2017

Modular Handgun System is a joint program, with all four services set to eventually field the M17/M18. Air Force pilots carry a sidearm while flying as part of their survival gear. Consequently, the Air Force Operational Test And Evaluation Command has decided to submit MHS to egress testing in order to see if it is compatible with equipment worn by pilots while ejecting from their aircraft and if it will still function after being subjected to those forces. This is the first time they’ve conducted such a test.

Above, MSgt Samuel Pruett, Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center force protection program manager, based at Eglin AFB, Florida, secures an MHS on a test dummy prior to a test on the vertical deceleration tower inside the 711th Human Performance Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, December 6th, 2017.

The vertical deceleration tower replicates ejection forces. As you can see, they tested two pistols at once, one with the 17 round magazine and the other with the 21 round magazine.

Here, MSgt Pruett checks an empty shell casing from a weapon for signs of the firing pin striking the primer at the conclusion of a test to ensure the weapon didn’t fire as a result of ejection forces.

As long as they aren't ejected at a 30 degree angle they should be just fine.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
As long as they aren't ejected at a 30 degree angle they should be just fine.

Don't you mean a negative 30 degree angle?

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
As long as they aren't ejected at a 30 degree angle they should be just fine.

I don't care WHO you are, that's funny!

quote:

Prior to the issuing the Sig M17 or the M18 (P320) pistol to pilots, the US Air Force is ensuring the firing mechanism will not discharge during an ejection from a damaged aircraft.

This may be a valid concern, but how valid? How would the gun impact a hard surface?

So...they were testing to see if the sudden acceleration of an ejecting Martin-Baker seat would light off a SIG? I guess that's what happens when the civilian guns weren't 100% drop safe...I guess. So who pays for the testing? The taxpayer? Or SIG?

I’m generally not an advocate of carrying with an empty chamber, but this seems like a situation where it might make sense.

From what I've heard, it's not unusual for a pilot or such to get damaged via being ejected.... but I really think if a person can survive the g-forces and impact of going through the canopy or what ever then a Sig pistol or even a Keltic probably can.

It's the AF they got find some way to spend extra money just to have something to do.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
I’m generally not an advocate of carrying with an empty chamber, but this seems like a situation where it might make sense.

OK, does the military not usually require empty-chamber carry anyway? Would that not make this study moot?

I would think that more was being tested than just whether the pistol could fire during ejection.

I am sure that they are also testing retention of the weapon to the pilot, hence the inclusion of both a 17 and 21 round magazine equipped pistol. A pistol won't do you much good if it gets lost during ejection.

As for comparing the civilian P320 versions to the M17, you really can't. The M17 is different enough from a typical commercial P320, even the factory upgraded guns, that it really needs to be tested on its own.

Maybe at some point SIG will offer us a pistol with full M17 specs, but currently they do not.

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm: but I really think if a person can survive the g-forces and impact of going through the canopy or what ever then a Sig pistol or even a Keltic probably can.

If the pilot goes THROUGH the canopy, he will not be needing the pistol and the injury sustained from an unintentional discharge will be the least of his worries.

Just remember to thaw the turkey before you shoot it out of the turkey cannon.

Am sure I am not the only one on the forum with ejection seat time (some of mine in a capsule as well). Everything in the cockpit is tested for compatibility with other equipment so it works when needed.

Did some quick math and figure the M-17 with 12 rounds of NATO ball is just over two pounds. Many variables in an ejection, but 12 Gs going up the rail is not unbelievable. So the pistol would weigh 25 pounds for a second or so - have to insure the holster will stay put, etc ...

I am dating myself, we were issued Model 10s for flying exercises - but never any ammo! They didn't even trust us with matches in our personal survival kit - they might rub together under G forces and ignite!

IIRC - we all got to take a ride on the same contraption as the dummy in the article at our initial fighter training base. It was "a kick in the pants."

Cheers -

OVW

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

If the pilot goes THROUGH the canopy, he will not be needing the pistol and the injury sustained from an unintentional discharge will be the least of his worries.

There are some systems that do eject the aircrew through the canopy. They are usually used on aircraft that fly low level missions and can't afford the time to jettison the canopy and wait for it to clear before firing the ejector seat. Some systems use canopy breakers on headrest of the seat, some employ det cord in the canopy to shatter it.

“Talk to me Goose”

Doesn't matter as they are likely carried with an empty chamber.

We did in the Navy with M11s. Somethings "they" told us to leave the magazine out as a well, but thats something I wasn't willing to do.

Besides, the best use of a pistol in Afghanistan by an ejected aircrew is to blow your own brains out to prevent capture / rape / sodomy prior to videotaped murder.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm: but I really think if a person can survive the g-forces and impact of going through the canopy or what ever then a Sig pistol or even a Keltic probably can.

If the pilot goes THROUGH the canopy, he will not be needing the pistol and the injury sustained from an unintentional discharge will be the least of his worries.

The OV-10 punches through the canopy. Very small bit of metal to do the job, too. The Dept of State aircraft featured heavier material. It got used, too.

The Canberra punched one crew member through the airframe. No canopy.

Some aircraft use detcord on the canopy to blow a hole, rather than separate the canopy, so yes, the crewmember may be going through the canopy, and yes, it is his biggest concern at the time, but it doesn't help to have equipment problems on the way out, and it certainly doesn't help if the weapon isn't available and functional on the ground.

Some people will do just about anything to not carry Glocks...... ;-D