Responsible howitzer owner shells house 5km away...

[BStrong]

I don't think anyone explained, why was someone firing a 105mm artillery gun in the first place? Aren't they banned for private use? (Please don't tell me they're legal. )

At any rate, the annual Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot and Trade Show is held in northeastern Oklahoma (close to the Missouri state line) in Wyondotte, OK at Mike's Auto Shoot. Mike's Auto Shoot is apparently a firing range where a guy or gal can pay a fee and then fire any one of a number of automatic weapons available.

At this year's Full Auto Shoot and Trade Show, apparently they had a one-oh-five howitzer available for recreational firing. That sounds like it maybe should be illegal. Is anyone familiar with this place or the show?

Believe it or not, artillery pieces and similar weren't even regulated until 1968 - HE or other ammunition was strictly (M/L) regulated but the pieces themselves were not.

One of the best collections in civilian hands (until recently) was housed on the S.F. Peninsula:

http://www.mvtf.org/

I became acquainted with the owner, Jacques Littlefield, when he would bring a live artillery piece out on Independence Day and fire it at a range where I'm a member.

Big Fun.

Lost him to cancer, pretty young guy. His family has sold most of the collection to The Collings Foundation:

http://www.collingsfoundation.org/menu.htm

 

[I Ratant]

Memory jog..
69 years!!!! ago, I fired a .30 caliber MG in a hangar at Marshall Field in Fort Riley KA. Armed Forces Day, ISTR.
Blanks.

 

[newyorkguy]

Anyone remember the notorious Mythbusters artillery incident?

I had heard about it. That involved a ricochet damaging a house. But it was a different kind of projectile (a cannonball) and the distance traveled was estimated at 700 yards.

I have to say as a gunner who regularly uses 105mm howitzers (well, to be honest, I haven't fired one or commanded one since '95 - I've had other duties in the unit since) I'm calling BS on the owner's "safety" measures...

Thanks your message was very interesting. How about the shell hitting the target or close to it and then ricocheting three miles? Have you ever seen anything like that? Do you think it's plausible?

 

[The Norseman]

But that's really an ahistorical and uniformed analysis. There was never an individual right (or responsibility) to possess crew-served weapons. It was always a collective responsibility. When men and arms were counted, it was almost universal that their crew-served weapons were counted separately. Statutes required private men to muster armed but that never included artillery pieces.

What evidence do you have for this from the founders and contemporary sources? Perhaps at the same time you can actually answer the point brought up with letters of marque.

Anyone on either side of the debate that pull out this bit of hyperbole are either lying or just really have no useful understanding to advance the debate.

This poisoning the well tactic you got going here is a little hyperbolic too.

 

[Border Reiver]

I Thanks your message was very interesting. How about the shell hitting the target or close to it and then ricocheting three miles? Have you ever seen anything like that? Do you think it's plausible?

While I do not have my ricochet templates here, I do know that there is a danger of ricochet up to 8km (5 miles) when fired at maximum charge from either a C3 or LG1 howiter. It is certainly possible for the round to ricochet when fired at a flat trajectory (up to 45 degrees is considered "flat" in the artillery world.

I've seen weird things in 28 years of long distance landscaping - rounds shooting longer or shorter than was the intent of the fire orders, considerable deviation in bearing, and some ricochets. So, it's possilble that the round skipped off course and went towards the house - it is also possible that the yahoos firing the gun didn't bother to check to see if there was an error in their lay that there was no housing out to the maximum range of their piece.

The article refers to this as a 105mm howitzer - which could mean an M101 or M102 howitzer, but they also called it a 3.7 inch, which is about 90mm, which doesn't correspond to any US howitzer I'm familiar with, so unless someone's got a pic of the offending piece I'm at a loss to ID it.

Additionally, I'm wondering how the person managed to get enough propellant to fire the round - commercial powder of the sort used in small arms is different from the stuff used in artillery, and it is not sold to non-militaries. This would have caused our "highly trained professionals" to use some other type of propellant. This could have caused some of the problems - the firing tables for any artillery piece (tables showing what elevation is needed to reach a particular range with a set charge, and the host of variables that affect a projectile in flight) are created for a particular formulation of propellant. Change the propellant and you can drastically affect the muzzle velocity of the round which of course will affect how far it goes.

 

[Ranb]

Why would he need to drill trained professionals on safety?

The range I work at gives everyone a safety brief; doesn't matter if they are a Navy SEAL or a beginner. It is policy. The beginners are identified and watched more closely. Each range has different conditions which some level of attention to ensure the safety standards are met. I take it you have never been to a rifle range that was not merely an open pit used for shooting?

Ranb

 

[CORed]

From the description, it seems like they fired from a rise, with the barrel angled downwards, over a valley floor that was within the boundaries of the range. Such a setup could allow the shell to travel quite far, before coming to rest safely inside the range. Depending on the height of the rise, the degree of the downward angle of the barrel, and the extent of the range in the valley below.

If a straight line extending from the barrel of the gun intersects the ground before crossing the range boundary, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a ballistic projectile fired from that gun will hit the ground somewhere short of the far edge of the range.

Assuming a responsible setup (and I've no reason to assume otherwise at this point), the shell's actual trajectory appears to be anomalous.

Of course it's perfectly reasonable to expect the shell to hit the ground. What's not so predictable is what happens after it hits the ground. Clearly the people setting up the shot expected it to stop. Most likely, it bounced instead.

 

[newyorkguy]

While I do not have my ricochet templates here, I do know that there is a danger of ricochet up to 8km (5 miles) when fired at maximum charge from either a C3 or LG1 howiter. It is certainly possible for the round to ricochet when fired at a flat trajectory (up to 45 degrees is considered "flat" in the artillery world....So, it's possilble that the round skipped off course and went towards the house - it is also possible that the yahoos firing the gun didn't bother to check to see if there was an error in their lay that there was no housing out to the maximum range of their piece...

Thanks again. I wouldn't have thought it was possible. I can't find a photo on-line of the gun (I'd love to see it) but I did find a photo (shown below) which is supposed to be of the spent round. Fairly banged up but still intact. Maybe Border Reiver can get a clue exactly what kind of gun was fired from the round?

Believe it or not, artillery pieces and similar weren't even regulated until 1968 - HE or other ammunition was strictly (M/L) regulated but the pieces themselves were not...

Additionally, I'm wondering how the person managed to get enough propellant to fire the round - commercial powder of the sort used in small arms is different from the stuff used in artillery, and it is not sold to non-militaries.

Also doing a little research, I discovered BStrong is right, there are all kinds of military hardware you can buy, up to and including surplus tanks. The problem is getting the ordinance to fire them. I believe the U.S. Government classifies artillery guns and tanks as "Destructive Devices" and in some states you apparently do need a permit to own one, though reportedly in some states you don't. I think in almost all states you definitely need a permit to acquire, store and fire the ordinance.

 

[theprestige]

I'd question the concept of professionalism held by anyone who fired an artillery gun at a car located downhill and several hundred meters away and instead hit a house three miles away.

I admit, that makes a lot more sense than suggesting that safety drills indicate a lack of professionalism.

But that's just me.

Questioning whether safety drills are a sign of professionalism is also just you.

Indeed.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Maybe Border Reiver can get a clue exactly what kind of gun was fired from the round?

I don't think he's THAT good.

 

[newyorkguy]

...I take it you have never been to a rifle range that was not merely an open pit used for shooting?

I was in a war if that counts.

 

[I Ratant]

Looking at the "range" shown on the KOAMtv coverage, a ricochet should be the most expected result from the "downward" trajectory!
.
http://www.koamtv.com/story/2586261...ge-after-14-inch-artillery-shell-enters-house

 

[Dr. Keith]

Also doing a little research, I discovered BStrong is right . . .

OT/ As a grammar pedant I would suggest "confirmed" in place of "discovered" in recognition that BStrong is typically right on this sort of stuff.

 

[Ranb]

I was in a war if that counts.

I'm sure it counts for a lot, but not for anything in this conversation.

Ranb

 

[Ausmerican]

It would seem to fall very fimly under the definiton of 'arms' as generally accepted. I don't see how you can restrict or regulate access to arms of this nature without breaching the constitution.

The founders don't mention any catagories of arms, as I understand it. The amendment is not '...the right to keep an bear arms of a certain size or catagorisation...'

Without opening the second up to all sorts of restrictive intepretations in other areas one cannot reasonably ban artillery and remain constitutional.

Yet knife and sword carry is restricted all over the place and they actually were commonly carried weapons during the founders time.
So obviously there are arms and then there are arms.

 

[trustbutverify]

I was in a war if that counts.

The one in Vietnam, right?

 

[theprestige]

OT/ As a grammar pedant I would suggest "confirmed" in place of "discovered" in recognition that BStrong is typically right on this sort of stuff.

As a pedant pedant, I would point out that the above is not an example of grammar pedantry, as the original statement was grammatically correct. What you did is more akin to tone policing.

 

[BStrong]

Not for nuthin' but it could well be that the 105mm projo could have been a cast lead slug (rather than a steel/iron solid) that deformed on impact and went a' bouncing - lots of improvised projo's are used in modern civilian artillery shooting, including the use of frozen water in 2 liter soda bottles with glued on fins - I kid you not - they work and shoot great in reproduction Civil War muzzle loading artillery, and are affordable and available.

 

[BStrong]

Thanks again. I wouldn't have thought it was possible. I can't find a photo on-line of the gun (I'd love to see it) but I did find a photo (shown below) which is supposed to be of the spent round. Fairly banged up but still intact. Maybe Border Reiver can get a clue exactly what kind of gun was fired from the round?

[qimg]http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o646/tommyguy0421/JREF/MikesRound_zps885c284f.jpg[/qimg]





Also doing a little research, I discovered BStrong is right, there are all kinds of military hardware you can buy, up to and including surplus tanks. The problem is getting the ordinance to fire them. I believe the U.S. Government classifies artillery guns and tanks as "Destructive Devices" and in some states you apparently do need a permit to own one, though reportedly in some states you don't. I think in almost all states you definitely need a permit to acquire, store and fire the ordinance.

Type 10 Special Occupational Taxpayer manufacturing license, which was described by the Late Kent Lomont as allowing one to build anything other than the really fun stuff - you know, Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons.

FTR, Destructive devices came under NFA status with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and unless one is a Curio and Relic licensed collector in certain states, all destructive devices are subject to the exact restrictions as other NFA weapons and devices are, and the fixed ammunition itself for any caliber over .50 (some exceptions for old obsolete cordite magnum hunting calibers) is a destructive device into and of itself and subject to the same restrictions and registration.

Guys that are into that end of the hobby are not deterred by the buy in point or the cost per round - $600.00 to $1,000.00 per round for top quality solid slug loads are the rule rather than the exception, and live HE rounds are generally not available for any of the modern artillery, rocket or mortar pieces.

 

[Ranb]

I was in a war if that counts.

Yeah it counts. I missed some of the details of your previous posts. I was out of line; sorry about that

Ranb