Armed vs Unarmed

[Steelcutter48]

I come down strongly on the side of sailing armed. For those who are uncomforable with firearms in the states, don't take one. It's a matter of personal philosophy.

Now, if one does decide to sail armed, there are very different considerations at work in choosing your weapons than back in the USA. In many countries, "military calibers" are forbidden. That is, 9mm, .45mm, 5.56mm, 7.62NATO etc. In general, shotguns are looked on more favorably than other weapons. Revolvers raise fewer eyebrows at clearing customs than auto pistols. Another approach is to buy an inexpensive military surplus bolt action rifle in an obsolete caliber, and call it your "shark rifle." A British .303 Enfield would be ideal.

If you are being shadowed/stalked by a suspicious vessel in a threatening way, the presence of your rifle at binocular range may mean the would-be pirates will look elsewhere for easier pickings. Not even pirates want to risk a rifle shot wound at sea.

[fulano]

In regard to what type of rifle to carry, I suggest something high-power, such as the 7.62NATO, 30-06, etc. In the event of pirates attacking your ship, I would think one's best bet would be to try to disable their ship. My Springfield Armory SAR8 is accurate to around 800 yards, scoped. The 7.62NATO round it fires can pierce engine blocks. At around 1/3 nautical mile, you could shoot up their boat enough to discourage them, or even sink or disable them.

My thinking is that once a pirate vessel gets close, they will probably out-man and out-gun their intended victim.

[JeanneP]

Originally Posted by name='Converted Post'

At around 1/3 nautical mile, you could shoot up their boat enough to discourage them, or even sink or disable them.

My thinking is that once a pirate vessel gets close, they will probably out-man and out-gun their intended victim.

And at 1/3 mile, how do you know that the boat approaching you is manned by pirates intending to do you wrong?

[midshipman]

I realize this is a very serious subject and should be treated with sobriety. I however could not help myself when reading J's last comment. I hope my input clears up the question of how one spots a pirate at a quarter mile. I mean everyone knows you look for the Jolly Roger Forgive Me

[JeanneP]

Forgiven

Here's another one. Though don't expect a story, he didn't live to tell it.

http://www.noonsite.com/Members/doin...4-06-29-2/view

What do you think of this incident? On March 8th, two yachts travelling together off the coast of Yemen were fired at into the cockpits. One of them managed to return fire, which probably saved their lives. There is a full, first person account at Noonsite.com

As more and more pirates carry and use guns, more cruisers will too. Right or wrong I think that's the way it'll go. Shame.

We're more likely to be shot at living in a city but the difference is that on the sea your more isolated from help.

I know I'm joining this a bit late, but...

I have a question.

Reading the reports, it appears the main reason that you would need a gun would be to 'repel borders' in a piracy situation.

Now reading these piracy reports again, it seems that to have a gun, even a powerful assault rifle, would at best put you on even terms with some pretty desperate people, would probably have more guns, and (in my case certainly) a greater desire to hurt someone.

Indeed the most successful defense of a yacht was through ramming their aggressors - despite shots being fired.

As a boat tends not to be bullet proof, and working on the principle that a sure-fire way to get someone to fire on you is to fire on them first, wouldn't any such situation effectively be tantamount to forfeiting your boat?

From a pure common sense angle, it seems that unless you can escalate a situation beyond their capabilities, you are only ever trying to bluff them - a dangerous game when one bullet below the waterline could leave you swimming.

To me, I think a far better deterent/way to protect yourself/make sure the baddies don't come close would be some form of rocket launcher. Even if you aim to miss, I doubt they would carry on in the face of something that is clearly a massive risk to their boat/lives...?

I know this is a tad controversial, but I would value people's opinion on this.

[Baggywrinkle]

I don't know whether it was a Lee Enfield, but the late Sir Peter Blake challenged his assailants with a bolt action rifle and was shot dead for his trouble. His crew members, one of whom received a shot in the back, lived to tell the tale.

They will tell you, to a man, that had he not brandished that weapon

pride would have been deeply injured, and a few Omega Seamaster watches lost (they went anyway), this famous yachtsman, irreplaceable world citizen, husband, and father would be alive today.

[Chetan]

was just wondering why the general trend is that offense seems to be the best form of defense?

there is an understandable lack of enthusiasm at the thought of someone boarding a vessel that is not theirs and helping themselves to anything at all - even if it is something as insignificant as a shackle or some line. but its only logical not stake life or limb in the process of trying to protect "pride".

i actually wonder about some action of a more disuasive nature - perhaps a smoke screen that may be deployed, perhaps a water-jet / cannon... knowing the resourcefulness and inventiveness of the cruising community i am sure there are more alternative than the polar opposites we seem to be considering here - passive resistance or kill em all, and let god sort 'em out.

[Baggywrinkle]

Or a water pistol - they might die laughing.

Many years ago we were boarded by Indonesian militia in the Riau group. They were armed with rifles so rusty, I'm sure firing them would have blown the firers head off. As it turned out, we managed to exit that one a a cost of a few cartons of fags, a couple of bottles of scotch, and bruised egos.

Unfortunately weaponry is now plentiful and comparatively cheap. A person setting himself up in piracy is likely to be have sophisticated autmatic weapons. More to the point, he is likely to be adept and practised at handling these weapons.

By any military measure the firepower required to see off one or more persons thus armed is going to be beyond the scope of most yachts crews who, being by definition "amateur" are not likely to be as well trained or militarily co-ordinated.

Of course there are yachtsmen who have the necessary skills and confidence but they will be the exception. If someone thus equipped can be bothered with all the pallaver of 'cloaking' their weapons at every port of call, with the endless paperwork entailed, then jolly good luck to them. I am an ex-military person with active service behind me and, quite frankly I am firmly in the UN-armed camp.