From: mccoy@communities.com (Jim McCoy)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 18:34:34 +0800
To: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Subject: Re:BOMB PLANS
Message-ID: <v02140b00ae222dfbe500@[205.254.160.238]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sandy write:
>
> The Sunday San Francisco Examiner had an article about how simple
> it is to make a pipe bomb.  It was syndicated from the Dallas
> Morning News.  In the article a "federal bomb expert" opined:
>
>         They're probably one of the more common explosive
>         devices that are encountered.  That's because the
>         pipe not only provides a container, but fragments
>         into sharapnel."                        ^^^^^^^^^
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Now I don't know what takes to qualify one as a "bomb expert,"
> but the standards must be pretty low.  The reason hand grenades
> look like pineapples is because it's very difficult to get metal
> to fragment unless it is scored or otherwise predisposed to come
> apart in little pieces.

This is no longer true with respect to hand grenades and was not really
accurate wrt the old pineapple grenades.  Modern grenades are pre-scored
to produce good fragments, in fact one reason for abandoning the old
grenades was that they fragmented into only a few large chunks along
the weakest stress lines of the pineapple gripping and this did not
produce the desired effect (which is lots of little high-KE pieces, four
or five big pieces with relatively low-KE were produced by the pineapple
grenades...)  An equivalent effect for a pipe bomb would be produced by
mixing in a handful of brads, wire cut into 5mm lengths, or tacks, most
"recipes" for such devices I have seen tell someone to mix in nails.  This
is really stupid if you consider that most people only have relatively big
nails sitting around and coupled with the volume restriction of a pipe
bomb you will get the same poor effects as the old hand grenades.

jim