Now this is in fact the correct origination of the expression the whole nine yards, although details are somewhat hazy.
During the Second world war fighter planes were equipped with machine guns or cannon, in the modern sense of the word, that is a machine gun that fires explosive rounds. Both were fed by belts of ammunition that were, you guessed it, nine yards long. Hence when a pilot said, after shooting at a target “I gave it the whole nine yards” it meant he gave it everything he got, in the most litteral sense.
Welcome to the Boards, olihale. In the future, please post a link to Cecil’s column so we’re all talking about the same thing: What’s the origin of “the whole nine yards”?
For your reading enjoyment, here are ten previous threads, in this forum alone, none of which provide any credence to the explanation you provide:
Most recently: did the whole nine yards issue ever get resolved
And before that:
The whole nine yards…
“the whole nine yards”
The whole nine yards
The Whole Nine Yards
the whole
9 yards…
the whole nine yards
the whole nine yards
yards, and nine of them …
The Whole Nine Yards Explanation
In other words, olihale, we’re not saying you’re wrong, but we are saying the explanation has been proposed before and as yet there is no evidence to support it. Now, if you know something we don’t, if you have a contemporary magazine article or newspaper citation or some other print reference from World War II instead of from twenty years after the fact, if you have the long-sought proof that will finally lay this mystery to rest once and for all, then you will be raised to our shoulders and paraded through the land as the etymological hero, as the wordmaven who dispelled the pressing darkness with the light of truth after lo these many decades of confusion and uncertainty. Statues will be raised, airports and highways will be renamed, yea, even our national currency will be redesigned to feature your shining face. Children will learn your name in their history classes from now until the mountains crumble into the sea, and our descendants will recall you with love and admiration as they enjoy the federal holiday that will surely be declared in honor of your staking this etymological vampire in its cold and withered heart.
But all of that will happen if and only if you bring us the actual evidence that proves your claim. Until then, you’re just another jamoke with a good story. 
Oh, and welcome to the boards. 
P.S. av8rmike, you might want to have someone other than Florida election officials perform the count of your “ten” previous threads. 
Cervaise, correct me if I’m wrong, but av8rmike’s count appears to be correct. The link with the “…” after it belongs to the line above it - there’s just a line break in the text description.
Perhaps you had your count done by Chicago election officials. Not really an improvement over those from Florida.
Far be it from me to make demands of the Perfect Master, but I will make a suggestion. Perhaps the column in question could be updated (perhaps with a “The People Speak, Round Three”) to include the ammo-belt conjecture. That way, those who read the column wouldn’t constantly start new and unsupported threads on this idea.
Most of the OPs of av8rmike’s ten links are posting the same hypothesis, with the same lack of backing. You could also list some of the others, such as ‘the distance between the inner and outer walls of a prison,’ ‘the amount of cloth needed to make a great kilt,’ and ‘the amount of carpeting needed to cover a staircase.’
I truly believe that putting more of the guesses in a column update would help fight ignorance, as well as offering the Great Cecil a chance to exercise his killer sarcasm upon these fact-free statements.
He did, it just happened to be in the column about cocktail umbrellas 
. I didn’t find that until after I’d done my forum search. Cecil’s take was, if it really was a WWII phrase, why is there no use of it in any WWII correspondance or literature? Nothing about a pilot using an entire ammo belt being an exceptionally poor or wasteful shot.
And I have no idea why there’s a line break in the one link.
Well, you see, I was operating in base eleven, because I’ve been reading Battlefield Earth, and when I counted down the list I skipped knuckles for the months that were 30 and 31 except when a “shronk” is declared and the Royal Fizzbin is disallowed by the oh screw it.
Me = :wally
Speaking of Florida counting, it really seems to me that World War II was a bit more than twenty years ago!
Yes, but I think Cervaise was challenging olihale to find a reference to that origin dated before 1965, i.e. no more than 20 years after the fact.
I have nothing to contribute beyond an observation that a thread title such as this one is almost guaranteed to have a lot of views; cf, the potential rewards Cervaise promises to the solver of this mystery.
To put it in easy to understand terms: if you solve the “Whole Nine Yards” mystery, you’ll get the whole nine yards.
The Whole Nine Yards could have cum from fish’en for whales!! See link:
Blue whales could easily be giv’en the ‘whole nine yards’ with the in/out approach,
Same with Sperm whales for that matter. So just maybe the Gorden fisherman was
the cleaver witted fellow sing’en at the local pub brag’en about the high seas and the
‘high hard one’. Puts me in the mood for a ‘hot tuna sandwitch’. ARRRRR!!
Okay, mind you, this is from a bunch of people that dedicate their lives to researching clothing origins and such, for reinactment purposes (SCA), I believe the term the whole nine yards has to do with the Scottish Great Kilt. It was said that it took a full 9 yards for such a kilt, and because of how it was folded and draped, you needed 9 yards of fabric for this. I’m not saying that this indeed is the truth of how the whole nine yards came to be, but to me, it makes the most sense. Why? Because fabric has always been measured in yards. And although football is measured in yards, to attain the touchdown, this is in TEN yard increments, not 9. The idea of rounds of amunition? Well, it may be true they’d say give us the whole nine yards, but it certainly isn’t the origin of the term, which is what Cecil is asking for. The term is far older then aircraft, or cement trucks.
Why would that make him an “exceptionally poor or wasteful shot”? I’ve read plenty of accounts of 8th Air Force Mustang pilots coming home with empty guns after eventful missions full of German fighters and more ground targets than they knew what to do with. If someone happened to use one of those occasions to leap from the cockpit and tell his crew chief “Smitty (or George or Bubba), I shot the whole nine yards today!” it makes perfect sense to me.
Trouble is, we gotta find evidence. Still doesn’t mean the pilot in question was a bad shot, unless he also came back with gun camera film of nothing but clouds and birds.
Avalonthas, welcome to the boards. The kilt theory (which I think we should refer to as the “Piper on the Grassy Knoll Theory” henceforth) has been floated several times and is just as well-documented as the fighter plane theory (which is to say, everyone and his cousin Angus has heard it that way, but no meaningful documentation exists to prove or disprove that this is the origin of the expression). Besides, cloth was measured in “Ells” in the Scottish Highlands up until the last couple of centuries.
Also, “in fact” and “somewhat hazy” tend not to work too well in the same sentence.
What’s your authority for saying that? I’m not being snarky – this is important. The biggest problem we’ve had with the WWII theory is that the term doesn’t show up in print until the 1960s.
Print evidence or not, it should be pretty easy to tell if the ammo belt theory could even be true by checking the specs for various machine-gun-armed aircraft. Are there any specific WW2 aircraft that can be verified to have an ammunition belt that’s 27 feet long?
It’s my understanding that this is supposed to refer to the belts that were loaded into each of the Browning .50 caliber machine guns in the wings of P-51 Mustangs and P-47 Thunderbolts. The only way the nine yard figure makes sense to me is if each wing gets nine yards of ammo, or three yards (nine feet) per gun in a P-51. Anything less would only give a few seconds worth of firepower (not a great situation for a pilot in a “target-rich environment”), anything more seems likely to weigh the aircraft down…
But which Mustang, and which Thunderbolt?
The P-51B had four Brownings in the wings, the P-51D had six (source: Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1945-46).
The inner gun on the P-51D was fed from an ammunition box holding 400 rounds, the outer two guns had 270 rounds each. In some configurations, the middle gun was removed so that the remaining four guns had 400 rounds each.
Given that the calibre refers to the bullet and not to the cartridge, I don’t think that 400 rounds would fit into a mere nine yards when you allow for the links that make up the belt.
We really need to hear from a WWII armourer.