Joe Molyson writes:
> This is an Army Air Forces expression from World War II.
Cite?
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board, Joe, we’re glad to have you with us.
You might try reading the whole thread before posting your opinion. Most etymologists discount your theory on the grounds that (a) the expression didn’t find it’s way to print until 1968, long after WWII, and (b) ammo belts were of varying lengths. Thus, if you want to leap into this fray, you need more than an opinion – we need facts, not simply broad statements. Do you have a pamphlet from WWII that uses that expression? Do you have anything in writing or on film from before 1967 that uses that expression?
That’s why Wendell is asking for a cite. This is why Cecil’s penultimate statement in the first column is “I am not interested in your freaking opinions. I want facts.”
A standard ammo can of .50 cal holds 100 rounds and is no where near 27 feet long. You can find out some more info on http://www.olive-drab.com/od_firearms_ammo_50cal.php
Also, here’s a picture of a WWII .50 cal ammo can http://tnwcorp.mystarband.net/50ammoCAN.html
I’m not sure, but I don’t think that will hold the whole nine yards.
Isn’t the most plausible explanation (note that I am not asserting that it’s definitely true) that it originated with fighters in the Vietnam war? That would fit the timing, and the earliest print sightings of the phrase all seem to be connected to the U. S. Air Force. As for the common claim of World War II, that would just be yet another example of the folklore phenomenon where any story is attached to the biggest or most famous thing of its type (an incident at any single-outlet burger joint is going to be told as about McDonalds, a story about any computer-industry executive is going to get attached to Bill Gates, etc.).
So what were typical ammo-belt lengths for Vietnam-era fighters?
The most plausible explanation, it has always seemed to me, is that some announcer at a football game used it. Yes, yes, I know, it should be “the whole ten yards” but, for instance, if someone had run the whole (remaining) nine yards, an announcer might have said that. And it caught on from there. That’s my opinion, backed up by nothing whatsoever except that Howard Cossell was announcing during the mid-60s.
Then how do you explain that the earliest print sightings of the phrase all seem to be connected to the U. S. Air Force? If the source were a football announcer, then the earliest print sightings shouldn’t be associated with one profession.
I haven’t seen any evidence of earliest print sightings connected with the military. In fact, the earliest print sighting I’ve heard of was a work of fiction (1967), about the Vietnam war. I guess that’s the military, but…
Sports metaphors and sayings are often not logical, think of Yogi Berra. And, as I say, that’s only my private opinion, not backed up by anything whatsoever.
From an earlier thread, quoth samclem:
So the first cite is fiction, true, but fiction written by someone who was Over There, on an AF base, the second is unambiguously USAF, and the third cite is from the vicinity of a USAF base. Maybe it wasn’t ammo belts, but it sure looks like it was something in the Air Force.
The whole 9 yards refers to the length of ammuntion used for the P51 mustang. The term, I believe, originated from strafing runs in the Pacificin support of infantry. I was told by several pilots, some who’s fathers served that aircraft in the Pacific, that it was slang used to say “I’m out of ammo”
An undated third-hand story doesn’t cut it.
What about c) the ammo belt length explanation doesn’t show up until the 1980s?
I’d be curious if anyone knows the exact context of the second and third cites? In “Doom Pussy” it is never used in the context of going a distance. If it originated from a football announcer, then I’d expect the earliest usages to be in the context of going the whole nine yards.
Because this ain’t the cure for cancer. That is why when one time I was chanell surfing, I suddenly stopped when the narrator said the phrase; if it helps, it had an aircraft carrier or a destroyer burning in the distance when the narration was said, and then I thought: “why bother to make a new thread on this?” and yes, knowing how contentuous this theme was, I decided not be the only one being shot down. Better to wait for the next unwise soul to bring it up I said. 
In any case, the main reason why I am leaning for the WWII era origin is that those writers in New Zeland are the real deal, and I think someone should investigate if they just pulled the title of their book out of thin air (taking into account that they interviewed the pilots, I think this will be our best lead in the origin of this).
In other words: I find it anoying that you assumed that I based my position in just a flaky documentary memory Wendell Wagner.
And I saw the same explanation on an episode of History Channel’s “Mail Call”. Now, you don’t expect me to believe a guy as tough and as loud as Lee Ermey could possibly be wrong, right?
… Right? 
GIGIbuster writes:
> . . . when the narrator said the phrase . . .
O.K., you’re saying that it was the narrator who said this phrase, not anyone on the documentary footage itself. When was the documentary made? Why do you think that the narrator was quoting World War II pilots rather than just using the expression for himself? Tell us anything . . . anything whatsoever that can be used to identify this documentary.
> Because this ain’t the cure for cancer.
Relative to etymology, this is the equivalent of a cure for cancer.
:sigh:
I guess I have to say it: I do give little weight to my memory, you are the one constantly ignoring that it was the book by the restorers of the classic fighters were I am basing my humble opinion that the origin MIGHT be found with WWII figters.
But, one thing I remember about the TV show: it was a documentary of the south pacific war and it was all in black and white, (curiously, as the date of the earliest proved publication of the phrase, it sounded and looked to me like it was made in the 50’s or 60’s) it was not one of those colorized or recreated travesties that are appearing at the history channel now.
To go the whole nine yards
always seemed to me to be one of distance
and of sports… 
No.
Look at how it is used in “Doom Pussy”, the first known print cite. While it is used in the context of “all of it” or “get (or give) the whole nine yards”, in no instance is it used in the sense of going a distance. That the earlist cite uses it in a context other than going a distance points against it coming from sports.
just because you’ve heard it in reference to something (ie gunner ammunition) does /not/ mean that’s where it orginated from. no one here is willing to do any research for any usage prior to it, so it won’t stick in the SD standards as being the real answer.
however, I do offer my vote in for being related to the clothing industry…
the whole NINE yards…
a stitch in time saves NINE…
I have heard that it takes nine yards of yarn to make a sweater, though I won’t stick by that answer myself.
I’m not sure if I understand you.
I do about 10 hours of primary research every year looking for earlier cites for this phrase. I’m fortunate in that I subscribe to two pay-to-play historic newspaper sites which I can search at home. I also subscribe to the American Dialect Society Mailing List, which brings me about 15-30 email messages per day from researchers in the linguistics field. If it’s gonna be found, these guys will find it first. And I’ll be the first to share with the the Straight Dope Board.
If you read any of my postings about the phrase in earlier threads, you’ll come to the conclusion that I also subscribe to the military/early Vietnam origin.