For the record, the default for a vowel in a word formed by consonant-vowel-consonant-consonant would always be the short sound.
west, best, down, can't, cart, wind, hint, best, cost, mint, gent, etc.
Wild and mild are irregular in their pronounciations, like most and host.

As usual I'm not so sure:

Bang

Sang

Tang

Dang

Wang

Fang

Gang

Hang

Pang

Rang

Yang

Bind

Find

Hind

Kind

Wind (there are two pronunciations acceptable here)

Mild

Wild

PintSeems like there are enough words that are common that it would not be safe to pronounce a word either way.
Especially with the "-ind" or "-ild" endings. I'd suggets that the "-ang" ending is safely a long vowel sound, and unless you're in Britain or drink a lot of beer you're safe with a short vowel for "-int".

I would not call any of the vowels in the ang words "long" vowels. One could almost argue that the a is diphthongesque, as most people pronounce "bang" and the rest with a slight hint of an "i" before the "ng."
In any case, I was taught in a long-ago linguistics course that generally people confronted with a new word draw up the most frequently-used words in their vocabulary that fit the same pattern and try to apply that pronunciation. (That's one of the reasons people who have never seen the plural of "moose" before try to make it "meese," because they're operating off the pattern "goose - geese")

Agreed. Theoretically, there is a pronounciation rule; and by the rule the vowel should be short. And agreed also that the a in -ang words is a short a, not a long one. And further, it is true that people try to use patterns in the absence of widely understood rules.
So do the "rules" count for anything? I've never been sure. Go ahead and use a preposition at the end of a sentence if you want to; no less an expert than William Safire has proclaimed that there never was a rule prohibiting this construction. He says that it is an invention of overeager English teachers trying to enforce stylistic preferences.
On the other hand, if there are no rules we've got Babel (a GREAT film; watch it and DO NOT turn on the subtitles. How people interpret behavior with and without language is the core of the movie.)

Interesting discussion, but I have to raise one small objection: William Safire is hardly "an expert" on language or usage; he's a journalist and former speechwriter (for Nixon). Check out the fulminations against him on *real* linguistics forums like Language Log or ADS-L to get a sense of how deeply he is disrespected among scholars.
I do agree that Babel was a fine film.

Now if Noam were to opine here we'd all have to listen...
I love the fact that the only thing you're not in agreement about is Saffire's bonafides.
Noam - are you out there?