Not A Sniper

“This was a mobile shooter who had written manifestos on how to shoot and move, shoot and move, and that’s what he did”
 
See Dallas sniper attack: 5 officers killed, suspect ID’d
The title of TFA quoted on the right is simply wrong. Snipers generally don’t “shoot and move”. That’s an infantry tactic to confuse an enemy about location and number of shooters. A sniper relies on hiding, long killing shots and an accurate rifle. This guy was doing rapid firing out in the street with an “AR-15” type of rifle and large magazines. He only hid when the police closed in on him. He never fired a shot longer than 100 yards. He wounded 12 and killed 5. A sniper would have killed more than 12 under those conditions. One of his kills was from point-blank range and he fired multiple shots to do that. That’s not the actions of a sniper.

Of WWII, my father told the story that many of the Canadian soldiers were decent shooters from living in rural areas where one shot for food and to dispatch predators. They did not want to be snipers often because they considered shooting from concealment at long range as cowardly and not likely to result in being captured alive. At one point the Dallas shooter parked his vehicle on an empty street, put the flashers on and did rapid firing in two directions at police at both ends of the same block. Police with rifles could have finished him with one shot. The Dallas shooter was definitely cowardly but also definitely was not a sniper. In the military he worked at carpentry and construction. Small arms training was secondary to his primary mission of keeping the infrastructure together. Snipers are brave. The police who closed on this guy with pistols were brave although foolish. The Dallas shooter was just a murdering bastard.

Calling the shooter the murdering bastard that he was instead of “sniper” would not undo any of the harm he caused but it also would not insult those who have/had the skill and training and equipment to kill at long range from concealment. Explicit differences are that at long range a shooter has to know something of the trajectory of the bullets which can arc several metres above intervening distance, and accuracy of sub-minute of angle is required. This shooter relied on multiple shots to kill. He had very poor accuracy. He fired dozens of shots per kill. At such short ranges the trajectory could be assumed linear and ignored. He wasn’t sniping at all.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in firearms, hunting and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Not A Sniper

  1. oiaohm wrote, “it tells you how the air is flowing. So exact drift calculations on bullets.”

    This is so much crap. There is no instrument that will tell you exactly how air moves along the trajectory of a bullet nor what it’s effect will be. I had occasion to see the reality of that one day out at the range. We were shooting into sand and it was a gusty and very windy day. On each strike of the bullet, sand was thrown into the air and the wind moved it where it wanted. The process was quite random being thus one second and that another. Bullets were moved up and down left and right even though the wind to us seemed steady from right to left. Turbulence that we felt as gusts was often circulations from the ground to the tops of trees. In any situation that effect that we saw at the target could be something quite different a few yards away along the trajectory. There is a basic principle in real-world physics, that the effect of a bunch of random inputs is random. One may be able to predict the average effect but never call the next shot exactly. That just can’t be done. One method shooters do use to counteract all this mess is to fire rapidly so that conditions may not change as much by the last shot. There’s still no way to guarantee the first shot goes where it’s wanted which is what is wanted in sniping. Otherwise everyone would use a machine-gun for everything and give up on accuracy.

    Even supposing one could precisely measure the speed and direction of air all along the trajectory the instant before firing. Moving air is more than mass and velocity. It affects density. It affects temperature. Both affect drag. There are just too many variables to reliably sum to the result. It might be possible in the laboratory but rarely out in the field. If it could be done there would be no need at all for guided weapons yet much more effort has gone into making guided weapons than magical ones.

  2. oiaohm says:

    dougman
    There is not such thing as a “scope for atmosphere”, all scopes are vacuumed and nitrogen back-purged to alleviate fogging.
    “Scope for atmosphere” is absolutely not what you are thinking of. Is a form of Lidar. First developed for optical telescopes on earth to correct out atmosphere interference. Turns out it tells you how the air is flowing. So exact drift calculations on bullets. Taking a 300+ yard shot is a lot simpler with a scope of the atmosphere. Fun part it can detect mirage distortion between you and target and give you correction value.

    designated marksman (DE) or sharpshooters.
    Australian federal police use Snipers and they are called snipers because they are not called designated marksman or sharpshooters. Military trained counter-sniper snipers. Designated Marksman is in fact Australian State Police and they know they are sitting ducks against the federal police.

    Snipers are not safe within 1000 yards of a counter-sniper.
    The Australian Federal Police Snipers are the counter-sniper teams. Sniper is not safe inside 2000 yards of a counter-sniper. Past 2000 yards counter-sniper has to be guessing what the atmosphere is doing.

    2000 yards urban is one very hard shot remember Australian federal police snipers don’t just operate inside urban they operate all cross Australia. Every skill of a military grade sniper is important to them. 2000 yard urban shot is a pure nightmare most likely would have to taken from a airborne platform.

    Australia there is a clear separation between what is a police designated marksman and a police sniper. Australia a police sniper is way more lethal force. Designated marksman Australian police could have works their way up through the ranks. Australia police snipers are ex mil or currently serving mil snipers there job is to be there in case of a sniper to locate and neutralise.

    Yes its normal for designated marksman to be first at substitution and if the problem cannot be resolved quickly for police sniper to come in to provide more options.

  3. dougman wrote, “the average distance of a police sharpshooter in the United States, for at least the past 20 years, has been around 70 yards and derives from FBI’s statistics. “

    I wouldn’t contest that at all. It sounds right. What I contest is the maximum range at which they will confidently engage a target. Where police practice here they use short pistol-ranges, 100, 200 and 300 yard ranges and occasionally longer ranges up to 1000 yards. The most likely sniper’s rifle is 223 Rem or 308 Win. Both are quite suitable for much longer ranges than 70 yards. I regularly took gophers to 300 yards with a 222 Rem and I have hit the bull with 308 out to 1000 yards and I’m not an expert. The reason 70 yards appears is because that’s about as far as one can see in many urban settings and it’s far enough that a sniper involved in a shootout/standoff need not be too conspicuous if he has any cover/camo at all. Of course, that’s sniper versus typical bad guy. Snipers are not safe within 1000 yards of a counter-sniper.

  4. dougman says:

    Obviously, you missed the memo on “Police do not utilize snipers” as well.

    On you topic of 3-400 meters/yard, etc..

    To note, the average distance of a police sharpshooter in the United States, for at least the past 20 years, has been around 70 yards and derives from FBI’s statistics. If you want to contest it, speak with them.

  5. dougman wrote, “No police marksmen will ever be taking a shot at one-mile away, at best it would be 100 meters. or less.”

    In most cases that’s true but snipers rely on concealment or distance to hide their activity and they will shoot from further away if possible like along a major street, from roof-tops, across a parking lot, etc. so a few hundred yards is certainly possible although less likely in a short sharp engagement. Where there is time to set up, longer shots are much more likely. Still, ~1000 yards makes little sense in urban environments. 3-400 does happen however.

  6. dougman says:

    “Australian police snipers are mil snipers with mil gear. So yes equipped with scope for atmosphere. So taking a 1000 to 2000 yard shot in urban is possible to them.”

    LOL…

    Police do not utilize snipers, they are called designated marksman (DE) or sharpshooters. Being a sniper implies one is proactively killing an enemy, the police do not go around low-crawling through the streets on on roof-tops, construction hide-outs, creating range cards and calling in artillery strikes.

    There is not such thing as a “scope for atmosphere”, all scopes are vacuumed and nitrogen back-purged to alleviate fogging.

    2000 yard shot in a urban or even a semi-urban environment? Dude, you’ve been playing Call of Duty far too much and watching too many movies. No police marksmen will ever be taking a shot at one-mile away, at best it would be 100 meters. or less.

    Honestly, you do not know what the hell you are speaking about.

  7. oiaohm wrote, “Australian police snipers are mil snipers with mil gear. So yes equipped with scope for atmosphere. So taking a 1000 to 2000 yard shot in urban is possible to them.”

    Do you realize that in an urban environment, one can rarely see anything beyond 300 yards except on roof-tops? Taking long shots would be the rarest of rare events. It’s silly to train or to equip for such situations when other tactics would be just as effective. Built-up areas deny long shots but provide great cover for police to manoeuvre. Coordination by radio combined with cover means a long shot is rarely necessary or possible. Still many streets are open enough that shooting from much longer ranges than that of a constable on patrol are possible but not >1000 yards. In Winnipeg, I don’t think there is any place where a 1000 yard shot is possible except on one large thoroughfare or a few parks and golf courses. In all cases shorter ranges are possible with simple manoeuvres. The long shot just isn’t necessary and doesn’t justify specialized training/equipment for more than a very few personnel. That makes them slow to deploy because such an incident may be at an inconvenient time/place. Having longer range weapons than pistols for many officers makes much better sense. If the officers on the scene take care of the issue with one shot the special sniper won’t get the call.

  8. oiaohm says:

    No, there’s not. Rifles are typically very lethal because they strike with great force. A falling bullet has its weight which is tiny.
    http://forensicoutreach.com/library/the-falling-bullet-myths-legends-and-terminal-velocity/
    Major General Julian Hatch, a U.S. Army firearms expert
    Report you serous-ally do need to read his full report it.

    There is no magic bullet that by any means allows great lethality when falling from a great height except really heavy bullets which are not typically fired from shoulder-firing rifles.
    Reading his report you will find out this is wrong and how low the lethality speed really is. You general pistol bullets are lethal dropping from height if they have remained.

    You start off with bullet slowest terminal. What is by pure luck would be 90m/s straight down. This in it self will kill if it hits the right spot.

    Just don’t look up or get hit in the head and you’re unlikely to sustain a mortal wound. “
    Glide angle of bullet is linked to it shape. 3 foot to 10 foot is still a 3 to 1. A 3 to 1 is 90×3 270M/s. 200M/s is enough to shot a person in chest and kill if they are not wearing body armour.

    This is the problem bullet runs out of spin goes unstable it hits at 90m/s or less so unlikely to kill you. Bullet remains stable even on quite a steep angle is going to cross the lethal force value. Even a 1 to 1 fall rate gets roughly100m/s being skull breaking without requiring you to look up. The 90m/s starting point is right on the edge of killing for a head shot. Bullet only need quite a minor slope to turn from safe to deadly.

    A bullet dropping to at 10 to 1 to hit at 900m/s is going to come out a weapon who shot the shell at over 1500m/s So there has been loss.

    Even starting off with something like a AK-47 715 m/s is starting point. So you can lose 615m/s and the bullet is still going to kill you if it hits you at 100m/s. Yes different rounds for the AK-47 have shallow enough glide vs gravity to do that and that is not even an impressive glide

    No police force I know of have such weapons in an urban environment. They are useless there where most people live.
    Australian police snipers are mil snipers with mil gear. So yes equipped with scope for atmosphere. So taking a 1000 to 2000 yard shot in urban is possible to them. True USA and CA so called police snipers are not carrying mil gear. This leads to the USA police tactical shots being 50 yards or less on average vs the Australian Police tactical shots average of 700 to 900 yards. Tracking point weapons that are expensive are able todo 1400 yards 100 percent dependable even in a poorly skilled shooter mostly because you set target in gun and it fires it self when its correctly aligned. But everything a Tracking point weapon can do a mil grade sniper team can do.

    Police have budgets too.
    True Australia solves this problem for snipers by them being general mil snipers either retired with gear or currently serving. Sniping a criminal is a live prac target.

    Police do use stub-nosed bullets a lot mostly because those bullets will go unstable and so if shot up will fall down safely. This is why shape of bullet shot up is critical. Something like a stub or a ball is going to go unstable. Pointed bullets will have a glide angle what ever that glide angle is will define if they are lethal or not when they return to ground if they have not covered enough distance to run out of spin. Not only is a bullet losing speed forwards due to air resistance it is also losing rotation and once it loses rotation is going to go unstable. So there is lots of maths to this working out a weapons max lethal range.

    The biggest mistake everyone makes is lethal requires striking will great force without understanding how small this works out. Mass of bullet of a 22 the velocity you are looking for lethal is only 200m/s. . 303 is only 100 m/s. Yes as round gets bigger the meters per s for lethality just keep on dropping.

    Great force being 61m/s to 100m/s for most mil weapons bullets. So lethal speed for a lead bullet is slow. Air rifle is safe on average at higher speeds due to projectile low mass.

  9. oiaohm wrote, “Robert please stop being a idiot you have the right numbers then never run them to find out what free falling bullet really equals. Without question if you can target it there is more than enough force.”

    No, there’s not. Rifles are typically very lethal because they strike with great force. A falling bullet has its weight which is tiny. Just don’t look up or get hit in the head and you’re unlikely to sustain a mortal wound. “If you can target it” is also a major problem with such trajectories. Mortars which do fire steeply use spotters or pre-arranged firing, neither of which is available to police in a one-shot-one-kill situation in an emergency.

  10. oiaohm wrote, “Thinking impact force is speed of bullet down + speed of bullet across this is why spinning falling bullet can hit with more force than basic terminal velocity will suggest because the impact is 2 values.”

    Do you know nothing of conservation of energy? Bullets are given energy by the rifle except in the case of rockets. Bullets slow down in flight. Even if they gain back some energy in falling, they are still losing total energy because the air resistance at effective speeds is more than the force of gravity. There is no magic bullet that by any means allows great lethality when falling from a great height except really heavy bullets which are not typically fired from shoulder-firing rifles. Police forces are unlikely to equip themselves with mortars or howitzers because there might be some weird corner case where they would be useful. Police use standardized weapons which don’t require a PhD in rocket-science to operate. Police have budgets too.

  11. oiaohm wrote, “There is no need to fire a test shot. This is because you have not used anything like a tracking point weapon scope or any of the other sniper atmosphere scoping.”

    No police force I know of have such weapons in an urban environment. They are useless there where most people live.

  12. oiaohm says:

    No rifle will be sufficiently accurate (nor a mass-produced bullet) at such ranges on the first shot because no one knows all the details of the atmosphere without firing a test shot or going there, both silly.
    There is no need to fire a test shot. This is because you have not used anything like a tracking point weapon scope or any of the other sniper atmosphere scoping.

    This is the problem with a computer assisted sniper what makes time a problem. Light pulses are sent out before shot to map atmosphere. The reality is due to these scopes taking a broader area than a test shot more is known about atmosphere. There is a range limit. 2000 yards for scan. So a 3000 yard shot would require someone or something(tracked drone robot) forwards 1000 yards from you or guess the last 1000 yards.

    The reality is target might know about you as a sniper by detecting the scoping at the speed of light so almost instantly. So time of bullet travel+time to line up happens after scoping.

    The level of scoping you can do turns impossible shot to possible. any uncertainty in range If you look at the top of tracking point you will notice two scopes fixed mounted next to each other. That is range finding. Uncertainty of range does not exist to the right gear on stationary targets. Moving targets bring uncertainty.

    Obviously, hammie has never shot a gun.
    dougman I have shot a gun and used Laser scoping of atmosphere and neither has you. Robert has never weapons that way either. Its a totally different usage. Huge numbers of things you normally have to guess are no longer guesses. The reality is shots that are impossible without laser scoping of atmosphere are all the shots that allow you to double weapons range. The gear allows you to watch the wind current above you.

    So, no, it doesn’t drop vertically, but it’s very steep, 3 feet (1 yard) down for 10 yards of range.
    This is horribly wrong and right. Until spinning bullet reaches its free fall speed its quite steep. Its a inverted ballistic curve. Now if the bullet has stopped spinning and go into uncontrolled fall its going straight down. If it still spinning it does something that kinda messes with you head being gliding. Its because the bullet has reached terminal velocity going down but the air resistance to side ways motion is not maxed. Basically bullet pulls the same stunt as a human sky diver in a winged suit. Notice something here this effect only starts after bullet is at free fall speed down. Thinking impact force is speed of bullet down + speed of bullet across this is why spinning falling bullet can hit with more force than basic terminal velocity will suggest because the impact is 2 values.

    3 feet (1 yard) down for 10 yards of range
    This depends on bullet shape and its not always this figure. The scariest 1:100 slope. So 1 yard down 100 yards of range that can be a spinning bullet terminal.

    If top of curve is 300 yards up and you get you fall from there getting 10 yards of range per yard of drop that is 3000 yards from top point of curve.

    bullet is not likely to be lethal beyond 1500 yards.
    Major General Julian Hatch report does not agree with that statement. Any bullet that is still air-dynamically stable in free fall has the means to be lethal. 90m/s with mass of a bullet is lethal. Add in speed from side ways drift even more lethal as you stated
    3 feet (1 yard) down for 10 yards of range
    This is a 1 to 10 drop equals 900m/s sideways at free-fall 90m/s absolutely no joke lethal who thinks that can life with a assault rifle pointed straight at their chest. Yes 900m/s is the same speed as a bullet leaving some assault rifle and that can come purely out the free fall process. Zeroed speed at top of curve does equal assault rifle like impact at target end of curve. Robert please stop being a idiot you have the right numbers then never run them to find out what free falling bullet really equals. Without question if you can target it there is more than enough force.

    If someone asked you how to deliver point blank force to a target at range there is only one way to-do that it shelling the target not shooting the target.

    It’s like an air-rifle then
    Other than the fact some air-rifles can fire with the same force as a .22 rifle. So yes it exactly like an air-rifle with enough speed and mass it can kill you. Falling bullets is not a item to take lightly.

  13. dougman says:

    Obviously, hammie has never shot a gun.

  14. oiaohm wrote, “the rotation of the bullet means it does not fall vertically”.

    Nonsense! Look at the trajectories, nothing at all to do with spin. .308 with 168 BTHP falls twice as far in the last 250 yards as in the first 250 out to 2000 yards and the bullet is not likely to be lethal beyond 1500 yards. It’s like an air-rifle then. So, no, it doesn’t drop vertically, but it’s very steep, 3 feet (1 yard) down for 10 yards of range. On moving targets or with any uncertainty in range, it’s just silly. Then there’s the matter of accuracy. No rifle will be sufficiently accurate (nor a mass-produced bullet) at such ranges on the first shot because no one knows all the details of the atmosphere without firing a test shot or going there, both silly.

  15. oiaohm says:

    At that range a bullet is dropping nearly vertically and is utterly useless for most purposes.
    Robert Pogson the rotation of the bullet means it does not fall vertically. If it come unstable it falls vertically. If it still rotating enough when it forward speed zeros out result is bullet falling on a slope. Shocking part is 87 degrees what is 3 degrees off straight up a bullet was caught maintaining stability in one of the tests and came down 1000 yards away exactly where predicted.

    The idea that bullets shot up into air will come down utterly useless is why lots of people get hurt.

    If bullet is spinning the tip of the bullet has less air resistance than back end of bullet. Shape of bullet decides the decent angle.
    You do realize that bullets slow because of the drag of the air
    Yes I absolutely know this. The drag effect on a zero forwards speed bullet being pulled down by gravity while the bullet is still maintain gyrostablity equals it sliding down to earth at a predictable angle. That is why shot close to straight up can be 1000 yards or more sideways to where you are and hitting with lethal force.

    Of course, no one can make all the necessary corrections for unknown effects along that path so the accuracy decreases a lot with range.
    This is true no human does. This is where computer assisted shots come in.

    Think remaining energy and dispersion of shots. A very good rifle can do 0.1 minute of angle. At 1000 yards, that’s ~10 inches/25.4cm spread. At 5000 yards, that’s 50 inches spread, like ~1% chance of a head shot.
    Today standard that is not a good weapon. Tracking point M1400 yes at 1400 yards will land it shots inside a 2 inch/5cm spread. So you are not in fact looking at a 0.1 minute angle any more but at 0.02 or better.

    By the way to shot with a powerful enough gun to use riffle method at 2700 yards you are talking needing 196 MOA or 3.3 degrees on your sight without having to set a weather/wind allowance. That is a 5.7 seconds travel time. This has in fact been done.
    Rifles never are used with elevations more than 1 degree between the sights and the bore.
    So this is total garbage. Really long range using above barrel sights its up to 7 degrees between sights and bore these days they were done after the 2700 shot because to make the 3.3 degree the first time was hack 3 different sights into 1(rebuilding sights while on the front line not liked prac). Need more than that its change over to sights next to barrel. The serous trouble of long range shots is having to adjust sights to allow for weather effects. Making a 1000 yard shot and you have a down draft in the middle you may need all the 7 degrees of difference and then some to in fact hit target at 1000 yards. There is a big reason for having side sight option with many more degrees of angle mother nature is not a snipers friend.

    The issue at 5000 yards is not the ability to aim the bullet and hit a stationary target using computer/sensor assistance the issue is the number of seconds the bullet will take to cover the distance and the fact most targets don’t stay still long enough. 9-20 seconds shot like a riffle or over 1 min shot up through a shelling curve. 3000 yards is at practical limit without guided rounds to having good odds of hitting target before they move.

    Shelling snow fields to cause avalanche is a lot simpler you are shooting stationary target this is why same methods can be used out to 20km.

    Harassment is about all anyone will do with ~25 degree elevation.
    This is wrong. ~25 degree elevation may be required just to shot 1000 yards if wind directions are against you. Having the hardware to see the wind and calculate correction figure and set correction figure is absolutely critical to long range shots. The numbers that stuff will return from time to time will have you wishing for quite large range of sight setting and if you don’t have it you would not be able to take the shot.

  16. oiaohm wrote, ” Accuracy International L115A3 what is your top sniper gun. L115A3 allows the sights to be mounted next to barrel instead of top of barrel to allow elevation differences up to 45 degrees. Configured like that the sights arrangement is very much like a field gun not normal riffle any more. In fact the L115A3 allows the top barrel sight to be left in place while using next to barrel sight.”

    You do realize that bullets slow because of the drag of the air, eh? That means maximum range will be at elevations far below 45 degrees, more likely 25 degrees. At that range a bullet is dropping nearly vertically and is utterly useless for most purposes. Certainly at ~3 miles or more, a sniper is unlikely even to be able to see a target let alone hit one. Think remaining energy and dispersion of shots. A very good rifle can do 0.1 minute of angle. At 1000 yards, that’s ~10 inches/25.4cm spread. At 5000 yards, that’s 50 inches spread, like ~1% chance of a head shot. Of course, no one can make all the necessary corrections for unknown effects along that path so the accuracy decreases a lot with range. Harassment is about all anyone will do with ~25 degree elevation.

  17. oiaohm says:

    Rifles never are used with elevations more than 1 degree between the sights and the bore.
    That is absolutely not true. Accuracy International L115A3 what is your top sniper gun. L115A3 allows the sights to be mounted next to barrel instead of top of barrel to allow elevation differences up to 45 degrees. Configured like that the sights arrangement is very much like a field gun not normal riffle any more. In fact the L115A3 allows the top barrel sight to be left in place while using next to barrel sight.

    A general shooter will not have a block that connects to the sight rail to place the sight next to the barrel to allow insane angles. This is found in mil sniper kits for weapons.

    Also, snipers need one shot-one kill and artillery only gets that with exploding shells unless using guided missiles.
    Artillery does a little longer range.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/130_mm_towed_field_gun_M1954_%28M-46%29
    Yes Artillery is attempt to drop a shell at 20+km. 2,475 m what is max sniper range is under 3 km for unguided sniper bullets. Guide options for snipers are EXACTO bullets they have confirmed exactness to 5km. So yes mil snipers do have a guided missile option but I am not talking about cases using guided missile options.

    Computer assisted Artillery 130 mm field gun can drop unguided rounds but carefully made rounds repeatable inside a square metre at 20 km. Interesting enough this is used on different snow fields around the world to trigger avalanches and exactness is important. Yes you want to set off avalanche you don’t want to damage anything else and you don’t want to put people in danger when you can avoid it. Please remember 20 km is lot longer than the max range sniper shots. Yes Artillery with the same due care on something larger than a meter at 20 kms can get one shot kills.

    Most people totally don’t get want weapon systems can do.

    Its like the Glock pistols police have. If you look at the handle you will notice something strange. There is a gap between the clip and the outside of the handle. Why does this exist. The gap is for the Glocks stock.

    Glock pistol without stock is 55 yards.
    Glock pistol with stock is 100 yards full auto, 150 yards semi automatic.
    Glock pistol with stock and optical sight still 100 yard full auto, 300 yard semi automatic.

    The reality is a Glock pistol is a short barrel sub-machine gun with removable stock. There are 30 shot clips for a Glock pistol. So stock + large clip at that point there is no difference between a Glock pistol and other short barrel sub-machine guns.

    Police are not generally marksmen/women.
    As you said police are not generally this. The other problem you have is the USA police force are not trained to in fact exploit the weapons they have. The change able stock on the Glock also allows it to use a shot around conner stock. So you are not a good marksman get you backside behind a brick-wall or something else solid and round stopping and shot from there using a round conner stock. Even a shot around conner stock gives 120 yard range also gives your target a very hard time because you are not putting self in harms way.

    Something to remember in urban military warfare fighting most of your shots are over 60 yards and under 120 yards. So some of the pistols police carry with their matching stock are completely up to the job. Problem lots of police forces buy the pistols without the stock. Add in like in the USA test of police in 2010 where the police offences could not even shot the weapons effectively you have a big problem. To maintain shooting skill is 1 hour a week. Reason normally given for not doing this is the police are too busy.

    As you said Robert this guy was not shooting over 100 yards. So police pistols with matching stocks should have been absolutely on a level footing. Now if police had shot around conner stocks for their pistols they should have been absolutely at the advantage and with no temptation to close in. Then you have to remember 2010 report that means they did not have a clue how todo this or have the gear.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/mike-mcdaniel/leave-police-theyre-professionals/
    There is a big problem in USA police certification 15 yards as certified shot range if the range they are being tested on is indoor. Great indoor no wind simpler certification.
    Outdoor 25 yard target. Great so USA police are only certified for short range combat.

    Australia use 80 yards for glocks. If a person can shot 80 yards with a glock without stock they are certified to use glock without stock. Now a person with a glock with a stock should also still be able to take out target quite simply at 80 yards. So a person with a glock should one way or another be able to neutralise a target at 80 yards and if they cannot they fail certification. Yes pass certification does not matter if you are using stock or not just as long as you can do it. By the way that is a full auto test. So full clip of glock at 80 yards full auto has to land in kill zone of target. This is not 70% or 80% test its 100% or fail. If fail choose a different gun until you pick a gun you can pass its test with.

    Australian police the certification is based on the weapon the person is wielding. The more powerful the weapon is the more range the police officer has to be certified for. The certification is performed in what ever is the highest recoil mode. This came out of Port Arthur mess.

    So basically the USA police certifications are completely stuffed so they are not required to know how to use their weapons properly and not have the training to be confident at hitting target at range so they will close in on target because they will only be confident at taking out target at close range. Yes the 25 yards outdoor or 15 yard indoor pistol certification USA police are using stays the same no matter how weak or powerful the pistol they have is. This is why I don’t call the USA police stupid. The police offices were under-trained and badly certificated so digging themselves into a very bad problem. Number of police + area + weapons they and the target had the police should have had the upper hand if they had the right training and equipment.

    Please do remember what I said about mil combat in urban that most of it is 60-120 yards. So both 25 yard and 15 yard certification USA police do is too short to be practical if you find yourself head to head with a person with basic mil urban training. Even the Australian requirement of 80 yard on a glock is kinda short but it is at least sporting chance level. The fact that using the glock in semi auto instead of full auto reduces the recoil means it is true sporting chance that its level footing.

  18. oiaohm wrote, “A sniper doubles lethal range of a gun by using a shelling method not a shooting method”.

    This is nonsense. Rifles never are used with elevations more than 1 degree between the sights and the bore. Do the maths. Also, snipers need one shot-one kill and artillery only gets that with exploding shells unless using guided missiles. The lethality of snipers has nothing to do with energy recovered by drop. It’s all about placement of the bullet.

  19. oiaohm says:

    For God’s sake, man, put some numbers into that thinking. The trajectory has some height. Even to 1000 yards the height of trajectory is only a few metres.
    This is normal trajectory not sniper long range. Weapon as a 600 foot effective. 45% up angle. About 250 foot top of curve. Or a 76.2 metre/100 Yard drop.

    This high curve is how a 1100 foot effective weapon has documented hits out at 2700 foot.

    A sniper doubles lethal range of a gun by using a shelling method not a shooting method. You are right using a shooting method the bullet over it travel 1000 yard with a weapon rated to a 1000 yards only few meters drop at most. Shelling method is at least 50 Meters drop with a shorter ranged weapon to hit the same target. Yes it very much the idea of bow and arrows of old still applies to guns. The massive height value means lot more calculation for wind drift and other horible things.

    In the extreme case Hatcher found falling rifle bullets would only dent a plank doing little damage no matter what the height and whether it was nose up or nose down.
    http://forensicoutreach.com/library/the-falling-bullet-myths-legends-and-terminal-velocity/
    Also I don’t know what Hatcher you are quoting.
    Major General Julian Hatch, a U.S. Army firearms expert did state clearly in his report that a non tumbling bullet falling from height would reach a terminal velocity still high enough to kill if hitting a soft point. His tests terminal velocities of 90 m/s (300 feet per second or 204 miles per hour) and possibly kill is 61 m/s (200 feet per second) to 100 m/s (330 feet per second) depending on where hit. Nicely in the ball park of death.

    Please do remember earth gravity is 9.8m/s Its 7 to 10 seconds of drop time to enter the ball park of death of the bullet exactly zero speed when it curved over. Yes 76.2 metre/100 Yard drop is in ball park to get back up to speed with gravity only with out the remaining speed on the bullet as it curves over . Because the top of the shelling shots never is absolutely 0 so that will be bullet terminal velocity coming down.

    Julian Hatch tested nose up and nose down missed testing different spin rates. Spinning alters airflow around bullet so altering it complete flight dynamics. Others after Julian Hatch did tests with real weapons firing up to find the impact force back down was lot greater than Julian Hatch said. The higher the spin of the bullet leaving the gun the higher it terminal velocity become and higher its falling lethality risk becomes. Many stupid things happen due to the bullet spinning.

    You see Julian Hatch report miss quoted many times. If the bullet become unstable by Julian Hatch report it will fall to earth slower than terminal velocity and be non lethal. If bullet has maintained stable flight the result will be wounded or kill depending on where it hits by Julian Hatch report. Add in the newer studies with higher spin rates of bullets due to tighter riffling those a bullet can be falling with enough force to shatter bone/skulls. Falling bullet is not going through body armor but if it hits you where you don’t have armor it might be then end of you. Yes long range sniper shots doubling weapon range are based around Julian Hatch report + later reports covering spin rate of bullet effect on terminal velocity. It is annoying that when you mention it people always attempt to bring out his report without understanding it to say it impossible.

  20. oiaohm wrote, “You shot a bullet that goes through a arc that so the bullet does not flip and maintain it spin comes down a lethal speed. The spin of bullet reduced air friction so increasing Terminal velocity value up to lethal.”

    For God’s sake, man, put some numbers into that thinking. The trajectory has some height. Even to 1000 yards the height of trajectory is only a few metres. The energy gained coming down is tiny compared to the remaining energy of the bullet. Do the maths. $latex \Delta U = mg\Delta Y$. Compare that with $latex \frac{1}{2}mv^{2}$.
    $latex \frac{mg\Delta Y}{\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}}=\frac{2g\Delta Y}{v^{2}}$. $latex v$ is large compared to $latex 2g\Delta Y$ and we have $latex v^{2}$, so the fraction is almost zero. In the extreme case Hatcher found falling rifle bullets would only dent a plank doing little damage no matter what the height and whether it was nose up or nose down.

  21. oiaohm says:

    That’s nonsense. Terminal velocity of small lead bullets is not lethal. I’ve been hit by goose shot fired at a high angle. It’s like rain drops. The drag on a bullet is multiple pounds of force. The weight is a tiny fraction of that.
    Robert Pogson that is a common mistake. A bullet has two Terminal velocity values not one. You shot a bullet straight up or close to when the bullet get to top it flips then becomes unstable in flight and loses it spin. That has a impact of like rain drops or hammer(depend on round size).

    You shot a bullet that goes through a arc that so the bullet does not flip and maintain it spin comes down a lethal speed. The spin of bullet reduced air friction so increasing Terminal velocity value up to lethal. This is kinda the same reason golf ball-like dimples reduced air friction. True sniper has lots of variables to double range.

    Goose shot balls are nothing like a bullet spinning due to riffling basically.

    Surprise attack done right should be 8 to 1 or 10 to 1 and greater by mil theory based of unit training. That is kills not counting just hurt.

    Question if it was a ambush or just a Surprise attack would be useful of the person was still alive. Ambush required for what was shown on video would be that you found that the person had studied that location and choose it in advance as a pressure point. Common mistake about Ambush is the idea that hostile as to be waiting there. Ambush is planned can move into the fight location at the last moment.. Key word planned.

  22. Another thing the media gets wrong about Dallas. They are calling the thing an ambush. He didn’t lay in wait. He simply drove up to the police, got out of his vehicle and opened fire. It may have been a surprise attack, but it wasn’t an ambush.

  23. oiaohm wrote, “At 1200 yards there is more than 100fb-lb left when shot like a sniper for range because you have to add back on the recovered impact force of gravity on the bullet.”

    That’s nonsense. Terminal velocity of small lead bullets is not lethal. I’ve been hit by goose shot fired at a high angle. It’s like rain drops. The drag on a bullet is multiple pounds of force. The weight is a tiny fraction of that.

  24. oiaohm says:

    Ballistics prevents 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington
    There is more to it and the reason where you are wrong is Ballistics.
    Suppose 63 grain FMJBT bullet at 3100 ft/s. At 600 yards there is less than 400 ft-lb of energy left and velocity is similar to .22LR at the muzzle, not very lethal. At 1200 yards, energy is a bit over 100 ft-lb, annoying but rarely fatal.
    Yes a 600 Yards shot normal flat shots there is not enough power left. At 1200 yards there is more than 100fb-lb left when shot like a sniper for range because you have to add back on the recovered impact force of gravity on the bullet. Sniper shooting is like shelling a target so they shot up to use a Ballistic curve+gravity. The extended range lethality a advanced shooter is getting is from gravity and the fact the bullet will still be spinning so staying aerodynamically stable. Yes massively exploiting ballistics.

    A long range snipers/marksman shooting method is basically different result is lot more distance than you would first expect. Lethal range from number of grains in bullet+barrel length basically sets top of curve of the ballistic trajectory + a bit a sniper users this is why its Lethal range x2 + a bit. Nothing long range snipers/marksman do is magic problem is if you take Lethal range value and forget that shooter who is a proper long range marksman and set up just past the lethal range you are kinda dead.

    If a bullet comes low speed up in mid air that is not factor about lethality. The key value is how much force bullet will have when it hits target.

    Average and below average shooter you don’t see them exploiting bullet fall due to gravity to extend weapons range. So past lethality range a 600 for a sniper is wrong. Now accuracy for a long range marksman is a stack of huge adjustments. Up until rated range wind drift is only a minor problem. 600 yard ammo hitting 1200 yard target requires some serous gear to detect wind drifts and adjust. Again this is like shelling a target not shooting a target so being a long range marksman requires different skill set.

    Robert Pogson watching video he is using that yes is semi-automatic but its in single shot mode. Burst mode 3 shots and auto-mode flare pattern neither are in fact in the video. Usage exactly commando. Now of course that video might not be the full conflict he could have switched modes if it had modes.

    Fully automatic rifle sounds like a good idea until you wake up that most mil weapons are not automatic any more because
    1 its really bad for ammo usage.
    2 after study it was found with hand held full automatic weapons if you did not hit your target with the first 3 shots the next 20 following it would be worthless yes the effect of recoil destroying means to target so huge stacks of bullets fly off in pointless directions. Only effective full automatic weapons are the ones mounted to something. 3 shot burst is based out of what is effective. A person doing controlled 3 shot burst will suppresses an area more effectively than a person holding full automatic machine gun. This is a case where more does not equal better.

    Some assault rifles do have a 3-shot mode to be a bit more effective yet conserve ammunition. Not what you are thinking here. Before 3-shot mode Australian forces were being trained to-do 2 shot burst while in fully automatic mode. As shooting more than 2 shots meant the 3 shot would be close to missing target and the 4 would be missing target all due to recoil.

    There is no valid reason in a hand held firearm in combat to be using full auto. Close combat Robert is right single shot is more commonly correct. Suppression fire is 3 shot burst. What does that leave full auto be the answer is nothing more than a pointless ammo wasting feature or what some people call the woohoo walking corpse mode. Why woohoo walking corpse mode
    1) out of ammo equals no means to protect self so user will be dead soon.
    2) full auto barrel flare is like a beacon to any one in the area to have a clean shot at any idiot to use it.
    3) Person using the mode “Can’t hit the side of a barn” as the old saying goes due to the on going recoil from every shot.

    Most armies around the world have ceased usage of any hand held weapon with full auto. Truck, tank, building, something solid not a human mounted full auto makes some kind of sense as those object provide something to take up the recoil.

    dougman wrote, “The SKS is not an assault weapon, nor is it a areal denial/suppression weapon.”
    Right to pull dougman up on this. Depends on the model SKS. Due to SKS still being in use by different mil forces and made in different countries in fact exists SKS models with 3 shot burst mode as well as single shot mode so making those a area denial/suppression weapon. Chinese Type 68 and Type 81 SKS includes 3 shot burst.

    SKS to a lot of mil in single shot semi-auto are in fact listed as assault weapons.

  25. Here’s video of the first encounter with police. Does this look like sniping? The guy uses some columns as cover but does not even get down. He’s just walking around waiting to be killed and no one manages to do that. See Youtube. It’s unclear in the video the nature of the rifle but it may as well be any semi-auto. There is a hail of pistol bullets ricocheting off the building all around him but none are effective. At one point a police officer closes within yards of him but can’t kill him. He kills the police officer at close range without even aiming.

  26. dougman wrote, “The SKS is not an assault weapon, nor is it a areal denial/suppression weapon.”

    A semiauto rifle definitely serves to intimidate those downrange. It is not as effective in these roles as a fully automatic rifle but it is far superior to a handgun or a bolt-action in these roles. If the thing was an SKS, rather than AR-15 as reported, it has even worse ballistics at long range, due to lower muzzle-velocity. Full auto is not a requirement of an assault weapon although most are selective fire. Seals often use semi-auto rather than full auto and they definitely are assault troops. Full-auto is just about useless at close ranges because one shot will do the job promptly. Some assault rifles do have a 3-shot mode to be a bit more effective yet conserve ammunition. If the SKS was not an areal denial weapon, why did police use a bomb and wait hours to get even?

    The SKS is indeed semi-auto but it occasionally fires full-auto if a firing pin gets stuck.

  27. oiaohm wrote, ” Trained sniper can allow for wind drift and bullet free fall. So 600 Yard weapon in snipers hands can in fact do 1200 Yards+.”

    That’s irrelevant. Ballistics prevents 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington being effective past 600 yards both for accuracy and lethality:
    Suppose 63 grain FMJBT bullet at 3100 ft/s. At 600 yards there is less than 400 ft-lb of energy left and velocity is similar to .22LR at the muzzle, not very lethal. At 1200 yards, energy is a bit over 100 ft-lb, annoying but rarely fatal. Also, rapid firing standing like this guy did eliminates much chance of an expert marksman using his full potential accuracy.

  28. oiaohm says:

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/mike-mcdaniel/leave-police-theyre-professionals/
    Robert Pogson I was forgetting where I was talking about.
    Police are not generally marksmen/women. They have a day job: writing citations for by-law infractions, vehicular traffic, patrol, investigation, … They just don’t have the time to attain high levels of skill without access to better weapons, ranges, and specialist training.
    This is kinda excuse for having poor results. Australian law enforcement holding a glock automatic requires advanced training and certification. 80 yards min target effectiveness. Yes 25 yards past what average with the weapon are expected to-do. This is particularly to give advantage of someone gets hands on a police gun.

    I forgot that USA police force have totally garage skill requirements for fire arm marksmanship. Truly puling 100 Yards out a hand gun is more than possible with those who do the training.

    Something scary is a glock 23 and 22 that lots of police carry is rated for lethal force at 300 yards. Yes 100 Yards out a police issue hand gun is still less than 1/3 of the lethal force range.

    One of the biggest problems with reading effective range on the gun is failing to understand that this is purely based on a average skilled fire arm user picking the gun up for the first time and shooting at a target and firing off 6 shots and at least 2 of those be equal to head shot. Yes what you can expect an average to-do becomes what is defined as effective range. Now a person who has trained with the same weapon for a while expecting double effective range is nothing strange. A glock with insane training could do a kill shot at 300 yards.

    The rifle the murdering bastard used is effective only to 600 yards and not nearly as accurate as the typical sniper’s rifle.
    This is a common mistake. Trained sniper can allow for wind drift and bullet free fall. So 600 Yard weapon in snipers hands can in fact do 1200 Yards+. Please note tracking point what is computer assisted pulled 1400 Yards out the same class of weapon. Yes the 1400 Yard tracking point is a AR-15 exact same class of gun this guy was using even round size the same. Effective is what average trained should be able to-do not advanced trained. Advanced trained most cases it double the effective range+. So he is holding a weapon that a average skilled should be able to do head shots at 600 yards fairly easily.

    To make this more than clear. Accuracy International AWM the gun that is one of the most common sniper guns has a rated effective range of 1100 yards but in trained sniper hands it has many confirmed 1 shot kills at from 2000 Yards to 2,701 Yards. So effective range for a gun for a pro sniper is at least twice it rated effective range.

    The usage of the term Sniper is not restricted to those people who attend military schooling. The media has used a word to describe the shooter. They were not giving the shooter an official title.
    And no matter what you say its the wrong word dougman.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper
    Key thing to be a Sniper is high grade marksmanship.

    Now when you are talking Australian mil it is Commando the title given to “shoot and move” game play with imperfect marksmanship. Yes the difference between a Sniper and Commando is in a lot of ways grade of marksmanship. Commandos and Snipers do mostly all the same weapons.

    Commando method of shot and move has seen Australian forces do at least 10 to 1 kill rates. This is the problem this shooters kill rate is way to low even for Commando skill level. Reserve forces here are expected to get 8 to 1 kill rate in a surprise attack.

    The reality there is a lot of issue with USA police and Mil being under trained with weapon usage.

    Islamic supremacist
    dougman as soon as you say that you are mostly not talking about those who follow the Quran or the person saying has Islamophobia.
    Quran has it that Muslim should not be judged by non Muslim laws but they also have non Muslims should not be judged by Muslim laws either. The groups that some call Islamic supremacist are mostly packs of infidels bending the words of the Quran in the same way Christian crusaders did with the bible. Quran is quite clear that being Muslim is not something that gives a person a right to think they are superior to everyone else. Over and over again the Quran states that everyone must be treated fairly no matter their religion. The Quran is very blunt about what should happen to Infidels.

    There is true Islamophobia and you are guilty of it dougman.

    All religion groups have rat bags who intentionally misinterpret the rules of the religion to suit their ends. Islam is not special in this reguard. You also see Christianophobia and other very bad things from Infidel class in the Islamic world. Extreme Christian groups are also very phobia about other religions.

    Dougman there is an old saying it takes two to tango referring two to fight. The disputes between Islamic and Chistianity…. broad list of other religions requires everyone to step back sort out what ones are the rat bags in each religion and systematically get rid of those groups. Reality is Islamic, Christianity…. due to their rules about cultural respect should in fact be able to get along with each other quite well. The issue is the groups on both sides with intolerance issues that either need to be re-educated or exterminated or we must like never ending wars.

    The problem with Religion is not black and white its shades of grey. In every major Religion there are good and bad people. Some cases these bad people make it to position of leader.

    Classic example Muhammad Ali and Billy Crystal. Yes a Muslim with a Jew both followed their religions books properly so both were great friends with each other. Yet you still hear different leaders on the Jew and Muslim side saying neither by the religion books can be friends that is totally bogus.

    Dougman I have no problem calling out groups no matter the religion who are just trouble makers. Please remember there are trouble makers in all religions.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitlerjew.html
    Story of Hitler is a good one. 1 jew miss treated his grandmother end result was the Holocaust. This is how bad cultural phobias can become in a few generations. Can you now see Dougman where calling all Muslim or all Jews or all Christians bad ends up in nightmare location.

  29. dougman says:

    “It is a weapon of assault and areal denial and suppression, not lethal at very long ranges even.”

    I have hit static targets at 300, 400 500 and 600 meters away with a 5.56 round. Technically, one can go even further, but not I.

    The shooter in this setting used an SKS which fires a 7.62x39mm round, akin to a 30-30, which can hit targets out to 6 – 700 meters with a good rifle but is a terrible round for such use.

    The SKS is not an assault weapon, nor is it a areal denial/suppression weapon.

    May I remind you an assault weapon is “fully automatic” and a denial/suppression weapon would be a belt-fed machine gun, laying fire into the long axis of the beaten zone.

  30. dougman wrote, “The media has used a word to describe the shooter.”

    The word does not describe the shooter. “a marksman who shoots at people from a concealed place”.

    The guy parked his vehicle on the street, started his flashers and began shooting up and down the street in plain view of those at whom he fired. The police knew right where he was for hours. He was not concealed at all. They eventually sent a robot to deliver a bomb to the guy. He had no attributes of a sniper except he used a rifle. That kind of rifle is not typically used by snipers. It is a weapon of assault and areal denial and suppression, not lethal at very long ranges even. A true sniper can kill at 1000 yards with a single shot. The rifle the murdering bastard used is effective only to 600 yards and not nearly as accurate as the typical sniper’s rifle.

  31. dougman says:

    I am sure you are aware that calling someone a sniper doesn’t automatically mean they are calling you a “Qualified trained military Sniper with tab”.

    The usage of the term Sniper is not restricted to those people who attend military schooling. The media has used a word to describe the shooter. They were not giving the shooter an official title.

  32. oiaohm wrote, “if those police were master class with their weapons grab a riffle to take on someone under 100 meters in range would have be just endangering extra bystanders without valid reason.”

    Police are not generally marksmen/women. They have a day job: writing citations for by-law infractions, vehicular traffic, patrol, investigation, … They just don’t have the time to attain high levels of skill without access to better weapons, ranges, and specialist training. Most police forces will have a minority who are skilled but they may not have been on duty at the right place and time and may not have had the right tools for the job. Typically it can take up to an hour to have the right people deployed to a particular place (on a prior call or at shift change etc). I’ve lived in places remote enough that it took days to have the rank and file police to show up. A big city will be faster but they don’t have the resources/budget to have snipers deployed on every street corner. That’s why terrorism thrives. It’s a weed in a garden. It’s almost certain that the first police to respond will be out-gunned even if they have an AR-15 in the trunk. The guy could have killed 30 in the time it takes to open a trunk. Closing on the guy with a pistol was suicidal without adequate cover/covering fire. At close range, the guy with the pistol has an advantage but to move to that range is terribly risky out in the open. If police had coordinated and fired and closed in from multiple directions, it’s doable but with police clustering at both ends of a city-block, the bad guy had a target-rich environment. He could fire and move at will.

  33. dougman says:

    Robert left out the part saying Johnson “liked” the Nation of Islam, and that he was an American Muslim that attended a south Dallas mosque. Surprising, eh?

    The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamic supremacist groups have assiduously courted Black Lives Matter, and linked their propaganda efforts against “Islamophobia” to the Black Lives Matter stand against perceived racism.

    https://twitter.com/LouisFarrakhan/status/751146351262511105

  34. oiaohm says:

    http://tracking-point.com/products
    This is when I start questioning USA law. Robert Pogson. Really AR-15 he had was the least advanced AR-15. The tracking point weapons are the most advanced AR-15. Yes anyone can be sniper from 1400 Yards using a tracking point weapon. Yes tracking point tracks a target up to 20Km per hour. Faster ever unloaded human 44.4 Km/h for a very short time. The average unloaded is only 15km/h running. Yes police officer with gear is not unloaded.

    Remember he had a USA firearms license so could have legally bought a full kit of tracking point gear. Yes full kit includes heads up display for shooting around corners.

    I agree with the No a Sniper comment. Scary point is just by spending dollars on the right hardware any insane person like that can be a short range sniper. This makes me question the saying well prepared for crime.

    Since the introduction of tracking point tech. Any shot under 1400 yards/1281 metres is not classed as a skilled sniper shot since any odd person can do that with the right weapon in their hands. So this guy only shooting 100 yards and less is not even classed as a skilled with a rifle.

    Now it gets worse. I know Australian army in urban combat with a F88 Austeyr (general foot soldier weapon that is not classed as particularly good) trained to reserve level. Reserve level is about the lowest skill level must be able to head shot a target at 300 Yards.
    In the military he worked at carpentry and construction.
    Sorry to say a person doing carpentry and construction Australian army has to maintain the ability to head shot a target at 300 Yards. Was he dismissed from the military for being a worthlessly skilled soldier??? or is USA mil quality control garbage.

    Remember a general reserve Australia solider at 100 Yards would have been expected to get head shots no questions. Forget being a sniper the guy was not even a quality reserve solider without any specialities.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29
    Compare AR-15 with AR-15 crime. Port Arthur not formally trained shooter yes over 50 percent lethality.

    The police who closed on this guy with pistols were brave although foolish.
    Not exactly sure I would say foolish Robert Pogson.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock effective range is 55 yards. That is average skilled shooter being able to land head shot. Master skills shooter with a Glock is expected todo a 110 yards. We don’t know what skill level was the police officers. We know the guy the police was hunting could not shot 100 yards well. So if the police were master skill class with their weapon they in theory would have been out shooting him with pistols if they could find where he was hiding. Sniper with a general pistol you expect to pull of head shots at a 100 yards. Yes snipers are required to be able to do this. Big large sniper rifle for hitting targets kms away are not able to be used to protect ones on 6 so the gun protecting a snipers 6 is of all things a pistol. So this shooter in this crime was not even good enough to safely shot a sniper from behind. Yes the 300 yard requirement is so a foot solder can take out a sniper from behind.

    Something to always remember if those police were master class with their weapons grab a riffle to take on someone under 100 meters in range would have be just endangering extra bystanders without valid reason. Also knowing they were targeted could have made them presume the cars where the rifles could have been stored would have been covered. This is why I am not sure of the police were foolish or not. We can for sure say the police without question were brave and may have been doing exactly the right thing due to their skill set.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *