Shooting at Trump rally?

[gregintenn]

33 minutes ago, btq96r said:

The shot wasn't bad.  A target as small as a head moving around at 130yds is not easy.  Trump turning his head as the bullet came in was the completely uncontrollable part.

If the shooter aimed for the body, different story.  Trump was more or less in the same area with his body mass, and a shot that goes in through the ribs could have changed history.  I doubt candidate Trump is traveling with the same level of trauma support he did while President.

But for a 20yr old, I'm guessing a head shot was something he thought was what all the good snipers do.

Yep. Center mass is the most still and largest reliable target for taking down whatever can walk. I’m sure glad libs get their information from MSNBC and Hollywood, otherwise we’d have a different nominee.

[gregintenn]

3 hours ago, deerslayer said:

They are hired because they are the best at what they do, race be damned (and that’s how it should be).  

Would have been nice if the federal government would have adhered to this procedure.

[papa61]

9 hours ago, mikegideon said:

It's been discussed on here many times before. You never know how someone will react to gunfire until it happens. I don't know how you would test them in advance.

ever seen Heartbreak Ridge??

[papa61]

8 hours ago, NoBanStan said:

How in the heck are we supposed to get up there??

If only someone would invent:
•    A scissor lift, crane or a cherry picker
•    One of those stands they use for the announcers at golf tournaments
•    A DRONE!!!
•    long stick with a camera

physical standards for LEO.
no offense intended as I wouldn't pass

[papa61]

7 hours ago, GlockSpock said:

In my opinion, it can further be explained like this. Imagine you have a small company that generally is made up of "good old boys" from the same small city. Perhaps you are hiring a position and have two candidates, each of them roughly equal to the other. One of them is from the same small city as everyone else but one of them grew up and worked in Spain for a number of years.

Theoretically, hiring the Spain applicant could be beneficial to the team as a whole because they'll bring life experience, lines of thinking, and other things such as these that the homeboy cannot bring.

Now, it goes wrong if the Spain applicant is grossly under-qualified but you hire them anyways simply because they are a Spain applicant and thus you get to meet metrics on a spreadsheet. Organic vs. forced.

I have to disagree on this one. In your scenario the hometown boy would probably be better for your small company. The Spaniard would be an outcast and their opinion completely overlooked making them useless dead weight.

DEI is discrimination at it's core. Especially for someone like myself. If I voiced my opinions where I work I'd be unemployed very soon. Not racist, not sexist, not anything evil or discriminatory. But consider this, STRAIGHT CHRISTIAN persons do not get to announce their preferences or beliefs do they? Why does it have to be an issue that someone is confused as to what gender they are? I do not care, I do not have any need or desire to know. All I need to know is that you are qualified and capable of doing the task assigned to you. Personal life and preferences need to remain just that, they have no purpose in the workplace. On top of that, I believe in our founder's words about it being a man's duty to be at all times armed. Try posting that on your desk. I think the military angle mentioned is right on the money. completely integrated and promotions based on time and performance. 

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, deerslayer said:

Head swiveling a little or not, that should have been a chip shot with a decent rest.  

I like good rests. I own a couple of good ones. But, I also own the Art of the Precision Rifle. They're making shots at a mile off Harris bipods. My two Grendels have bag riders on them. Anything less gets a bipod. 

[btq96r]

1 hour ago, Hozzie said:

My point stands. The type of rifle wasn’t the issue.   That was what I was really responding to.  

For sure.  An unarmored target where over penetration isn't a concern (sorry, one last weight joke), a .223/5.56 round is just fine.

 

1 hour ago, deerslayer said:

Head swiveling a little or not, that should have been a chip shot with a decent rest.  

In a comfy position, maybe a rest of bipod, distance to target known exact to set your aiming point, and someone who knows a lot about shooting and does it multiple times a week could put a first shot is exactly where you want to put it.  Yeah, you get that chip shot.

But this wasn't Chris Kyle, it was a 20yr old weirdo who had never shot something that wasn't a paper target, and had who knows what level of adrenaline flowing as he pulled the trigger for his first shot of the day.

Edited July 18 by btq96r

[papa61]

6 hours ago, Links2k said:

In our capitalist society, I refuse to believe the majority of real decision makers are leaving money on the table to make a diversity hire. That’s just one more things politicians push out there, because it’s an effective strategy of angering their base. 
 

Read some of Mark Cuban’s comments about diversity. His comments are a mixture of everything being talked about today. In the end, the best qualified applicants get the jobs. 

Business leaders CEO/COO/President etc answer to the board of directors who answer to the stock holders. Again, image is often more important than performance. Look at TSC, their customer base is what swayed they leadership to drop DEI. Some leaders are seeing the backlash and loss and are throwing it out but not all will. Many are swayed by the vocal rabel rousers.

[papa61]

6 hours ago, Links2k said:

What kind of jobs are some of you working where a company owner, division director, supervisor, HR manager or others can afford to put their necks on the line, and their family’s well being on the line for the sake of simply making a diversity hire? It can’t be a serious company. 

I work for a worldwide fortune 500 company that is pushing DEI. I believe it's why our CEO just retired.

[papa61]

46 minutes ago, btq96r said:

For sure.  An unarmored target where over penetration isn't a concern (sorry, one last weight joke), a .223/5.56 round is just fine.

 

In a comfy position, maybe a rest of bipod, distance to target known exact to set your aiming point, and someone who knows a lot about shooting and does it multiple times a week could put a first shot is exactly where you want to put it.  Yeah, you get that chip shot.

But this wasn't Chris Kyle, it was a 20yr old weirdo who had never shot something that wasn't a paper target, and had who knows what level of adrenaline flowing as he pulled the trigger for his first shot of the day.

In my younger days in fatigues a head shot even on a moving target at about 120 meters without a rest was simple. That's from ground level on pop up impact dropping target with a very limited time to make a hit. I could hit a target twice before it dropped back down. That's with a mil spec M16. Most if not all ARs are tighter. It wasn't the rifle's fault, it was all on the shooter. Granted, I had prior experience but most in my platoon did not. And I'm nowhere close to sniper material. No, we didn't know the target sequence, they popped up when and where they popped up, out to head and shoulder targets at 300 meters. the head is much smaller target at 300m than 120m.

edit: the only unknown is if the rifle was properly zeroed.

edit two: still on the shooter as is not shooting center mass. I still say he was trying to prove he could shoot.

Edited July 18 by papa61

[deerslayer]

1 hour ago, btq96r said:

In a comfy position, maybe a rest of bipod, distance to target known exact to set your aiming point, and someone who knows a lot about shooting and does it multiple times a week could put a first shot is exactly where you want to put it.  Yeah, you get that chip shot.

But this wasn't Chris Kyle, it was a 20yr old weirdo who had never shot something that wasn't a paper target, and had who knows what level of adrenaline flowing as he pulled the trigger for his first shot of the day.

Well, in my original post, I mentioned a competent rifleman, not a zit face duffer.  But for the sake of argument, let's say Trump's head presented an 8" target.  When he turned his head, he reduced the target area to maybe 6", so Crooks was already 2" from completely missing his 8" target.  At 125 yards, a 6" circle is about 5.25 MOA.  Miscalculating the distance would have minimal effect on elevation (unless he had some crazy 500 yard zero) and none on windage.  Missing a 5.25 MOA target that close three times from a rest probably ain't gonna win the next F-class match.  Just sayin'

Edited July 18 by deerslayer

[deerslayer]

3 hours ago, gregintenn said:

Yep. Center mass is the most still and largest reliable target for taking down whatever can walk. I’m sure glad libs get their information from MSNBC and Hollywood, otherwise we’d have a different nominee.

A center mass shot would have changed history.

[mikegideon]

Just now, deerslayer said:

A center mass shot would have changed history.

The most truth I have heard about the whole deal, even with a 223.

[Snaveba]

I doubt Trump was wearing Level 4 Plates. Soft armor at best, and probably not even that.  

[deerslayer]

16 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

The most truth I have heard about the whole deal, even with a 223.

A .223 may or may not have killed him, but it probably would have disabled him to the point of being out of the race.  

If I want to whack a guy from 125 yards no if, ands, or buts, and I don't care who hears the shot, I'm bringing a high power bolt action rifle (.30-06/.308/.243/6.5CM/7 Mag/whatever) with a 4X or a 3-9x scope.  Basically a deer rifle.  

Edited July 18 by deerslayer

[Alleycat72]

1 hour ago, Snaveba said:

I doubt Trump was wearing Level 4 Plates. Soft armor at best, and probably not even that.  

You know the guy had s^&t 55 gr ball.

[Links2k]

 

[BigK]

This guy claims 1 in 20 adults in American owns an AR-style rifle. Think that's accurate? Start at 3:56 for that quote.

 

[Omega]

2 hours ago, Snaveba said:

I doubt Trump was wearing Level 4 Plates. Soft armor at best, and probably not even that.  

There is level IV body armor that is very thin, ours is titanium I think.  Our CI guys get it issued as well as some that need to be in civies around the general pop.

Edited July 18 by Omega
Speeling

[mikegideon]

3 hours ago, deerslayer said:

A .223 may or may not have killed him, but it probably would have disabled him to the point of being out of the race.  

If I want to whack a guy from 125 yards no if, ands, or buts, and I don't care who hears the shot, I'm bringing a high power bolt action rifle (.30-06/.308/.243/6.5CM/7 Mag/whatever) with a 4X or a 3-9x scope.  Basically a deer rifle.  

Yeah. I have a 243 and a 270. Both great rifles, but not near as accurate as my Grendels. They're a lot lighter though.

[Chucktshoes]

48 minutes ago, BigK said:

This guy claims 1 in 20 adults in American owns an AR-style rifle. Think that's accurate? Start at 3:56 for that quote.

 

Eh, it’s using really round numbers with the total number of ARs in circulation divided into the total population. Considering how many folks own multiple ARs, it’s probably much a lower ownership rate. 

Edited July 18 by Chucktshoes

[Snaveba]

4 hours ago, Omega said:

There is level IV body armor that is very thin, ours is titanium I think.  Our CI guys get it issued as well as some that need to be in civies around the general pop.

What is it you do again Omega……

[mikegideon]

6 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

Eh, it’s using really round numbers with the total number of ARs in circulation divided into the total population. Considering how many folks own multiple ARs, it’s probably much a lower ownership rate. 

I've known a lot of folks that own only one AR. I owned a bunch before the accident. It's not one for one, but it's gonna be one and a small fraction per person.

[Snaveba]

15 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

I've known a lot of folks that own only one AR. I owned a bunch before the accident. It's not one for one, but it's gonna be one and a small fraction per person.

Was that the boating accident?

Edited July 18 by Snaveba

[mikegideon]

20 minutes ago, Snaveba said:

Was that the boating accident?

Yes. It was tragic.