Posted on 10/13/2017 3:39:32 PM PDT by Kaslin
In the hypercharged partisan atmosphere that disgracefully follows any mass shooting tragedy, journalists, politicians, and anyone with an opinion spontaneously become firearms experts. Yet, as this U.S. Army combat infantry grunt can attest, these desk jockeys are no straight shooters.
The Interstate 91 country music massacre is no exception. From talks of machine guns, bump stocks, “silencers” and the semantics of weapons transportation, these would-be sharpshooters are negligently off-target when it comes to the laws of modern warfare. Although reporters posing as weekend warriors insist that crazed gunman Stephen Paddock’s decision to use a bump stock made his shooting ambush the deadliest in modern history, the truth is that his erratic gunfire inadvertently reduced casualties.
With over 1000 days of continuous combat operations during three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as over a decade of training and leadership as a U.S. Army infantryman, my experience can provide some insights lacking from the deadly shooting rampage in Las Vegas. I have qualified as an expert marksman with the military-issued variant of every confirmed weapon system utilized by Paddock to carry out his heinous assault, and I have instructed hundreds of American, Iraqi, and Afghan soldiers in the finer nuances of advanced rifle marksmanship.
In a rare bipartisan effort to do something -- anything -- in response to the violence, lawmakers are currently considering a ban against the bump stocks, or the weapons accessory that modifies semiautomatic rifles to fire at an automatic rate of fire. Instead of pulling the trigger once to fire a single round, an automatic weapon fires multiple rounds when the trigger mechanism is depressed. A bump stock mimics this effect on standard semi-automatic rifles available for purchase in civilian stores.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I have thought the same thing. “Spray and Pray” rarely results in hits. Now, Paddock was firing at an area target so that would compensate somewhat but a barrel rise of even a few inches would send most of the rounds over the target.
Also, I keep hearing that Paddock killed 58 and wounded over 500. I’ve also heard he killed 58 and another 500 were injured. Not the same thing.
And, yes, I was commissioned Infantry in 1970.
BTW, has anyone heard a count for the number of people shot vs. the number trampled?
This has been my belief as well, based on articles I've read in various publicans dedicated to LRPR and tactical small arms ("Precision Shooter" and "Tactical Shooter" -- both no longer published). A Canadian military small arms instructor in one article explained the differences in effectiveness between aimed semi-auto and full-auto fire.
I have some experience in LRPR and field shooting at 400 yards and beyond. There is no substitute for aimed fire, even when "spraying a crowd". Paddock fired 100's of rounds, yet only killed 58. I can only speculate what the number of fatalities may have been, if he were not wasting rounds, but landing every shot -- a feat quite probably at this range with a scope with illuminated reticle (which he had).
I am thankful personally that my sister-in-law was not struck with a 308/7.62x51mm rather than a much less powerful 223/5.56Nato round. She is recovering from her wounds -- reconstructed jaw and bullet logged in her hip. A 30cal round would have struck with 4x the energy at this range (400 yards). She would not have survived.
Has it ever been shown what section of the crowd suffered the brunt of the hits?
I have not. But I am interested in this as well.
I did read that quite of few of those injured were soon released. (I don't recall the number). I presume they did not receive a bullet, but may have been trampled or struck by bullet fragments/shrapnel.
Excellent article.
When we first arrived in Vietnam in 1967 we had trained on M-14s.
When the Army issued are new M-16s, in Country ( with all the buffer problems that came with it), there was a limit on the rifle to only three-round burst and no full auto.
I seriously doubt we ever will, it simply doesn't fit the agenda.
His target started out as 22,000 people shoulder to shoulder and reduced in size pretty damn fast as people scattered. I would have thought with either semi or full auto he could have mowed down more than he did. Glad he didn’t. I’m betting his hit v fire rate is pretty low.
He made lots of mistakes, which adds to the narrative of an FBI sting on fire and in the ditch.
I think everyone’s lucky that the crazy man didn’t use a truck like the guy in France did. 84 people died from a panel truck.
Paddock could have bought a tractor-trailer loaded with gravel for weight and then driven it into the crowd of 22,000 people and he would have killed a lot more people.
I still think this guy is a secret Muslim.
>>BTW, has anyone heard a count for the number of people shot vs. the number trampled?
I have not, but like you, expect that the stampede was the cause of around half of the injuries. I wonder if, with HIPPA, we will ever know. It is something we should know just so we know more about how to best respond to horrible events similar to this.
Full wastes ammo, is less accurate, and makes the user feel safe when it actually often creates exposure and mag change fire gaps.
Along with everything else we haven’t learned about this (12 days in!) is how many of the injured/wounded were from the gunfire and how many from the panic, i.e.. trampling?
Godspeed to your sister. .223 is designed to wound and create battlefield causualties, which require more resources to deal with than dead bodies. I said this early. An SKS/AK would have produced many more dead in this scenario.
Because they have guns they ignore much more lethal methods. For sure.
He was also a pilot. He could’ve rented an aircraft and pancaked it into the crowd at high speed and a low grazing angle. Death toll would have been a couple hundred minimum. Add a few hundred lbs of homemade ANFO and he could have topped a thousand.
Excellent article.
_____________________
The author speaks from the rifleman’s bible. Marines are always told it is never how many rounds you send down field, but how many reach their target. One shot, one kill is the most efficient use of the weapon.
I thought the 3 round burst mechanical function, in lieu of the full auto option, was introduced long after the Vietnam war ended. What am I missing? Did I misunderstand your post Key?
It is a good thing the Germans moved to the Sturmgewehr; if they had stuck with the bolt actions they would have won the war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.