Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 204

Thread: Attack on Vegas Strip

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    A galaxy far far away
    Adopted Bronco:
    Rey
    Posts
    21,506

    Default

    If he was firing at isolated targets, I would agree, but he was basically shooting fish in a barrel.

    When we fired on automatic, it was usually only for as long as it took us to say banana, anything more we would pull the shots, or end up with a run away gun

  2. The Following 4 Users High Fived Valar Morghulis For This Post:


  3. #182
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    5,280
    Adopted Bronco:
    Kendall Hinton!
    Posts
    43,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis View Post
    If he was firing at isolated targets, I would agree, but he was basically shooting fish in a barrel.

    When we fired on automatic, it was usually only for as long as it took us to say banana, anything more we would pull the shots, or end up with a run away gun
    I get it, and the guy in the article kind of addressed that. This wasn't an experienced shooter (from what we know) and the recordings show he continued firing for much longer than "banana".

    It might even be why there is evidence he fired at the airport gas tanks - could have been because it was a run away gun.

  4. The Following User High Fived BroncoJoe For This Post:


  5. #183
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Albany, New York
    Adopted Bronco:
    Charley Johnson
    Posts
    27,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    Hey Davii - what do you think of this opinion?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...asualties.html
    Davii is probably a better source, but I will throw this out there. I do agree with the author that semi-auto fire is in almost all cases more effective than full auto, however, as the author also notes he was shooting at @ 420 meters. I've qualified Expert with an M-16A2 a couple of times, and the farthest target on the Army qualifying range was 300 meters. Its a challenge to hit that target with iron sights. The scumbag (I won't use his name) was however firing into a mass target that had very little ability to avoid incoming fire. I've got to think under this very specific instance that bump stock "full auto" fire was probably more deadly than semi-auto would have been, but that is not to dismiss the authors point. He may be right
    “What fresh hell is this?”

    "A man who picks a cat up by the tail learns something which he can learn in no other way." - Mark Twain

  6. The Following 4 Users High Fived Dreadnought For This Post:


  7. #184
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Adopted Bronco:
    DT
    Posts
    41,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    Hey Davii - what do you think of this opinion?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...asualties.html
    50/50 agree/disagree. While I agree that in trained hands a semi auto weapon is actually more accurate, and therefore, deadlier than an automatic weapon it isn't true in all scenarios. When the M16 was initially introduced it was a fully automatic assault rife. They quickly learned that it led to weapon malfunctions, very quick weapon degradation, and believe it or not a lower hit/casualty rate. The constant recoil caused people to miss their targets more often and by the third round they were typically high and missing every (or most) rounds thereafter.

    Because of those faults the decision was made that the M16A2 be semi-automatic and also have a three round burst selection where one trigger pull would fire a quick three round burst. This would force the shooter to reacquire their target between three round bursts and eliminate the problems found with automatic fire on an assault rifle. To date our military rifles are still not fully auto.

    So, while I agree with that here is where I disagree with the article. The above is in reference to someone shooting at point targets, individual targets or people. This shooter was not doing do, he was merely trying to get as much lead as possible into a massive grouping of people. He didn't care if he hit the lady in the red shirt that he was aiming at or the people around her. It didn't matter that the rounds were accurate beyond getting them into a massive group of people. Therefore the bump stock certainly aided in his goal of expending as many rounds as possible into a large gathering of people.

    Now, all that being said, a trained shooter, a marksman, competent military veteran, combat veteran, etc. could have killed a LOT more people with a semi-automatic or three round burst rifle. Yes, I am very confident from his position with his equipment that someone of my caliber or better could have taken out more than 58 souls without the bump stock. I am not confident that someone who is not professionally trained could have done this without the bump stock.

  8. The Following 6 Users High Fived Davii For This Post:


  9. #185
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Adopted Bronco:
    DT
    Posts
    41,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    Davii is probably a better source, but I will throw this out there. I do agree with the author that semi-auto fire is in almost all cases more effective than full auto, however, as the author also notes he was shooting at @ 420 meters. I've qualified Expert with an M-16A2 a couple of times, and the farthest target on the Army qualifying range was 300 meters. Its a challenge to hit that target with iron sights. The scumbag (I won't use his name) was however firing into a mass target that had very little ability to avoid incoming fire. I've got to think under this very specific instance that bump stock "full auto" fire was probably more deadly than semi-auto would have been, but that is not to dismiss the authors point. He may be right
    We do 500 yards with iron sites Dread, and honestly the 500yd line is my favorite as I am typically 10/10 there. Army.

    The course now includes the use of the ACOG scope as that is what we use in battle. Marines still do iron sites as well because you carry them with you and you never know when your ACOG might get smashed, but the qualification is now with your ACOG. I cannot tell you how much easier it is.

  10. The Following 2 Users High Fived Davii For This Post:


  11. #186
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Albany, New York
    Adopted Bronco:
    Charley Johnson
    Posts
    27,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Davii View Post
    We do 500 yards with iron sites Dread, and honestly the 500yd line is my favorite as I am typically 10/10 there. Army.

    The course now includes the use of the ACOG scope as that is what we use in battle. Marines still do iron sites as well because you carry them with you and you never know when your ACOG might get smashed, but the qualification is now with your ACOG. I cannot tell you how much easier it is.
    My vision was frankly barely up to 300M, though I could hit them. I would have had serious trouble with 500M. The ACOG seems like science fiction to me, cuz I'm freakin' old
    “What fresh hell is this?”

    "A man who picks a cat up by the tail learns something which he can learn in no other way." - Mark Twain

  12. The Following User High Fived Dreadnought For This Post:


  13. #187
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    5,280
    Adopted Bronco:
    Kendall Hinton!
    Posts
    43,926

    Default

    Thanks, all for the replies. I thought the article was interesting and posed some good points and questions.

  14. The Following User High Fived BroncoJoe For This Post:


  15. #188
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Centennial (which is in Colorado)
    Adopted Bronco:
    Meck
    Posts
    27,001

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Davii View Post
    50/50 agree/disagree. While I agree that in trained hands a semi auto weapon is actually more accurate, and therefore, deadlier than an automatic weapon it isn't true in all scenarios. When the M16 was initially introduced it was a fully automatic assault rife. They quickly learned that it led to weapon malfunctions, very quick weapon degradation, and believe it or not a lower hit/casualty rate. The constant recoil caused people to miss their targets more often and by the third round they were typically high and missing every (or most) rounds thereafter.

    Because of those faults the decision was made that the M16A2 be semi-automatic and also have a three round burst selection where one trigger pull would fire a quick three round burst. This would force the shooter to reacquire their target between three round bursts and eliminate the problems found with automatic fire on an assault rifle. To date our military rifles are still not fully auto.

    So, while I agree with that here is where I disagree with the article. The above is in reference to someone shooting at point targets, individual targets or people. This shooter was not doing do, he was merely trying to get as much lead as possible into a massive grouping of people. He didn't care if he hit the lady in the red shirt that he was aiming at or the people around her. It didn't matter that the rounds were accurate beyond getting them into a massive group of people. Therefore the bump stock certainly aided in his goal of expending as many rounds as possible into a large gathering of people.

    Now, all that being said, a trained shooter, a marksman, competent military veteran, combat veteran, etc. could have killed a LOT more people with a semi-automatic or three round burst rifle. Yes, I am very confident from his position with his equipment that someone of my caliber or better could have taken out more than 58 souls without the bump stock. I am not confident that someone who is not professionally trained could have done this without the bump stock.
    Yep, this is exactly the point of the crazed, irresponsible journalist backlashers. With a bump stock, the necessity that you be a certified marksman... or know ****-all about weapons in general... is significantly reduced for the average psychopath to go on a deadly killing spree.

  16. #189
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Richard Simmons
    Posts
    30,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    Thanks, all for the replies. I thought the article was interesting and posed some good points and questions.
    I’m glad you finally contributed something of substance.

  17. #190
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Kay Adams
    Posts
    54,753

    Default

    I have a substance I would like to contribute to Joe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Day1BroncoFan View Post
    I'm happier than tom brady in a gay bar....

  18. The Following 2 Users High Fived slim For This Post:


  19. #191
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Albany, New York
    Adopted Bronco:
    Charley Johnson
    Posts
    27,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wayninja View Post
    Yep, this is exactly the point of the crazed, irresponsible journalist backlashers. With a bump stock, the necessity that you be a certified marksman... or know ****-all about weapons in general... is significantly reduced for the average psychopath to go on a deadly killing spree.
    True. I would also caution however against reading too much into formal qualifications. I was a decent shot before Army basic training, and became much better due to the kindly professional instruction of my drill instructors. That said, It's not rocket science to hit targets with a modern self-loading rifle pretty consistently. A weirdo with access to basic Youtube videos to teach him concepts of sight picture, sight alignment, breathing and trigger control, a supply of ammo, and a place to shoot can make himself pretty deadly in not too much time
    “What fresh hell is this?”

    "A man who picks a cat up by the tail learns something which he can learn in no other way." - Mark Twain

  20. The Following 2 Users High Fived Dreadnought For This Post:


  21. #192
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    37,291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slim View Post
    I have a substance I would like to contribute to Joe.
    Slim, keep your "substances" in the lounge.

  22. The Following 3 Users High Fived GEM For This Post:


  23. #193
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Javonte Williams
    Posts
    31,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Davii View Post
    We do 500 yards with iron sites Dread, and honestly the 500yd line is my favorite as I am typically 10/10 there. Army.

    The course now includes the use of the ACOG scope as that is what we use in battle. Marines still do iron sites as well because you carry them with you and you never know when your ACOG might get smashed, but the qualification is now with your ACOG. I cannot tell you how much easier it is.
    Does the ACOG scope have a mil-sizing reticle?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sting
    "You know cos I just lost my parents--both my parents died in the same year...to this day, people come up to me and say 'my dad died and that album really meant a lot to me,' which is very nourishing {pats heart} for a songwriter to hear that your songs have a utility beyond just their own solace, that it actually helps other people."

  24. #194
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Adopted Bronco:
    DT
    Posts
    41,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawgdriver View Post
    Does the ACOG scope have a mil-sizing reticle?
    Negative, converting mils to distance is removed from the equation. Reticle looks like this:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Trijicon-FAQ-Chevron-Bullet-Drop-Chart.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	11.3 KB 
ID:	11199

  25. #195
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Kay Adams
    Posts
    54,753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GEM View Post
    Slim, keep your "substances" in the lounge.
    I have the best substance, everyone says so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Day1BroncoFan View Post
    I'm happier than tom brady in a gay bar....

Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group