Kenr6583 wrote: ↑July 18, 2024, 7:38 pm
AlexO wrote: ↑July 18, 2024, 1:00 pm
Kenr6583 wrote: ↑July 18, 2024, 11:04 am
Not all AR-15's are created equally. The one used in this particular case was on the cheaper end and a poor choice for effective long-range shooting, manufactured by DPMS.
Exactly where is the manufacturer and price of the AR15 used revealed.
130m can hardly be called Long Range Shooting even by civilian standards.
Just remember that the military are supplied by the cheapest available manufacturer and even the worst soldier is supposed to be able to hit a target at 300m at least 70% of the time.
I was referring to quality, not price, when referencing the gun manufacturer, DPMS. DPMS is not known for their quality. The information of the brand was provided by law enforcement to the news agencies.
I would consider Colt and Sig Sauer as top manufacturers who use quality materials to manufacture their guns.
Even though 130m may not be considered “long-range” it is well over a football field, and as a soldier we were not taught to take a head shot because of the smaller target area and the fact that we only used the front sight on our M-16. We weren’t, or at least I wasn’t, trained to be a sniper.
Cheaper tends to refer to cost.
Never seen an article on rifle manufacturer but will bow to your superior sources.
No argument about gun makers, who makes the AR15 General issue weapon to USA Armed Forces now.
As I said Centre of Mass is the clever shot especially with a high velocity rifle round. Thats why I questioned the shooters competency.
M16's were initially just iron sights, same as I was trained on the 7.62 SLR, however the introduction of magnifying sights on general issue weapons massively improved shooting standards in all units that received them.
Was never sniper trained (their skills are not just shooting) but was good enough to win a few medals in military competitions. Trained lots of guys to become good shots which was a prerequisite of their trade.