Home › Main Category › Second Amendment/Politics
Nomadac
Senior MemberPosts: 890 Senior Member
Full Auto vs Semi-auto
Nomadac
Senior MemberPosts: 890 Senior Member
Full Auto vs Semi-auto, which is more effective? Would the shooter have killed more people if he fired semi-auto?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2PFY8MNVuY
I saw a similar video years ago that demonstrated the same thing.
What about is he used a this:
Death toll rises to 85 in Bastille Day attack in Nice.
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31, plowed a 20-ton truck into crowds on the Promenade des Anglais seafront in Nice during a fireworks celebration on Bastille Day, France's key national holiday.
Eighty-six people were killed, all but three of them at the time of the attack. A total of 303 people were taken to hospital for medical treatment.
Ten children were among the victims. More than 200 people were injured.
How easy would it have been to steal a large truck and crash into the crowd?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2PFY8MNVuY
I saw a similar video years ago that demonstrated the same thing.
What about is he used a this:
Death toll rises to 85 in Bastille Day attack in Nice.
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31, plowed a 20-ton truck into crowds on the Promenade des Anglais seafront in Nice during a fireworks celebration on Bastille Day, France's key national holiday.
Eighty-six people were killed, all but three of them at the time of the attack. A total of 303 people were taken to hospital for medical treatment.
Ten children were among the victims. More than 200 people were injured.
How easy would it have been to steal a large truck and crash into the crowd?
0
Replies
As for trucks or cars they can be used, but most large events have security barriers. Remember the jackwagon in Charlottesville tried to use a car and killed 1 and injured 19. That was with large crowds on a public street. Basically an ideal situation for that type of attack.
In short vehicle attacks can be just as deadly, but they require an ideal set of circumstances and can be defended against by easy and cheap concrete barriers. Firearms are more flexible and can be deployed basically anywhere and FA can be wicked effective in dense crowds.
Emptying magazines (30 and 50 round) quickly by spraying them into the crowds probably gave him a higher probability of hits than aimed fire. It was about 400 yards to to the concert from his position, and he was around close to 100 yards high on the 32nd floor. That is going to make the bullet trajectory higher than on level ground. He went for quantity of rounds downrange rather than quality of aimed fire, and the higher probability of hits due to the amount of bullets fired into the given area.
Honestly though I am not much on FA anyway ... waste of perfectly good ammo 95% of the time and that 5% is under circumstances I don’t see myself in now. I’ll take a good bolt gun in a good caliber and distance is my friend.
- George Orwell
It was 300 yards to his front side targets and maybe 100 yds across. You dont even need to dope wind well and it is a 2 MOA come up on a 223. Which you wouldnt even need to add on a torso sized target.
edit: trying to hit targets would have been a lot more effective. I'm sorry, but to say otherwise is a ignorant statement. You really need to get to any range where you can back up and try it out.
We are not talking long range here, this is just a bit beyond point blank range. A bolt rifle from wal mart is half competent hands would have more "effective", and if he would have been competent with a autoloader, it would have been a heck of a lot worse.
To the OP:
Full auto is best for keeping heads down and to make jiggly bikini videos. It isnt more or less effective (except in the jiggly vids) it is different, not better or worse, just two different things. Accuracy by volume, or accuracy by design.
Charlottesville attack was not meant to kill a bunch of people. Street was not anywhere near packed with people. And he was blocked by cars in the street.
If you're gonna talk vehicle attack on a large crowd packing the streets, then let's spec out the vehicle. Ford F-450 with a flatbed instead a box bed(more on that bed choice later). Truck will be diesel powered, auto transmission, and 4WD for obvious reasons. Vehicle has high ground clearance and plenty of rolling weight. Cowcatcher bumper guard on front. High ground clearance is for not getting stuck on bodies building up under truck, and bumper guard for protecting radiator.
Now about that truck bed choice. Bed will have tube steel box frame with wooden bed. 1/4" thick by 24" long by 2" wide pieces of cold rolled steel spaced 18" apart and welded horizontal to the ground to the tube steel side rails after being sharpened for 18" of their length.
Target would be typical protest march with a few hundred thousand participants packed from sidewalk to sidewalk screaming so loud that they occasionally cough up a lung. Lots of noise.
Running that vehicle into a crowd of thousands, from the rear of the crowd, at high speed would result in thousands of casualties, dead and wounded, before it could be stopped. Striking from the rear is important for a couple of reasons. They don't see it coming, and there's plenty of crowd noise to cover the approach. With any luck the attacker could reach the front of the protest and meet an end when the police shoot the truck cab to doll rags. No explosives needed to cause HUGE mass casualties in a crowd, just a little planning, and something between ones ears besides wet sawdust.
And I came up with that without any prior thought on the matter. Just read your post and started typing, and thinking.
On the bald assumption his motive was a terror attack, he was successful in wounding most of his victims. The
rest of the crowd was mixed in with wounded, bleeding, screaming people. How many of those concert goers, or their
families or friends will be attending concerts any time soon, if ever? IMO, he successfully intimidated the whole concert.
And all the king's horses, and all the king's men will never make those people feel safe, ever again.
Some liberals may want to ban guns right now, but I bet most of those concert goers will be sleeping with guns under their pillows
for the rest of their lives.
I will note that I spent the first 6 years of my career as a contractor for DOD and DHS working on anti terrorism projects including building and running existing models of terrorist attacks. My mind is now basically trained to do the same thing. What are the vulnerabilities. What is the weak point. How could someone kill the most people in this situation. The thing the untrained typically fail to factor in is how people react. That can either increase or decrease the casualty count. That said more often than not it decreases it. Also the ideal conditions under which an attack is assumed rarely exist in reality.
Looking at you're ideal attack I would roughly say the median number killed (say out of 100 identical attempts) would probably be on the order of 40-50 with a few outliers under perfect conditions exceeding 200. Total injured would be much higher though.
Actually I'd be really interested to build an agent based model to look at these types of attack scenarios. Look at factors like scattering and attempts to get out of the way, stampeding, and the impact of hitting people on the velocity of the vehicle etc. Hitting one person isn't going to have much effect, but what about 10 or 20? No doubt someone at DHS already has built something like this and could probably give a fairly decent statistical probably of the true likely number of casualties.
Trying that scenario in DC would be a fool's errand. I've been there, and the streets are too confined and traffic too congested. And WAY too many choke points for a vehicle. Now San Francisco or any large California city would be a prime target rich environment. The cops don't really do much in the big marches out there except sort of keep the parade participants and parade protesters from doing too much damage to one another.
Your estimated dead and wounded from that truck attack are highly optimistic in the low range. A truck that size traveling 60+ mph would be slowed down some, but not much at initial impact. And it has enough torque to keep speed up and plow through a crowd. A few vehicles could stop it if they were 6 deep in front of it, but not soft squishy bodies. Transmission might downshift one gear, and find a 'sweet spot' of momentum and maintain it until it until it hit something immovable or the driver was killed.
Look at the recent incident in Vegas. It's possible that death and direct wounding by gunshots was secondary to what the Vegas shooter wanted. If he's looking for a high death toll, he'd have used something more effective. I would speculate that for some reason he wanted a lot of people hurt, and whether it came from direct action (gunshots) or indirect action (getting run over, self-injury in avoiding the gunfire, etc.) it didn't really matter to him.
I ask myself that question quite often.
After the OKC bombing, prilled ammoniom nitrate was coated with a substance that made it inferior for making explosives; it won't absorb the fuel oil, and urea was added to it for the same reason. You can't buy a 50# bag of ammonium nitrate at the big box store and use it for Tannerite for this reason. It is coated, and loaded with urea. Separating the urea from a 50# bag is a big pain in the rear; doing that to a couple tons of it would be a work intensive nightmare. And you still have to crush it into a coarse powder, like white cornmeal to negate the coating.
Explosives like dynamite, and the caps, are more tightly controlled since then, too. Robbing banks would be a lot safer than trying to break into a powder magazine, even one on a remote blasting site. You can make your own explosives to set it off, but it would be safer to just play Russian Roulette with a semiauto with a round in the chamber. They're all extremely volatile and extremely sensitive to shock and static electricity. And the fumes from their manufacture will eat brain cells faster than meth.
A M-80 will detonate ammonia nitrate. When was the last time you saw one of those. It's certainly is not rocket science.
Hardly, I get them every 4th of July and New years eve. The good ones where you can feel the concussion when they go off.
The m-80's they sell now are not the real deal. Well unless they are illegal. Original M-80's held 2-3 grams of flash powder. Federal law now limits firecrackers to 50 mg. Basically they look like m-80's but have a tiny fraction of the power. And yes as a young advanced chemistry student I did plenty of experimentation with all sorts of commercial grade fireworks as any good future scientist/engineer should.
These M-80s are the same ones I played with when I was a snot nosed kid. As to being illegal maybe but as long as you know someone they are available during the holidays as with mortars and all the other cool stuff. Kinda like illegal drugs they are hard to find also, but if you look.
https://www.skylighter.com/
I'm not sayin'. Just sayin'. Roll your own. :tooth:
Just drop about 40grains of Pyrodex down your smoke poll and cover with plenty of wadding and let 'er rip!
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Vickers makes some good points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cosc-RO_oMg
Also reference the British Mad Minute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute the record for which was 36 hits on a 48" target at 300 yards WITH A WWI-ERA BOLT ACTION FED WITH STRIPPER CLIPS.
Given he was basically shooting into a can of sardines, Paddock probably could have done just as much damage with aimed fire from a single shot Martini from the 1870's, to say nothing of the options of trucks, explosives, and airplanes.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
The mad minute challenge. No i didn't watch on 20 minutes.
Winston Churchill