Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Ammo Used by Las Vegas Shooter

So you think he would have been more effective with aimed fire in the same amount of time? I'd say the dispersement of bullets from the bumpfire system was quite affective and desirable for the intended use. Volume of fire and coverage area were maximized in the shortest amount of time. A packed crowd does not require precision.

As far as the bullets though, he probably did use some sort of FMJ, which would have reduced severity of injuries.

Yes, I think aimed fire from a stable rest from rifles with good optics, firing softs or HPs, which were sighted in at 400-500 yds in the hands of someone who knew what he was doing would have killed more people. I think the shooter was a newbie to firearms and didn't know schitt about them which also leads me to believe he was a disgruntled Democrat trying to make a statement.

a guy at works brother is still carrying one of them around in his calf, its nestled up next to the artery, and his bone, doc said it might do more damage to take it out, he's getting a second opinion. make a helluva souvenir.

According to various news reports today, He bought two thirds of his guns in October 2017. Prior to that it's likely he only had a few pistols and a couple of shotguns.

He was also reported to have had "military grade" ammo....what ever that mean.

Wait, now you are completely changing the facts. I'm not talking about what a trained sniper might have done with his weapon of choice. Hell, for that matter an Apache pilot would have been more affective with his daily ride. For this guy, in this scenario, the spread from the bump stock was probably a plus. Certainly in the number wounded.

Ammo, bolt/AR, bump stock....matters not when you are flock shooting.

I am betting he didnt do too much aiming at individuals, raining lead into a crowd and probably hitting 2 or 3 with each shot.

Not interested in an argument. Just saying the guy didn't know much about guns otherwise he would have done things differently if his aim was to kill as many innocents as possible.. Good thing for everyone he was fairly new to firearms.

From a previous thread about the fuel tanks what if he had a 50 bmg with incenderary rounds could be a lot worse

Of course someone trained could have done more damage.

And hauling tail? In a fenced area wiht restricted egress? Ever see some of the fire videos in crowded venues... they TRY to haul tail, they get jammed at the exits and en masse...

RE bullets, it may have been better in some ways if they were frangible, might have stopped in first body... but that body might have died for sure... instead of hitting multiples...

Reading through this thread all I can say it's a pretty poor line of commentary. It would make for quite a few dandy soundbites (or keybites) in the wrong hands. I know it's hard not to talk about how much we all know about "all things the rifle", but man.

Half the posts on the 'fire since Sunday involve tinfoil. Now start an internet debate of what an ineffective operator numb nuts was. Think it over fellas.

Hard to believe in the midst of a 'call for action' by the left there is discussion about the efficacy of green tip vs frangible and whether a bump-stock is better than a bolt action in skilled hands.

What a bunch of dumb [bleep]. Firing rapid fire at several thousand people all jammed together, you don't need to aim precisely.He could have closed his eyes and hit as many.