This YouTuber has some great analysis of the incident…
[media=https://youtu.be/nbICt0JdTHE]
Gray Hughes Investigates - “You can see the gun!”
I’m impressed with the level of investigation and the breakdown of the video footage.
Now I’m curious about how the scope of the rifle was affected by the potential reinstallation after transport if he did in fact transport the rifle in his pants.
Apparently you will lose your zero if you remove the scope from your rifle, though the degree of shift can vary. Unless you use high-end, specialized mounts designed for repeatability, some change in the point of impact is almost guaranteed.
Could this account for the accuracy of the shot hitting Charlie Kirk in the neck when the likely point of aim was the T-box? The bullet drift down and to the right is another possibility for the shot hitting the neck of Charlie Kirk. I’m not a distance shooting specialist but I think the center mass would’ve been a lot easier to hit but perhaps the headshot was preferred by the shooter? Thoughts ?
Gray Hughes Investigates - “You can see the gun!”
I’m impressed with the level of investigation and the breakdown of the video footage.
Now I’m curious about how the scope of the rifle was affected by the potential reinstallation after transport if he did in fact transport the rifle in his pants.
Apparently you will lose your zero if you remove the scope from your rifle, though the degree of shift can vary. Unless you use high-end, specialized mounts designed for repeatability, some change in the point of impact is almost guaranteed.
Could this account for the accuracy of the shot hitting Charlie Kirk in the neck when the likely point of aim was the T-box? The bullet drift down and to the right is another possibility for the shot hitting the neck of Charlie Kirk. I’m not a distance shooting specialist but I think the center mass would’ve been a lot easier to hit but perhaps the headshot was preferred by the shooter? Thoughts ?
46-50, F
