Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Wim Dankbaar

Robert Groden Interview

Recommended Posts

Bill,

Thank you.  I have little interest in what Lifton might have to say about Z film alteration. l"Best Evidence" is great, if only it were 200 pages of the evidence, versus his personal 17- year- story, blow by blow. 

I can see why Bob Groden would have been critical since he is the EXPERT on the Z film, not dr Fetser or David Lifton.

I propose a new rule: All responses have to be in complete sentences.

Dawn

==========

Are we to be impressed with your ego or just your wishfullness at being someone in the KNOW?

How's that for Kings English?

roflmao!

_______________________________

And Merry Christmas to you too Mr. Healy. Are you always so charming, or do you reserve your kindness for this season of joy???

I could respond in kind, but then I would be sinking to a level that no-one has yet caused me to succumb.

Dawn

ps where's your bio???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I propose a new rule: All responses have to be in complete sentences.  [That would leave Al Carrier out]

Dawn

ps where's your bio???  [the forum "rules" are being applied very selectively]

Obviously, Al will not tolerate an anti-Castro, Mafia or corrupt police viewpoint. For that position to be condoned, even supported, renders this forum useless.

------------------------------

I think his Al's position may be accepted or rejected by anyone as he/she wishes. The trouble I see is that if you you do not agree with Al, you are "part of the problem" or an "idiot". In other words Al seems to think his position is gospel.  But there are enough ballistics experts who do not see eye to eye with him on everything. 

Wim

Obviously Al doesn't follow rule "v", since anyone who believes there are dirty cops is labeled "rediculous." He also doesn't follow the rule of logic, given his Catch-22 argument that no one who confesses, such as Tosh, could be genuine, and given the projection of his own performance in Latin America for which he certainly would never confess. He doesn't think anyone else should be allowed to comment, but when I posted new information about the massacre of dozens of police at Caro Quintero's ranch near Vera Cruz and asked for him to comment, he would not. So the Catch-22: as we search for the truth, he shuts down historians who didn't engage in murderous acts themselves in Latin America or have records of ongoing police abuse in America. Anyone who was there and admits it, must not have actually been there.

On Lancer, Al gave an ultimatum for certain people to be kicked off the forum, including the one he referred to on this forum as a "Nazi" (attacks don't get more personal than that; and he has made that statement on this forum). When not a single person spoke in support of him, he was silenced. That's history. Now, as Wim cited, people who don't kneel down before Al's murderous expertise are labeled "fantasy chasers," which is not considered personal attack here. He uses profanity and that's acceptable language here.

I don't sit back for police abuse and brutality, on the streets or on-line. That's not anti-establishment; that's pro-freedom.

Tim Carroll

Tim,

On how many threads are you going to post this? Have you gave up on investigating the Kennedy Assassination and now turned to attacking me on a full time basis. Thought of getting other hobbies?

If I recall correctly, the first run-in we had was on Lancer when I posted photographs of Dick Chaney's visit to my city which included some protesters that held banners and signs that were vulger. I didn't show the contents of these signs but mentioned how offensive they were and that they were out of line, even with the likes of a criminal like Chaney. You jumped all over me screaming free speech and could care less about my or any other children being exposed to this vulgarity in the signs or what they were chanting and basically told me to keep my kids off the public street where the protestors were if I didn't want them to see it. Now there is a true American who cares about people being offended! Now you jump on me for the language I used here?

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Tim, my tenure in LE allows me to explain the incompetent performance of the DPD and give explanation as to why they failed to perform their basic duties.

Al

Al Carrier's position is not significantly different than the one he attributes to James Files, that of a small timer exaggerating his own importance, perhaps magnifying a few things he's heard, and proclaiming with certainty that there was no police malfeasance in Dallas and no anti-Castro involvement in the assassination. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an "idiot" and Simkin doesn't consider that abusive. Al's profanity is defended by the administrator.

Unless Al Carrier was at least at the Deputy Directorate of Planning level at CIA or at a very high level in Military Intelligence, there's no way for him to know the things he claims with certainty and abusiveness. He presumes to know more than the likes of Gaeton Fonzi. He "rediculously" [sic] makes derogatory comments about historians who haven't earned the right to even talk about these matters, as he thinks he has. LE had its chance with this case in Dallas in 1963. That he still defends a 50% Bircher DPD is very telling. That he is certain that the police had no hand in Oswald's murder is "rediculous." [sic] That he thinks throwing around FrangOps33 gives him a right to control the free flow of historical examination, makes him an abusive cop walking the history beat. He's the LE side of the James Files story. That Tosh isn't around to let Al know what he really thinks is disappointing. Just check back when Tosh made a comment about there being some decent people in the CIA and Al's response. Tosh and I have discussed Al's imbalanced view of police compared with CIA: all or nothing, the province of a small (apparently somewhat illiterate) mind.

Tim Carroll

Historian

Okay Tim Carroll Historian, What is FRANg33? Surely it must be in reach of a true historian and researcher as yourself? So I should know less about these issues than an investigative reporter like Gaeton Fonzi? In what capacity did he serve in the field in such type operations? So you believe Tosh will discredit me? Then how do I know about covert operations in Central America that is not available to the researcher, and Tosh can confirm their existance? I would be more than happy to throw around a few dates, places and operations with Tosh on the forum and have him debate me on their validity. I believe it was Tosh who asked me if I instructed at SOA as I looked familiar to him there. It was also an exchange between Tosh and I about a meeting we may have had with John and Joe in Coasta Rica over twenty years ago. Strange how I know or am familiar with the same persons Tosh is, but they are not in the history books or anyone to be researched under these operational areas. But you now feel through some private e-mails or whatever that Tosh challenges my credibility? Let's bring it to open forum then.

I will gladly discuss with you the performance of the DPD on open forum and welcome you to list point by point how they were involved in the Kennedy Assassination. You can bring in your paranoia on police corruption and I will use my background in LE. Let's let the chips fall!

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al, Ron, others: I suggested a while back in a question to John Ritchson, that the use of a silencer (from positions other than the TSBD) may have slowed the projectile speed down somewhat... As I recall a silencer may reduce velocity to some extent, right?

My theory was that the carano or similar was used from the TSBD, and high powered rifles with silencers (to attempt to disguise their location) were used from around the railway overpass and the Dal-Tex. Perhaps someone else has suggested this too.

I don't believe anything but true assassin's weapons (high powered rifles) were used to assassinate Kennedy.

Projectiles with lower velocity (due to longer distance and silencers) would help explain the shallow wound in JFK's back and the throat wound, neither of which was a through-through wound.

Al, is this way off?

Antti,

This has been tossed around on Lancer in the past. I totally agree with you that rifles were the weapons used in the assassination. The problem with Suppressors on rifles is that while they do quiet the intial detonation, they cannot quiet the bullet bow shockwave of a rifle caliber projectile in flight. This shockwave will still be a giveaway of shot origin if the wits are perceptive of what is going on around them.

A suppressor will slow a velocity some eight to ten percent on the average and this is not enough to decrease the penetration level of the bullet on impact, unless the shot is of considerable range. What I mean by this is that the muzzle velocity has been comprimised and it will lose sustained velocity at a greater rate, but a shot within 150 yards should be effected very little.

For this velocity to be compromised so greatly at impact to fail to have the penetration it had, it would have to have been disrupted rather close to the target or it would have had it's trajectory effected a great deal. Once the registered velocity is greatly comprimised, it will then begin to drop it's level of trajectory at a fast rate and it's accuracy is greatly comprimised. That is why I believe in windshield penetration to reduce the velocity to these extremes while not comprimising the trajectory. Windshield penentration will reduce the velocity in the range of 40-60%, depending on the configuration of the projectile and the angle of penetration.

The only other factor in reducing penetration after impact would be the composition of the bullet. A compromised bullet that severely fragments will fail to achieve sustained velocity through the wound cavity, as the velocity is greatly compromised with the lighter the projectile (fragments of the projectile). But this would have created a tremendous amount of soft tissue damage within the throat, which was not evident at Parkland.

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you believe Tosh will discredit me?

Al

I believe he will take exception to your attacking me and what little you know in that regard. I could call him on his cellphone right now, but wouldn't want to drag him into this lowlife cop stuff for the holidays. Besides, I can handle your ass in an academic forum, if that's what this still is, any day. As for the dirty things you did, admit them yourself.

Al said: "But you now feel through some private e-mails or whatever that Tosh challenges my credibility?" I know he takes notice of your beat cop blustery attitude. Do you know what time it is right now where Tosh is?

Tim Carroll

Sorry Tim, but you are bringing a feather duster to a gunfight when you want to challenge me on these issues. Please don't consider the fact that I am ignoring all of your future posts as a weakness to debate with you, but you become increasingly ugly in your postings on a personal nature and this is not the place for it.

As for Tosh, I will gladly wait for his challenges, if there are any.

As for your personal attacks on me, I am sure we will meet someday at a conference and can address them man to man.

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has been tossed around on Lancer in the past. I totally agree with you that rifles were the weapons used in the assassination. The problem with Suppressors on rifles is that while they do quiet the intial detonation, they cannot quiet the bullet bow shockwave of a rifle caliber projectile in flight. This shockwave will still be a giveaway of shot origin if the wits are perceptive of what is going on around them.

A suppressor will slow a velocity some eight to ten percent on the average and this is not enough to decrease the penetration level of the bullet on impact, unless the shot is of considerable range. What I mean by this is that the muzzle velocity has been comprimised and it will lose sustained velocity at a greater rate, but a shot within 150 yards should be effected very little.

Al

1. What would the effect of a suppressor have been on the dictabelt recordings?

2. Would the reduced velocity possibly account for the shallow neck wound penetration?

Tim

Tim,

Carefully reread what I posted. It answers your questions. But feel free to go to someone outside LE as we are all ignorant and corrupt.

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As recounted in my online seminar, The Autopsy Photos:  A New Perspective, Robert Groden acknowledged just last month that the autopsy photos show an entrance wound in the location described by Humes, Finck, and Boswell.  He went even further, however, and insisted that he's always said so. 

Pat:

I went back to your seminar to find your source for such an assertion about what you say Bob Groden "acknowledged just last month" about the entrance wound "in the location described by Humes, Finck, and Boswell." I see that you cite a personal conversation with Groden on November 20, the day after I had dinner with him. First, I don't consider a casual conversation under questionable conditions a valid seminar citation. Is there a tape recording or signed transcript? Second, as to whichever location you allude, the doctors themselves have been extremely unclear. Here is a rear head photo with circles around the two allegedly potential entry wounds:

At the HSCA hearings, Humes almost walked out when he became so befuddled over which of the two circled spots was the wound. I find that you have been no clearer on the subject. Please humor me and tell me which is the entry wound and then explain what the other one is. If you can do that, you have accomplished something the doctors themselves could not.

Tim

Tim, on my contribution to the seminar, there are many different looks at the autopsy photos. To the side of many of them, I placed arrows pointing to where I see a bullet entrance. I've found that for most the bullet hole is readily visible once they get past the HSCA's smokescreen. I suggest you take another look. As for my discussion with Groden, it was not adversarial in the least. I showed him the bullet hole on the photo often referred to as #44, which he includes in his book, the Killing of the President, and he readily agreed. I don't mean to make a Federal case out of it...I have no intention of trying to prove he said what he said. I'm just sharing my impression of the man, that's all. If you think I'm lying, so be it.

Merry Christmas to all.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al Carrier Posted Yesterday, 06:52 AM

Al, Ron, others: I suggested a while back in a question to John Ritchson, that the use of a silencer (from positions other than the TSBD) may have slowed the projectile speed down somewhat... As I recall a silencer may reduce velocity to some extent, right?

My theory was that the carano or similar was used from the TSBD, and high powered rifles with silencers (to attempt to disguise their location) were used from around the railway overpass and the Dal-Tex. Perhaps someone else has suggested this too.

I don't believe anything but true assassin's weapons (high powered rifles) were used to assassinate Kennedy.

Projectiles with lower velocity (due to longer distance and silencers) would help explain the shallow wound in JFK's back and the throat wound, neither of which was a through-through wound.

Al, is this way off?

Antti,

This has been tossed around on Lancer in the past. I totally agree with you that rifles were the weapons used in the assassination. The problem with Suppressors on rifles is that while they do quiet the intial detonation, they cannot quiet the bullet bow shockwave of a rifle caliber projectile in flight. This shockwave will still be a giveaway of shot origin if the wits are perceptive of what is going on around them.

A suppressor will slow a velocity some eight to ten percent on the average and this is not enough to decrease the penetration level of the bullet on impact, unless the shot is of considerable range. What I mean by this is that the muzzle velocity has been comprimised and it will lose sustained velocity at a greater rate, but a shot within 150 yards should be effected very little.

For this velocity to be compromised so greatly at impact to fail to have the penetration it had, it would have to have been disrupted rather close to the target or it would have had it's trajectory effected a great deal. Once the registered velocity is greatly comprimised, it will then begin to drop it's level of trajectory at a fast rate and it's accuracy is greatly comprimised. That is why I believe in windshield penetration to reduce the velocity to these extremes while not comprimising the trajectory. Windshield penentration will reduce the velocity in the range of 40-60%, depending on the configuration of the projectile and the angle of penetration.

The only other factor in reducing penetration after impact would be the composition of the bullet. A compromised bullet that severely fragments will fail to achieve sustained velocity through the wound cavity, as the velocity is greatly compromised with the lighter the projectile (fragments of the projectile). But this would have created a tremendous amount of soft tissue damage within the throat, which was not evident at Parkland.

Al

Thanks Al. I recall John Ritchson saying the same thing about muzzle blast being suppressed, but that the shockwave is still present causing problems in terms of an attempted disguise. Perhaps a combination of several factors such as distance, a suppressor and ricochets or fragments all help explain the shallow wounds.

Edited by Antti Hynonen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al Carrier Posted Yesterday, 06:52 AM

Al, Ron, others: I suggested a while back in a question to John Ritchson, that the use of a silencer (from positions other than the TSBD) may have slowed the projectile speed down somewhat... As I recall a silencer may reduce velocity to some extent, right?

My theory was that the carano or similar was used from the TSBD, and high powered rifles with silencers (to attempt to disguise their location) were used from around the railway overpass and the Dal-Tex. Perhaps someone else has suggested this too.

I don't believe anything but true assassin's weapons (high powered rifles) were used to assassinate Kennedy.

Projectiles with lower velocity (due to longer distance and silencers) would help explain the shallow wound in JFK's back and the throat wound, neither of which was a through-through wound.

Al, is this way off?

Antti,

This has been tossed around on Lancer in the past. I totally agree with you that rifles were the weapons used in the assassination. The problem with Suppressors on rifles is that while they do quiet the intial detonation, they cannot quiet the bullet bow shockwave of a rifle caliber projectile in flight. This shockwave will still be a giveaway of shot origin if the wits are perceptive of what is going on around them.

A suppressor will slow a velocity some eight to ten percent on the average and this is not enough to decrease the penetration level of the bullet on impact, unless the shot is of considerable range. What I mean by this is that the muzzle velocity has been comprimised and it will lose sustained velocity at a greater rate, but a shot within 150 yards should be effected very little.

For this velocity to be compromised so greatly at impact to fail to have the penetration it had, it would have to have been disrupted rather close to the target or it would have had it's trajectory effected a great deal. Once the registered velocity is greatly comprimised, it will then begin to drop it's level of trajectory at a fast rate and it's accuracy is greatly comprimised. That is why I believe in windshield penetration to reduce the velocity to these extremes while not comprimising the trajectory. Windshield penentration will reduce the velocity in the range of 40-60%, depending on the configuration of the projectile and the angle of penetration.

The only other factor in reducing penetration after impact would be the composition of the bullet. A compromised bullet that severely fragments will fail to achieve sustained velocity through the wound cavity, as the velocity is greatly compromised with the lighter the projectile (fragments of the projectile). But this would have created a tremendous amount of soft tissue damage within the throat, which was not evident at Parkland.

Al

Thanks Al. I recall John Ritchson saying the same thing about muzzle blast being suppressed, but the sockwave still causing problems in terms of an attempted disguise. Perhaps a combination of several factors such as distance, a suppressor and ricochets or fragments all help explain the shallow wounds.

_____________________________________________-----

Since I know nothing about firearms or ballistics, I referred this post to my husband Erick, who does have knowledge in these areas, and he agrees with your comments. He also says old military full-metal-jacket rounds, which are "dud" round" (partial gunpowder ignition) could also explain the shallow wounds. Also, subsonic handgun rounds would produce the same results.

My husband Erick is also an attorney, but has a fascination with all things mechanical, including guns.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been tossed around on Lancer in the past. I totally agree with you that rifles were the weapons used in the assassination. The problem with Suppressors on rifles is that while they do quiet the intial detonation, they cannot quiet the bullet bow shockwave of a rifle caliber projectile in flight. This shockwave will still be a giveaway of shot origin if the wits are perceptive of what is going on around them.

Al

Antti, Dawn,

I've been reading up on silencers off and on for some time and have read explanations similar to Al's on many of the articles and websites. But what they fail to acknowledge is that a professional assassin might very well reduce the charge of the bullet in order to make it slower than the speed of sound, thereby removing the give-away shockwave, and that a slower than sound bullet fired from a silenced rifle inside a room would be virtually undetectable over motorcycle noise, etc. After analysis of the trajectories, the earwitnesses, etc, I believe it's highly likely a fourth shot was fired from the upper floors or roof of the Da-Tex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has been tossed around on Lancer in the past. I totally agree with you that rifles were the weapons used in the assassination. The problem with Suppressors on rifles is that while they do quiet the intial detonation, they cannot quiet the bullet bow shockwave of a rifle caliber projectile in flight. This shockwave will still be a giveaway of shot origin if the wits are perceptive of what is going on around them.

Al

Antti, Dawn,

I've been reading up on silencers off and on for some time and have read explanations similar to Al's on many of the articles and websites.  But what they fail to acknowledge is that a professional assassin might very well reduce the charge of the bullet in order to make it slower than the speed of sound, thereby  removing the give-away shockwave, and that a slower than sound bullet fired from a silenced rifle inside a room would be virtually undetectable over motorcycle noise, etc.  After analysis of the trajectories, the earwitnesses, etc, I believe it's highly likely a fourth shot was fired from the upper floors or roof of the Da-Tex.

Pat, Antti and Dawn,

The problem with a reduced charge load is that it would effect trajectory greatly. In order to achieve these shallow wounds, we would have to compromise the velocity in the neighborhood of 400-500fps. To use the 6.5mm MC as an example; this is a 160gr bullet designed for a 2000fps velocity. If you would reduce it's velocity, whether intentionally or unintentionally by way of a "dud" load for the latter, at 50 yards you would experience roughly an 14" drop in trajectory for point of aim to point of impact. Now if that was intentionally done with the load, then it would be a very difficult feat under normal circumstances, and with a moving target with a limited window of opportunity, it would be nearly impossible to achieve target elimination. This is what is referred to as lobbing. If this was the latter of above and simple a poorly ignited load "dud", the shooter would not even adjust their shot alignment to compensate as they would not know to do so.

That is why I believe there had to have been some type of decrease in velocity through obstruction penetration near the target impact.

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, Antti and Dawn,

The problem with a reduced charge load is that it would effect trajectory greatly. In order to achieve these shallow wounds, we would have to compromise the velocity in the neighborhood of 400-500fps. To use the 6.5mm MC as an example; this is a 160gr bullet designed for a 2000fps velocity. If you would reduce it's velocity, whether intentionally or unintentionally by way of a "dud" load for the latter, at 50 yards you would experience roughly an 14" drop in trajectory for point of aim to point of impact. Now if that was intentionally done with the load, then it would be a very difficult feat under normal circumstances, and with a moving target with a limited window of opportunity, it would be nearly impossible to achieve target elimination. This is what is referred to as lobbing. If this was the latter of above and simple a poorly ignited load "dud", the shooter would not even adjust their shot alignment to compensate as they would not know to do so.

That is why I believe there had to have been some type of decrease in velocity through obstruction penetration near the target impact.

Al

Al,

I just thought to add that if one takes your figures from above and adds to that the some 14" scope misalignment factor determined by the Edgewood Arsenal Examination of C2766 then LHO, had he been firing from the TSBD with such a load would have been dealing with a 28" bullet drop, not to mention the windage factor.

Also, when dealing with a bullet nearly 28mm long at such a reduced velocity being fired through a standard Carcano twist, the centrifical force would be compromised invariably moving the Magnus Moment forward of the center of gravity producing a fatal nose yaw resulting in an unstable external ballistic trajectory and the loss of any hope of downrange accuracy.

Some truely magic shooting I would say. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat, Antti and Dawn,

The problem with a reduced charge load is that it would effect trajectory greatly. In order to achieve these shallow wounds, we would have to compromise the velocity in the neighborhood of 400-500fps. To use the 6.5mm MC as an example; this is a 160gr bullet designed for a 2000fps velocity. If you would reduce it's velocity, whether intentionally or unintentionally by way of a "dud" load for the latter, at 50 yards you would experience roughly an 14" drop in trajectory for point of aim to point of impact. Now if that was intentionally done with the load, then it would be a very difficult feat under normal circumstances, and with a moving target with a limited window of opportunity, it would be nearly impossible to achieve target elimination. This is what is referred to as lobbing. If this was the latter of above and simple a poorly ignited load "dud", the shooter would not even adjust their shot alignment to compensate as they would not know to do so.

That is why I believe there had to have been some type of decrease in velocity through obstruction penetration near the target impact.

Al

  Al,

I just thought to add that if one takes your figures from above and adds to that the some 14" scope misalignment factor determined by the Edgewood Arsenal Examination of C2766 then LHO, had he been firing from the TSBD with such a load would have been dealing with a 28" bullet drop, not to mention the windage factor.

Also, when dealing with a bullet nearly 28mm long at such a reduced velocity being fired through a standard Carcano twist, the centrifical force would be compromised invariably moving the Magnus Moment forward of the center of gravity producing a fatal nose yaw resulting in an unstable external ballistic trajectory and the loss of any hope of downrange accuracy.

Some truely magic shooting I would say.  ;)

Maybe I should point out here that I believe the silenced weapon was not a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle nor was it fired from the TSBD. I believe it was an automatic weapon of some sort--quite possibly an AR-15, and that it was fired from the roof of the Dal-Tex. Furthermore, it missed its target and hit Kennedy in the hairline and Connally in the armpit. John's mention of a fatal nose yaw could quite possibly explain the slightly elongated wound on Connally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al,

I just thought to add that if one takes your figures from above and adds to that the some 14" scope misalignment factor determined by the Edgewood Arsenal Examination of C2766 then LHO, had he been firing from the TSBD with such a load would have been dealing with a 28" bullet drop, not to mention the windage factor.

Also, when dealing with a bullet nearly 28mm long at such a reduced velocity being fired through a standard Carcano twist, the centrifical force would be compromised invariably moving the Magnus Moment forward of the center of gravity producing a fatal nose yaw resulting in an unstable external ballistic trajectory and the loss of any hope of downrange accuracy.

Some truely magic shooting I would say. ;)

John,

Excellent points! The one factor that we haven't mention is one that would bring it closer to the point of impact and that being the gravitational pull factor, when dealing with a shallow back wound. Firing from some sixty feet in the air at this range would raise the poi some eleven to fourteen inches. Bring in the 28 inch bullet drop and you would have some 14-17" below poa for poi. Then take into account a time in flight issue with the limo proceeding downward and away at a slight angle, you could narrow the poi from poa some 3-4 more inches. This could give a drop range of 10-14". Consider that the original poa is the back of the head and where the backwound was, it would put it in the ballpark at least. But still, as you say, it still makes it rather magical on the part of the shooter.

Al

Edited by Al Carrier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should point out here that I believe the silenced weapon was not a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle nor was it fired from the TSBD. I believe it was an automatic weapon of some sort--quite possibly an AR-15, and that it was fired from the roof of the Dal-Tex. Furthermore, it missed its target and hit Kennedy in the hairline and Connally in the armpit. John's mention of a fatal nose yaw could quite possibly explain the slightly elongated wound on Connally.

Pat, the problem with the likes of a AR-15 would be that it fires a 5.56mm bullet in the weight range of 50-69gr and velocity range of 2400-2600fps. The lighter the bullet, the less the sustained velocity once the bullet's velocity begins to significantly drop off. If it's velocity is compromised at the muzzle, then it would drop in velocity and trajectory all the faster. With this higher expected velocity, and to bring it down to a level that would compromise the report and bullet bow shockwave, would give a significant drop of as much as 1/6th of what it is designed for.

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...