The Ambush

[John Mytton]

So it easier to fire from this same cramped space down Elm Street? What's your point?

You really haven't got a clue, to fire virtually straight down you have to have the rifle pointing virtually straight down whereas to shoot down Elm street, he could be lower and more in the shadows.



JohnM

[Bill Brown]

A non- issue it seems.

Exactly... And yet some choose to try to make an issue out of it.

[Gary Craig]

~snip~

Mr. Eisenberg: Was it reported to you by the person who ran the machine-run tests whether they had difficulties with sighting the weapon in?

Mr. Simmons: Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescope sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation.

~snip~

Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?

Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, were your marksmen instructed to aim at the three targets in consecutive order?

Mr. SIMMONS. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire--at the first target, being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet.

~snip~

Mr. Eisenberg: Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the range of 1.2 mil aiming error?

Mr. Simmons: Obviously considerable experience would have to be in one's back background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the bolt.

~snip~

[Mitch Todd]

So it easier to fire from this same cramped space down Elm Street? What's your point?

My point is simple to understand, if you think about it. You just don't want to.

[Mitch Todd]

So you can show via supporting evidence that a person who hasn't fired a weapon in years is better off using iron sights?

Sure! You want the study where they used frangible bullets made from compressed fairy dust, or the one where they tested new propellants synthesized from rainbow-flavored unicorn poop? What about the one where the rifle had a stock lovingly crafted from the wood of one of the goalposts you keep trying to move?

[Bill Brown]

From my own experience, the iron sights would be easier to use in this case. Scopes narrow your field of view, which can be problematic trying to acquire/re-acquire a moving target.

Agreed.

[Michael Walton]

Agreed.

If you really think about it, why did he have a misaligned scope on in the first place? The shooting distance was not far.  Another researcher has an excellent analysis of scope use and how it makes it very difficult to follow a moving target using one, even harder to use aiming the down at an extreme downward angle.

My take? It was there as all part of the ruse to make it look like Crazy Oswald - supposedly expert shooter - used a [misaligned] scope to get the job done.

[Jerry Freeman]

If you really think about it, why did he have a misaligned scope on in the first place? The shooting distance was not far. 

I believe I asked that unanswered question back on post #29....

..if you're going to smuggle in a rifle somewhere and not use the scope then why carry in a scope?
Wouldn't matter if it was a top of the line Bushnell...if it's not sighted in properly, then it's worthless.

The shooting distance was not far. 

Triangulation assured accomplishment..of that there no doubt.