I don’t like that this is thrown around like it means anything. You do not need to hit that target to qualify, and you will not be very combat effective at that range anyway. Range quals ≠ combat effectiveness.
First, not even close. The moa of the rifle used was 2-3, where both the m4 and m16 are about 1. It was a crappy rifle that sold as a very-budget rifle. It wouldn’t even qualify as “good enough”. Like the m16.
Secondly, the ammo he was using was a lighter loading for target shooting and lower energy.
As set up, it was at the edge of what crooks could be effective at (which is significantly lower than what he can hit at.) even if Crooks had the skill to make the shot. (Which he didn’t.)
IIRC, the shot was also just inside where the rifle would be effective.
The rifle is effective at ranges further than the shooter. In every case. That rifle is more than capable of a killing shot from there, and further.
He was 130 m or so away. 5.56 is deadly from further. A lot further.
Every marine qualifies with 5.56 at 500m
Qualifying on a range and hitting a target dead on in a real situation is not the same thing.
I don’t like that this is thrown around like it means anything. You do not need to hit that target to qualify, and you will not be very combat effective at that range anyway. Range quals ≠ combat effectiveness.
Not even close. In the Marine Corps, we qualified at 500yds with effectively the same rifle using iron sights
First, not even close. The moa of the rifle used was 2-3, where both the m4 and m16 are about 1. It was a crappy rifle that sold as a very-budget rifle. It wouldn’t even qualify as “good enough”. Like the m16.
Secondly, the ammo he was using was a lighter loading for target shooting and lower energy.
As set up, it was at the edge of what crooks could be effective at (which is significantly lower than what he can hit at.) even if Crooks had the skill to make the shot. (Which he didn’t.)