How about a Telegram channel for Peak Prosperity? it’s free and no one has claimed the name yet.
2 Likes
Yup. Just click on it.
And it’s gone. Hope someone here download it.
Try this one. Someone on X shared the original.
Possibly more analysis can be done if they release what ammo was used and the nature of the torso wound. I know that hunting bullets are designed to expand/mushroom on impact, and there is a ‘sweet spot’ terminal velocity needed to get expansion for any given bullet. So for ethical hunting, you want to optimize terminal velocity based on the bullet you’re using. Easy to figure out using muzzle velocity, distance and BC.
Maybe AR rounds are different, but my hot take is the terminal velocity was too high to get expansion.
1 Like
Is there an easy way to download a video like this? No tech expert… Thanks
Did you see how Joy Behar lost her shit when she found out that the shooter purchased 50 rounds just prior to the shooting? The most common 5.56x45 ammo that you will find on a store shelf is standard M193 ammo.
M193 ammo uses a 55 grain FMJ bullet. I just grabbed a random box of American Eagle M193BK, 5.56x45 ammo. The box says that it has a muzzle velocity of 3165 fps. This is about what you would expect when used in an AR-15 rifle with a 20" barrel. Please don’t tell dumbass Joy that this box has 150 rounds in it. This ammo will have a lower muzzle velocity from a 16" barrel of about 2,800 fps.
The 0.224" caliber bullet that is used in M193 5.56x45 is on the edge of instability when it comes out of the barrel. If it hit anything denser than air, it will yaw and tumble violently. Think of the bullet as a miniature fly wheel with a lot of stored energy in it.
The way this 55 grain bullet interacts with soft tissue is violent and creates a large permanent wound channel. The 5.56x45 needs to be above about 2,500 fps to violently tumble/yaw. This is different from how a soft or hollow point bullet opens up/ mushrooms when it hits soft tissue.
2 Likes
@cmartenson Has anyone done a comparison between Trumps ear before and after? With my untrained eye, i would expect the ear to be mangled, deformed or missing part of it. Wrestlers cut their own ear with a palmed razorblade, because it bleeds a decent amount but heals quickly. But a bullet wouldnt have that effect. Unless it literally just took off the top layer of skin. I cant see where the ear was damaged
2 Likes
Interesting! If it’s not a Nosler Partition then I don’t know much about it. So a FMJ stays intact and tumbles around? Anyway, it’s more ‘surface area’ for analysis and validation as we learn more.
M855 vs. M193: Which 5.56 Round Is The Best? (youtube.com)
The bullets tend to rip themselves apart.
1 Like
Technically yes, but not in the way you’re saying it. We have a time track on the recordings, and we can use differences in distances. The difference in distance between two points makes an elipse, and you can work that out if you have two timestamped recordings without any distance estimate at all. GPS uses that very concept.
I’d rather use millisecond precise booms than crack differences where the speed of the bullet and the distance from the trajectory could amount to many millis.
Thank you for the link! just saw it!
The bullet trajectory analysis leads me to think that there might even be a fourth shooter.
I’m positive about these locations:
- Crooks’s Roof
- Water Tower
- 2nd Floor Window from the building behind Crooks’s building.
1 Like
I also have this question. In addition, the only photo currently available of the ear shows coagulated blood. If a bullet grazed an ear, I would expect at minimum a missing piece and lots of blood that wouldn’t begin coagulating that quickly.
Trump, along with several of the SS personal creating a human shield around him, were wearing white shirts. I could have missed it, but I didn’t see blood on any of them. Even while struggling to keep him subdued, no blood.
this pic?
2 Likes
Yep, coagulated blood and not a drop on any of the white shirts we see surrounding him.
1 Like
The bullet velocity is a variable. The speed of sound can be considered a constant in this situation. You need both the time of the “crack” at Trump’s location and arrival time of the “boom” to the recording device to get any meaningful data. The reason that I would want to use the arrival time of the “crack” at Trump’s location is to eliminate the variable of the bullet’s velocity. This may not be possible, and we might be forced to use the arrival time of the “crack” and “boom” at the recording device. This will reduce the precision of our fix on the shooter’s position and force us to make assumptions of the bullet’s velocity.
I am not following your comment about the difference in distances forming an ellipse.
I disagree with your understanding of GPS. GPS satellites fix their position in space by using ancient quasars in other galaxies and use ground stations to keep their clocks synched with each other. They contiguously transmit 4 variables about their position in space time. The GPS receiver is basically solving a system of equations using 4 data sets from four different satellites. The “solution” to this system of four equations yields a unique space-time set of coordinates that is the position of the GPS receiver.
Using this “GPS” concept to get a fix on the position of the shooter makes no sense (the recording microphones are not transmitting their position in time-space to the shooter). Another way of saying this is that a person with a GPS receiver is not transmitting anything to the GPS satellites. The shooter however is “transmitting” sound to all of the recording devices present at the rally. The time of arrival of the sound at the different recorders is based on distance from the shooter. This is an important distinction between how GPS and how geometric interpolation works.
I was trying to picture a javelin moving through the air and ear vs a
223 which might be tumbling(?) and would it cleanly move through the
cartilage of ear or might it shred, tear the tissue. I do believe I
read or heard, that Trump’s ear is missing some tissue(?)
3 Likes
Chris,
Let me suggest an alternative sequence of events.
- The first three shots were not from Crooks. They were shot by a second assassin – probably a pro from a greater distance (gymnastics club, water tower??). That much is clear from the audio recorded by the civilian near Crooks’ position. The first 3 shots are muffled and distant while the next five shots were crisp and nearby. Wait you say, what about the 0.22 second time delay between the bullet and the muzzle blast. That puts the shooter of a typical .223 bullet 150 yards from the podium. True but a pro would be using a bigger powder charge to ensure less drop and greater lethality so a greater distance would be covered in the same 0.22 time gap. In fact, you brought up the probability that the first shot was a larger round than a typical .223 when pointing out that it passed through a bystander and struck the bleacher railing.
- There was an early report that the first shots came from a distance of 450 yards, not feet. That is the exact distance to the gymnastics club, which coincidentally is in a line extended from the podium back through Crooks’ position. This would have been done intentionally to confuse the counter-snipers. The SS snipers have a system using two microphones at different locations to immediately pinpoint the location of any shots and assist them in returning fire. When the counter-snipers received the bearing from the first three shots and started to pan outward, they would naturally see Crooks, now known as Patsy.
- Crooks appears to have been a lonely kid with no future and no sense of purpose. He would have been an easy target for persuasive handlers to coach him into thinking he would be a hero. Crooks’ internet history was then scrubbed so there would be no blowback to anyone. Is it possible a young man that spends his days whiling away on a computer in his bedroom not have any traces or connections to any political websites in today’s world?
- The bombs and high capacity mags found in Crooks’ car were never part of the assassination plan, but likely part of some imaginary escape plan in case he was being pursued.
- Crooks was likely instructed to begin shooting after the initial shots. The young boy was likely nervous. At his cue he fired off five quick haphazard shots. Again this much is obvious from the nearby civilian’s recording which indicates Crooks was (most of) the second grouping of five shots.
- The counter-snipers’ actions appear curious at first, but consider this timeline. The team to Trump’s right cannot see the rooftop of the AGR building because of a tree line. The team on Trump’s left are supposed to be responsible for the 180° arc facing towards the left of the stage. Instead, they redeploy towards the AGR building. They can see Crooks on the rooftop. They are naturally hesitant to shoot a young man. With their superior optics they can see the boy is not posing an immediate threat (they see he has a rifle but is not aiming it), so they wait. Suddenly there are 3 shots fired, but they know it wasn’t Crooks so they don’t immediately return fire, but come off their glass to find another shooter. These men are trained to never come off of the scope but he was startled by the shots that came from somewhere else. Within seconds, Crooks took his shots. At that point, the counter-sniper re-visualized Crooks and killed him 10 seconds later. The SS sniper is being criticized for not shooting Crooks immediately after the first volley, but Crooks was not the initial shooter and that fact was evident but confusing for the sniper.
- Some observers thought shots came from the water tower, but this structure would have been a good source of echo.
- The professional sniper was directly behind Crooks, not below, so she/he would know when Crooks was in position. The vantage behind him would also be necessary in case he was not killed by the SS and required Jack Ruby treatment. As it was, Crooks was simply a diversion until the other gunman was able to slip into the confusion.
5 Likes
Copied and pasted from somewhere
Q. Didn’t tightening the twist rate from 1:14 to 1:12 reduce the wounding potential of M193?
No…
…though unfortunately this is widely believed. When the M16 was first used in Vietnam, it was assumed that the smaller 5.56mm round would make much smaller wounds than the 7.62mm M80 round fired from the M14. Everyone was surprised to learn that M16 wounds were often much more severe. In order to explain this discrepancy, it was theorized that the slow 1:14 barrel twist made the bullet less stable in flesh and caused it to tumble, resulting in the large wounds. In fact, the slow twist only made the bullet less stable in air. Any pointed, lead core bullet has the center of gravity aft of the center of the projectile and will, after a certain distance of penetration, rotate (yaw) 180° and continue base-first. This is where the appearance of “tumbling” came from.
The actual cause of the larger-than-expected wounds was not a result of this yawing of the bullet, but of the velocity of the bullet coupled with the bullet’s construction. M193 bullets have a groove or knurl around the middle, called a cannelure. This allows the mouth of the case to be crimped on to the bullet, preventing the bullet from being pushed back into the case during handling and feeding. The cannelure also weakens the integrity of the bullet jacket.
When the bullet struck flesh at a high-enough velocity, the bullet’s thin jacket, weakened by the cannelure, could not survive the pressure of moving sideways through the dense flesh. Instead, the bullet would only rotate about 90°, at which point the stresses were too much for the bullet jacket and the bullet would fragment. The results were a wound that was far out of proportion to the size of the bullet. Yet, the twist rate of the barrel and therefore the rotation speed of the bullet, is not a factor in the fragmenting equation.
M855 ammo works exactly the same way, though due to its heavier bullet, it has less muzzle velocity. Less muzzle velocity translates to a shorter range in which the bullet retains enough velocity to fragment, compared to M193.
Fact: Flesh is as much as 1000 times denser than air and will cause a bullet to lose stability almost instantly. For M193 and M855 ammo, this typically occurs after 3-5 inches of flesh penetration, though this can vary. In order to spin the bullet fast enough to be stable in flesh, the barrel twist would have to be on the order of 1 twist every 0.012 inches, which would look like the barrel had been threaded instead of rifled.
AND
. If I increase spin or barrel twist, won’t that decrease wounding by making a round more stable in tissue?
No.
The importance of rate of twist in wounding is a frequent subject of what we politely call “ballistic myth.” Any projectile that has a “center of pressure” forward of the center of gravity will tend to tumble. You can illustrate this to yourself by trying to balance a pencil on your fingertip. Spin, given to the projectile by barrel twist, puts a projectile into a state described as “gyroscopically stable.” The projectile might be momentarily disturbed but will return to nose-forward flight quickly. To describe how stable a given projectile is we use the gyroscopic stability factor (Sg). Generally you want a factor of 1.3 or greater for rifle rounds. 1.5-2.0 is a generally accepted value for 5.56 rounds.
For M193 the following variables apply:
axial moment of inertia (A) = 11.82 gm/mm2
transverse moment of inertia (B) = 77.45 gm/mm2
mass (m) = 3.53 grams
reference diameter (d) = 5.69 mm
Using the gyroscopic stability formula: Sg = A2 p2 / (4 B Ma) and assuming sea level we use an air density of 1.2250 kg/m^3 and discover that this this projectile will need on the order of 236,000 rpm for good stability (Sg > 1.3).
At 3200 fps M193 is typically spun up to more like 256,000 (1:9" twist) to 330,000 rpm (1:7") so that Sg approaches 1.9 or 2.0. 1:12" rifles will spin rounds at around 192,000 rpm and 1:14" rifles around 165,000 rpm. You can see why 1:14" rifles might have had trouble stabilizing M193 rounds.
Clever math types will see that density of the medium traversed (air in this case) has a dramatic effect on the spin required to maintain the Sg (density being in the first term’s divisor). This is why cold conditions tend to dip “barely stable” rounds below the stability threshold. Without doing too much calculus it will be seen that an increase of three orders of magnitude (1000) in this variable will be a dramatic one for spin requirements. To balance things spin must be increased to compensate.
Through human flesh (which varies from 980 - 1100 kg/m^3 or about 1000 times the density of air) something on the order of 95,000,000 - 100,000,000 rpm is required to stabilize a projectile at speed. Given these differences it will be seen that the difference between a 1:12 or 1:14" twist when it hits flesh and a projectile launched from a 1:9 or 1:7" weapon is so small as to be beyond measuring. But the game isn’t over yet.
Gyroscopic stability of 2.0 or so is sufficient for a M193 projectile to recover from an upset quickly, return to nose-forward flight and not be over stabilized. To prevent the upset in the first place, particularly when a sudden and very extreme change in density (and therefore drag and pressure applied to the center of pressure) requires FAR more stability. To grant enough stability force to prevent the upset of a M193 projectile encountering a sudden 1000 fold increase in density a factor of as much as 10 to 50 times (speaking VERY conservatively) the required gyroscopic stability for a steady state flight through a medium of that density would be required. In other words, unless the projectile is spinning at nearly a BILLION rpm it is going to be upset by such a transition. Even at this rpm it is like to be upset somewhat.
In summary, and to take the most extreme case, a M193 projectile spinning at 350,000 rpm (from a 1:7" rifle) is going to upset in flesh (yaw) exactly as fast as one spinning at 150,000 rpm (from a 1:14" rifle). Claiming that twist rate has any impact on the speed of yaw and therefore terminal performance is just not in line with the laws of physics. Anyone making such a claim should either be carefully avoided or introduced gently to basic gyroscopic stability concepts. Often a calming substance like warm milk or Thorazine helps in the transition of such a subject.
1 Like
Also found this. True, or false I don’t know. The author seems to check out.
Quoted:
It is my understanding that less stabilisation will result in faster yawing which the M193 bullet requires for fragmentation. So in this case I’ll say yes.
Completely false.
from Dr. G.K. Roberts . . .
“The U.S. Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory conducted terminal performance testing using 5.56 mm 55 gr M193 FMJ ammunition fired in 20” barrels of 1/14, 1/12, 1/9, and 1/7 twist rates. No difference in terminal performance was noted between shots made with the different twists. Similar testing was conducted with 5.56 mm 62 gr M855 FMJ ammunition fired in 1/9 and 1/7 twist barrels. Again, no difference in terminal performance was noted.”