even the sas dont get official written stk orders. only those involed know for sure. most firearms folk in such circumstances will aim for the body first to bring down first shot.
even the sas dont get official written stk orders. only those involed know for sure. most firearms folk in such circumstances will aim for the body first to bring down first shot.
I completely agree with your post above, Tim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
However, surely in instances where highly-trained marksmen (using rifles with very accurate telescopic sights) have sufficient time to zoom in and obtain a clear shot of the target area, a leg wound could be achieved?
I of course appreciate that such an instance wasn't applicable, in terms of what happened recently in London. There simply wasn't time for that, so the police did only what they could do.
However, *if* possible, it would be useful not to kill these scum outright, so that later police could obtain from them what may be vital information, which could prevent other similar (planned) incidents from occurring.
Marco.
Short answer, no Marco - and if I ever get up to Wrexham (not that far now) I'll explain why ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Okies - look forward to it :)
I've rephrased the question slightly, btw....
Marco.
If the target is moving, which they usually are, then it is very difficult to hit a specific body part, no mater how good a shot you are or what fancy equipment you have.
Yes, but I'm talking about when the target is still, for a period of time long enough [it need only be a matter of seconds] for a trained marksman to put a bullet straight into the area he has clearly within his sights.
I've used rifles (.303s) to hunt deer, and such like in Italy [which trust me aren't easy targets either, in terms of getting a clear head shot at distance, for a clean kill], so I although not a police marksman, employed to do his duty during something such as a terror attack, I know a little about how guns work ;)
Marco.
It's not just the difficulty of taking an accurate shot at a smaller target that would be a problem. There's also the need for immediate and decisive action. In a fast moving situation, you can't make judgement calls as to whether a shot should be fatal or not.
I'm not in favour of high velocity weapons in close quarters situations and they are not normally used. A powerful rifle will go straight through a body and maybe even carry on through a wall or two as well, with the possibility of injuring others, even at distance.
Exactly Geoff, happened in Northern Ireland when a shot fired from a 7.62mm SLR over penetrated the target and went through housing walls to kill a child in their room.Quote:
Originally Posted by walpurgis
Good points (Geoff and Tim), which I fully accept :)
Marco.
This is one of the reasons why NATO moved to the 5.56 mm round (.22 calibre). The smaller round tumbles inside the body on impact rather than passing straight through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
if the target is standing still long enough then you could realistically aim for a leg shot. That is unlikely to happen in a terrorist incident, though; and if you miss he will be off and running and your chance to take him down may have gone. Why risk it?