He used an AR-15 which in theory is accurate to about 300m for a proficient shooter, but amateur shooters shouldn’t really expect more than 100m. If he hadn’t fallen for the marketing campaign he’d have just used a deer rifle and probably gotten the bastard for half the cost.
That all said, a lot of rifles have theoretical effective ranges that only apply to top marksmen, so anything would have worked if he’d had a steadier aim, but that’s easier said than done.
My basic training was with an M16A2 manufactured in the 80s and after a couple hours and ~100 rounds of practice I could group center with iron sights at 500y (457m) and that’s functionally the same gun. Effective range for an AR-15 should be the same 600y(550m) as the old M16s from the 70s and 80s, extended to ~1000y (914m) with extra training, better sights, and a match grade rifle
What’s weird is that I had way more accuracy with the M16 on pop-up targets than I’ve ever had with an AR-15. But AR’s are made by a variety of manufacturers, and I’m sure that some are better/more accurate than others.
Oh, it’s not even different manufacturers. Palmetto State Armory has a ton of cheap options, like if you bought a blemished set of their lower grade in 2014ish you could get a full rifle for $400-600, but they also had stuff in the $1500 range that definitely grouped better at 200y (which is the longest distance range I could find that didn’t involve giving money to the NRA which at no point am I willing to do)
Edited to add: my main point was that a 30 year old rifle manufactured well shouldn’t be that far off from a semi-sloppy modern manufacture, and if the reports that the rifle was stolen from his father are true I’d bias towards a nicer one since the same reports say he stole the rifle but not the sights and was firing without them
He used an AR-15 which in theory is accurate to about 300m for a proficient shooter, but amateur shooters shouldn’t really expect more than 100m. If he hadn’t fallen for the marketing campaign he’d have just used a deer rifle and probably gotten the bastard for half the cost.
That all said, a lot of rifles have theoretical effective ranges that only apply to top marksmen, so anything would have worked if he’d had a steadier aim, but that’s easier said than done.
My basic training was with an M16A2 manufactured in the 80s and after a couple hours and ~100 rounds of practice I could group center with iron sights at 500y (457m) and that’s functionally the same gun. Effective range for an AR-15 should be the same 600y(550m) as the old M16s from the 70s and 80s, extended to ~1000y (914m) with extra training, better sights, and a match grade rifle
What’s weird is that I had way more accuracy with the M16 on pop-up targets than I’ve ever had with an AR-15. But AR’s are made by a variety of manufacturers, and I’m sure that some are better/more accurate than others.
Oh, it’s not even different manufacturers. Palmetto State Armory has a ton of cheap options, like if you bought a blemished set of their lower grade in 2014ish you could get a full rifle for $400-600, but they also had stuff in the $1500 range that definitely grouped better at 200y (which is the longest distance range I could find that didn’t involve giving money to the NRA which at no point am I willing to do)
Edited to add: my main point was that a 30 year old rifle manufactured well shouldn’t be that far off from a semi-sloppy modern manufacture, and if the reports that the rifle was stolen from his father are true I’d bias towards a nicer one since the same reports say he stole the rifle but not the sights and was firing without them