Ballistics Video - More Bush-Cheney Derangement Syndrome

Dan Riehl takes down the latest attempt slander Vice President Cheney.

Taylor Marsh "swiped" and posted a lengthy video of alleged ballistics analysis and test shootings which are claimed to indicate that the Vice President was closer to Whittington than 30 yards when the accidental shooting occurred.

Dan Riehl believes the video doesn't support the conclusions spouted by Marsh and her "swiped" video:

To begin with, One thing to remember –The only thing that is consistent about shotguns is that very few things are consistent. Identical guns with the same degree of choke and using the same shell may not pattern the same. The same load between various brands of shells can pattern differently. Patterns will change when changing from hard to soft shot. Patterns can change when anything in the shell changes such as different wads, powders or primers. What I am trying to get across is that when you change anything such as brands, shot size, or components you will need to check the pattern as it could have changed, sometimes by an extreme amount.

After providing some further, very convincing, analysis Dan concludes that Vice President Cheney could rightfully expect a shot pattern with about 70% of his shot within a 30 inch diameter, which matches up extremely well with Whittington's injury diagram:

Seventy-percent of the 262 pellets in a typical factory load of 7 1/2 shot would be 183 pellets. The report of approximately 200 pellets having hit Whittington at about 30 yards is wholly consistent with the minimum standards one might expect under the circumstances.

Read the whole thing.

Having done a lot of shooting and reloading in my younger days, I find that Dan's analysis rings true. Much more so than the bald faced assertions in the obvious hit piece "swiped" by Marsh.

Other thoughts at Confederate Yankee, Dr. Sanity and Hyscience.

Comments

[Jeff H]

I just have to laugh my ass off at these asshats who, when picking up a gun, wonder where the rubber band is that "makes it shoot", trying to comment intelligently on any issue relating to firearms.

Hell, my dad could take down a squirrel at 50 yards with a 12 gauge; and he once shot an apple out of the tree by shooting the stem--not the apple. So, Cheney's pattern at 30 yards is not only possible, it's to be expected.

[Dan]

I think it is flat out hilarious watching these dilettantes in the liberal elite press try to discuss hunting as if any of them have ever been near a firearm or blind before. Case in point, Dana Milbank goes on tv wearing blaze orange, the only problem was that he was wearing a road construction crew vest rather than a hunting vest. All you can do is sit back and laugh.

[bobdog]

Nobody seems to mention what choke he was using, but it makes a difference. I'd guess that his first shot was improved cylinder or modified.

Just watching Suzanne Malveaux on CNN: one of the panelists is asking, with appropriate concern, whether the Vice President should be allowed to participate in a sport "so inherently dangerous" as hunting. What a Bozo.

[Stephen Macklin]

All of this is predicated on the idea that the statement that Whittington was 30 yards away when Cheney fired. Did they actually measure this or was this someone's estimate? Maybe it was only 27 yards 1 foot and three and three-quarters inches.

[OhBloodyHell]

BTW, the really interesting part of this is that they seem to think this is something of grave significance, like the TANG memos*.

OK, so, even IF they are correct, that Cheney had too much to drink and this contributed to the accident in question.

Simply put, "WHO THE F**** CARES???"

More importantly, "Why?"

You're right -- I certainly would not want an inebriated Cheney to be making decisions about launch codes. Does this mean that, if the PotUS (or the V-PotUS, in this case) EVER makes an error when inebriated, it is to be presumed that he's... what, ALWAYS unable to make a valid decision? Apparently, one drunken mistake means you are a founding member of AA?

... And this is all IF their suppositions are right.

----
* The TANG memos. I've never, ever really grasped why Rather and Mapes thought these would bring Bush down... they weren't even remotely significant. Questions about Kerry's service were both relevant and significant -- we had no information about his ability to lead, and that was not just an obvious sign, but, more critically, one he himself chose to focus on, virtually to the exclusion of all others. So Kerry's service is quite relevant to us. It's one of the few gauges we have as to his capacity for accomplishing the job.

Bush OTOH, had already BEEN PotUS for four years. We already KNEW what kind of PotUS he'd be... his service in the dim and distant past was utterly insignificant to his prospects for re-election.
----

The Left seems to like chasing White Whales, AFAICS.

[OhBloodyHell]

Ms. Marsh seems to believe that if she repeats the words "30 yards" often enough, it'll come to mean something.

I see an awful dearth of relevant information there. She seems to lack the capacity to actually argue a point, you know: "This. means this. means this. then there's this. those two put together means this." and so on... "But she's just a city gal. She don' know nuthin' 'bout shootin' off no firearms...". Let's make sure we repeat that. She's sure, though, that the only reason anyone could be disagreeing with her husband/whatever sources is because they're "mere blue collar workers".... oh, by the way, did you know Rush made a mistake the other day? Clearly he's an elitist boob as a result of it.

Linear thought is not The Left's strong suit, you'll note.