I think the one that happened in Butler was a real attempt. But the assassination failed due to the complete and absolutely stupidity of the would-be assassin. Before I continue I need to mention that assassins in general are idiots who succeed primarily due to luck and error on the security’s part than due to their ingenuity.
Crooks (the shooter) was someone who was not particularly known as a decent shot, and the AR-15 that he had was on the lower end of the AR-15 quality hierarchy. This was tested by numerous gun youtubers that the rifle was a shit rifle for anything other than fairly close range shooting. On top of that, the ammunition that he used was also cheap, budget range ammunition, and the cherry on top was that he was using iron sights and didn’t have a telescopic sight, meaning even making a chest shot at that distance was a long shot, let alone hitting a human head, which is already a small, highly mobile target at close range, would be extremely tiny at that distance. The MOA (minute of accuracy) of the rifle and the ammunition used would made a headshot a one in a million hit. If he was being realistic with his own abilities and the weapon/ammunition combo he was using, going for a chest shot would have been the only viable option, but even then, the ammo was weak and likely wouldn’t have produced much cavitation if he did hit at that distance, meaning unless he hit the heart Trump would have likely survived due to the immediate medical attention he would have received.
This is why I am more apt to believe that the Charlie Kirk shooting was more legit. The alleged rifle there was a 30-06 hunting rifle with (according to alleged shooter comments) using a 2000$ scope. The .30-06 caliber is much, much better suited for distance shooting (it can easily kill a human being at 700 meters, with the longest range kill using that caliber was during WW1 at 1.25 kilometers by an American soldier). Also the pricey scope would have made aiming and measuring factors to make the shot (wind, distance, etc) much more readily manageable.
I think the one that happened in Butler was a real attempt. But the assassination failed due to the complete and absolutely stupidity of the would-be assassin. Before I continue I need to mention that assassins in general are idiots who succeed primarily due to luck and error on the security’s part than due to their ingenuity.
Crooks (the shooter) was someone who was not particularly known as a decent shot, and the AR-15 that he had was on the lower end of the AR-15 quality hierarchy. This was tested by numerous gun youtubers that the rifle was a shit rifle for anything other than fairly close range shooting. On top of that, the ammunition that he used was also cheap, budget range ammunition, and the cherry on top was that he was using iron sights and didn’t have a telescopic sight, meaning even making a chest shot at that distance was a long shot, let alone hitting a human head, which is already a small, highly mobile target at close range, would be extremely tiny at that distance. The MOA (minute of accuracy) of the rifle and the ammunition used would made a headshot a one in a million hit. If he was being realistic with his own abilities and the weapon/ammunition combo he was using, going for a chest shot would have been the only viable option, but even then, the ammo was weak and likely wouldn’t have produced much cavitation if he did hit at that distance, meaning unless he hit the heart Trump would have likely survived due to the immediate medical attention he would have received.
This is why I am more apt to believe that the Charlie Kirk shooting was more legit. The alleged rifle there was a 30-06 hunting rifle with (according to alleged shooter comments) using a 2000$ scope. The .30-06 caliber is much, much better suited for distance shooting (it can easily kill a human being at 700 meters, with the longest range kill using that caliber was during WW1 at 1.25 kilometers by an American soldier). Also the pricey scope would have made aiming and measuring factors to make the shot (wind, distance, etc) much more readily manageable.