Tactical Tomfoolery - My thoughts on the attempted Trump assassination

Written by Nathan Foster, 22 / 07 / 2024.

In the following article, I would like to utilize the attempted Trump assassination as a means to investigate and highlight the short comings of modern, western tactical doctrine. Yes, I wasn’t there and I don’t know the full details. I have no idea as to whether the shooter acted alone or whether the shooter was a patsy as a part of some larger conspiracy. Such discussions are none of my business. My area of expertise pertains to practical marksmanship. It is my belief that this incident can be used to highlight the wider issue involving general decline in armed combat skill over the past two decades.

The former and potentially upcoming president of the United States was almost killed at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024. Sadly, an innocent bystander died while shielding his family while two others were critically injured. Were this investigated in court, regardless of one’s theological beliefs, any number of judges might conclude that Trump was saved by ‘an act of God’ as opposed to the actions of his protection detail. For the purpose of this essay, I will assume that the protection detail was grossly incompetent rather than the possible alternative.

Differences between then and now

If we roll the clock back 80 years, we find the sniper on the battle field, working alone, armed with a bolt action military rifle, modified to accommodate a scope as well as further refinements to enhance accuracy. The sniper worked alone at or beyond the front lines. Snipers at this time did not have access to range finding technology. Instead, they simply had to rely on experience as well as getting to know the lay of the land. In some instances, snipers might have to head shoot as this was the only target presented during trench warfare. But in order to take a head shot, one had to stalk to relatively close distances. Otherwise, the sniper simply had to take what he (or in Russia – she) could get. The sniper had to understand both the trajectory of the bullet (roughly) and have a good eye for estimating distances. In addition to this, he might also fire the occasional ranging shot at a target (rock etc.), provided others were making enough noise to ensure his concealment.

As much as people would like to believe otherwise, nothing about WWII shooting equipment was exact. It was therefore imperative that the WWII sniper maintained the highest degree of personal discipline and skill. In other words, the emphasis was on the person and not his equipment.

Sniping equipment only partially improved during the Vietnam war. The rifles were slightly better, the scopes also only slightly better. Range finding was again mostly achieved by estimation, up until the introduction of the analog range finding binocular which featured a range estimation reticle. Though a rather crude method of range estimation due to the potential for operator error, snipers used these reticles to great effect, resulting in an increase in the effective range of the sniper.

Vietnam war era M3 binoculars.

Experimentation with laser range finders began during the late 1960s with the final introduction of hand-held units occurring during the 1980s.

A factor which seems to have escaped many would be analysts, is the change in U.S tactics during the Vietnam war. Previously, the sniper worked alone. But with the gradual advances in weaponry, optics and methods, snipers began to work in two-man teams. This has or at least had remained the status quo up until the current “It’s all about me” age.

Many shooters fail to understand that an increase in range as a result of more accurate rifles, better bullets and the use of laser range finders dictates the need for higher power optics which in turn have a small, limited field of view.

A paired sniper team is important for multiple reasons:

• Spotter using binos has a wide field of view versus narrow view of shooter.
• The spotter can continually call ranges in order to avoid errors as a result of target movement (i.e. at ranges where bullet drop may be 6” or more per 10 yards).
• The spotter can call misses and corrections.
• Binos can be used for long periods of time. Over use of scope causes eye fatigue.
• The shooter cannot afford to waste time ranging, dialing then aiming, then having to re-range if the target moves.
• Spotter tends to be more in tune with wind with regards to sudden changes in wind at shooter position, middle ground and at the target within a dynamic setting.
• The Spotter can afford to carry an assault / sniper cross over rifle such as the AR-10 (or M-14 in bygone days) to provide both short and long-range suppressive fire during a retreat.
• The shooter must focus on his own specific tasks – body position, rifle hold, breathing, trigger, follow through etc.

Note from the above list, that the spotter is in many ways more important that the shooter.

Nowadays we are beginning to see (besides uniformed men wearing high heels and pearls) lone operators (no spotter). One might argue that thanks to advances in technology, it is now possible to have a laser range finder built into the scope so there is no need for a spotter - but this fails to take the afore mentioned listed items into account.

One cannot spend hours behind a monocular (i.e. stupid digital scope) looking for bad guys. It simply does not work this way. After about 30 minutes in position, most are ready to call it quits while those who stick with it, will probably miss anyway when the time comes to take the shot. Yes, it is possible to lay prone for long periods in a state of semi-readiness, but no, you can’t lay and stare through a scope endlessly and then expect to pull off a good shot.

As for long range dope, unfortunately, people are now so used to pissing about on their phones, that they see absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of using a phone to plot trajectories or taking readings from a wind meter. One simply cannot teach situational awareness / environment to a person who is completely absorbed by the screen of their phone.

Regarding the last item on the list, most tactical operators do not even know how to hold or aim a rifle properly thanks to modern trends set forth by various ‘celebrities of target shooting’. For the past I don’t know, 300,000 years, humans have held long tools (club, axe, shovel etc.) with two hands. But if one mentions holding a rifle with two hands to the modern shooter, he will likely get his tactical panties all in a bunch. Most shooting authorities have no understanding of the difference in POI that occurs when shifting from a soft rest to a hard rest, or if using a bipod, from wet earth to hard rock. Worse still are the latest trends in shooting involving new body positions. These methods, created by celebrity target shooters, are not for the benefit of shooters, but are marketed packages designed for financial gain and are causing a major decline in field skills among military and police shooters. The celebrity target shooters have had it their own way and have been riding the tactical gravy train for a long time now. I am so sorry that I have to be this blunt but it’s high time these fuckers had a knot put in their tails. Enough already!

Alas, the subject of shooting technique is simply too much to cover in more detail here. For those who want to understand the difference between using a spade with one hand to dig a hole versus two hands, more information can be found in my book – The Practical Guide To Long Range Shooting.

A break-down of some of the facts

The would-be assassin positioned himself 148 yards away from the podium, on a building rooftop, at a 7 or 8 O’clock angle. He was using a borrowed AR-15 rifle. The kid likely had little training, was shooting from an unstable position, had a very high heart rate while the rifle had a slow lock time and more than likely, a heavy and creepy two stage trigger.

The assassin was able to fire several shots before being taken down by return fire.

The counter snipers utilized M700 rifles in AI chassis, Nightforce scopes, scope mounted Mars laser range finders, suppressors, tripods and were also equipped with a pair of binoculars.

One counter sniper was propped up on a tripod like a gopher. His partner was down on his knees trying to look through his scope like it was a periscope, which would result in a major parallax error. A pair of binoculars lay cast to one side.

In plain terms, current tactical doctrine consists of poor training, hype and an over reliance on technology.
 

Police snipers at the Trump Rally.
 

Super duper rifles

Looking at the rifles used by the Secret service, we see a Remington M700 mated into an Accuracy International stock. The Remington M700 is a fine choice for tactical work. The AI chassis however, weighs about as much as an LS1 engine block and ergonomically, is akin in use to trying to artificially inseminate a porcupine. The Remington is a round action, the AI stock is a V block. There is absolutely no guarantee that the two parts, including the recoil lug, will mate correctly. The slightest error in alignment will invariably cause accuracy problems. Furthermore, the AI chassis cannot be epoxy bedded as per a regular M700 rifle stock.

The rifles were topped with Nightforce optics – no issues there. However, I doubt the operators had the wherewithal to sight the rifles in 3” high at 100 yards in order to create a useful trajectory. Instead, the rifles were most likely sighted in dead on at 100 yards. Such a sight setting can force an operator in to having to make unnecessary math calculations at a distance where time is of the essence. Again, further discussion on this topic is beyond the scope of this article (see book series for more detail).

Each scope was fitted with a Mars Laser range finder at around $10K U.S per pop. The Mars unit is affixed over the rifle scope via a ring mount. It consists of a laser pointer and laser range finder at the front, producing a range readout on an LCD screen at the rear. Looking at the design, I assume that one is supposed to use the laser pointer to align the device with the crosshair at 100 yards. OK, job done. Now let’s say a target is spotted at 700 yards. So, the shooter dials in for 700 yards but - as happens to me on a week to week basis, the shooter may have to wait a bit for the target to pause and for a broadside aim etc. In my own real world experience, while waiting for a pause in animal movement, I (or my spotter) have to retake the range because invariably, the animal wonders back and forth, changing the range second by second. So, I have to add or remove a few (sometimes several) clicks before finally taking the shot. I would imagine the device used by the U.S secret service would be quite useless under these conditions with the scope dialed up 10 or 20 MOA. Good in theory but as per usual - more tactical junk.

A tripod is best viewed as a last resort as opposed to a primary choice. Quite obviously, a tripod places the sniper in an upright come hither and shoot me position. A vest can of course mitigate risk to some extent, but does not protect the face. Having said this, one could perhaps use a dust mask for protection as according to current science, a dust mask can protect a person from almost anything. Tripods require a high degree of skill, so kudos to anyone who uses a tripod successfully without getting hit in the dust mask. But as suggested, it is somewhat foolhardy to consider this a first line approach.

Why does this modern tactical ideology fool so many people? Because the average hunter / shooter believes that those who make this new technology are obviously smart enough to make it work. We also assume that there are checks and balances that ensure that tactical technology does work before it hits the market, whether that be military or civilian. Because of this we see what we want / expect to see. When looking at new and exciting devices our own imagination actually fills in the gaps, we imagine how this device must work and delude ourselves in order to make sense of and justify such items. We assume that the manufacturer has some cunning and highly intelligent means of ensuring that a device delivers exactly what they claim it will and so we imagine what those little tricks may be. The truth is, it is in the marketing of many tactical “improvements” where the true genius of these companies lies. Corporates have learned how to manipulate us so we fill in the blanks ourselves, we imagine how things might work and then we allow our imaginings to become fact in our own heads.

Precision shooting is difficult but an armed confrontation adds a further dynamic – adrenalin causing an elevation in heart rate and respiration. If you fuck up, people will die - as happened in Pennsylvania. The best way to avoid mistakes is to base training on empowering the individual rather than creating reliance on technology. One way to think about the effectiveness of the tactical rifle and shooter is to imagine a graph with a plotted curve. At the beginning and lowest point of the graph, we have the musket. The line on the graph gradually rises, first with the invention of rifling and then smokeless powder. Towards the top of the curve we find the high zoom, dial up scope as well as the laser range finder. The line then gradually curves back down again as we start getting into equipment that while seemingly highly innovative, actually diminishes performance. At this end of the scale, the reliance on technology (rather than self) leads to field errors, especially within high pressure / adverse settings.  

It is also imperative to work in two-man teams if at all possible. There is much more to precision sniping under adverse conditions than simply aiming a rifle and pulling the trigger. The work load is best divided between two people, each taking shifts behind the rifle.

Regardless of how good we think we are - things will go wrong. There is no getting around this and it is for this precise reason that one needs as many ducks in a row as possible before taking to the field.

Hit probability

The following is a break-down of hit probability based on my own experience and after observation of trainee shooters spanning many years. This is the method I use to assess probability at a rudimentary level. Note that 1 minute of angle (MOA) at 100 yards equates to roughly 1” at 100 yards, 2” at 200 yards, 3” at 300 yards and so forth.

Factors of the AR-15 used in the attack:

• Mass produced rifle with heavy trigger / slow lock time / factory ammo = 1 to 3 MOA
• Zero training plus adrenalin = additional 2 to 3 MOA
• Unsteady rest / changes in field rest versus initial rest used to sight in rifle = additional 1 to 2 MOA.

Total = 4 MOA at best but potentially closer to 8 MOA. If, however, the rifle was previously tuned (ammo selection etc.) and the shooter had previous training, he might (and that’s a big might) have been able to hold about 1 to 2 MOA.

This also begs the question – was there another shooter?

Factors of the Counter sniper rifles:

• Factory ammo = .5 to 1 MOA if harmonious with (premium) rifle barrel.
• M700 rifle in foreign chassis = additional .5 MOA.
• Shooter wobble on tripod / adrenalin = additional 1 MOA.

Total = 2 MOA at best to 2.5 MOA. If the rifle was sighted in using a sled or bipod on a concrete bench, then shifted to a tripod, we can add an additional 1 MOA. If the rifle was not tested to determine the cold clean bore zero versus carbon coated suppressed barrel, we might also add another .5 to 1 MOA.

Obviously, an increase in distance would have put the attacker at a disadvantage. But without attention to variables, it would have also placed the counter sniper at a disadvantage resulting in a panic / shoot / miss / repeat type scenario.

I saw a youtube video where a guy says secret service shooters are trained to hit an aspirin at 500 yards.

Really? OK, let’s do that then. And to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, let’s use something slick and modern. How about the 300 PRC firing Hornady 225 grain ELD-Match factory ammo, using a basic G1 BC of .777 - noting that military and police snipers do not have access to finely tuned hand loads,

Sample aspirin diameter = .555”

In order to hit the aspirin first shot, the rifle must therefore consistently group .1” at 100 yards (one single bullet hole).

Hornady 225 Grain ELD-M factory ammo, real world muzzle velocities over my chrony = 2753, 2751, 2732, 2769, 2754fps.

Average = 2750.5fps

ES = 37fps

2732fps bullet drop at 500 yards = 48.8”

2769fps bullet drop at 500 yards = 47.2”

Total vertical dispersion = 1.6”

How about wind? Let’s go with a gentle ‘aren’t I lucky to be shooting today’ 90 degree cross wind speed of 5mph.

2750.5fps, 5mph 90 degree cross wind drift at 500 yards = 5.9”

2750.5fps, 6mph 90 degree cross wind drift at 500 yards = 7”.

Total horizontal dispersion from 1mph change in wind = 1.1”

Hmm, that must be some fucking big aspirin you got there Tonto.

The math speaks for itself. Even if the shooter could maintain a single, near caliber diameter hole group at 100 yards (highly unlikely), limitations of the ammunition would prevent him from striking the aspirin in a consistent manner. It would also require the ability to determine wind (including downrange) within one mile per hour. I only know of one famous fellow who might be able to do this and his name is a three letter word that begins with G and ends with D. He also has a son who’s name begins with a J.

Enough with the bullshit already. It might work on the gullible mases but it doesn’t work for me, nor any of my multitude of readers.

A U.S navy commander shooting an AR-15 rifle – with the scope mounted backwards! How’s the field of view buddy?
 

Final words

It actually pained me to write this article. As troubling as the incident was, I was hoping I could just forget about it and carry on with my week which is what I set about doing. I had some field testing (game / ammo research) that I needed to get through, so my wife and I headed into the hills. Alas, I didn't get the shots I wanted so we came home. Arriving back at the road gate, I saw the tell tale trotting motion of pigs on our neighbors farm. It was an unusually large mob of pigs and I could already see the destruction they were wreaking so I decided to do some shooting for the sake of neighborly relations. It was too far for testing the ammo in question and there were simply too many pigs to muck about in such a manner. Having hunted the area previously, I have also found its quite difficult to hunt in close (valley winds / pigs catch your scent). If I wanted to get this done, I would simply have to shoot from one side of the 800 acre property to the other.

So, I said to Steph, “I have a handful of 168 grain ELD-M bullets, let’s try from the road but I will need you to call the ranges continuously because its right at the end of the line for the .308”. What do I mean by end of the line? The trajectory was so steep (7” drop per 10 yards) that I would miss if the targets were not correctly ranged. Environmental factors also have a huge effect when a bullet is travelling this slowly. Potential errors cannot be eliminated, they can only be minimized and with little time to fluff about playing ‘who’s a ballistic smarty’, it is best to place the bulk of ones focus on good technique. The only place I could find to shoot at short notice was the road end drainage outflow, basically the open end of a ditch. I dropped into the ditch and set up while Steph started calling ranges. Us on one ridge, a basin in between, pigs at the base of the far away ridge. It was very difficult shooting due to the fact that the pigs were constantly on the move as well as passing in and out of the scrub.

Had we both been shooting, neither of us would have connected. To make a hit, I needed to have Steph using the bino rangefinder for both the field of view and the laser to call ranges and describe bushes etc. The pigs were moving too fast. "Right side clear slip face, bright green shrub at the bottom of the face, pig will step out of the bright green to the right in just a moment, range 803 yards". I had the sun in my face and the scope at full power, trying to look into the dark opposite face. Dial, hold firmly, breath, slow trigger, follow through, repeat. Without Steph’s guidance, I had a snowballs chance in hell of making any connections. There was also a major time constraint as the pigs scuttled across the valley floor. I shot four larger pigs at 750 to about 803 yards – one shot kills, without a sighter or walking in my shots. We then went down into the valley and I shot another five pigs (offspring which had not run off). The cull once again highlighted the nonsense of modern tactical doctrine including the debacle of the previous weekend. It was after returning home that I decided to write this article.

The pig cull probably doesn’t seem like a big deal these days, not when guys are shooting targets a mile or more away. But that’s the fantasy isn’t it.

The drainage outlet.



After the cull. 

Unfortunately, I have this odd affliction in which I know how to separate bullshit from the realities of long range shooting, I believe it’s called critical thinking. I know my limits and I know just how easy it is to miss and am aware that I make mistakes on a regular basis. It is for this reason that I focus so much on a transferable skill set along with simple analog methods. One cannot eliminate variables as proven in the .300 PRC example. Hell, on days when the wind is high, I couldn’t even guarantee a first round hit on a baseball at 500 yards with a BC of .8 and an MV of 3000fps. And yes, I can shoot to long ranges when I am alone and I do so regularly. But this simply isn’t the same as shooting within a high pressure situation.

Chances are, most of this article will fall on deaf ears. That’s fine by me because if you are working for the current pantomime, you might just be a part of the problem and not the solution. If you want to continue playing ‘how much should I dial up’ on your phone and continue holding your rifle with one hand, that’s up to you. Go ahead, play on your phone, talk the big talk, manicure your beard, bleach your teeth and show off your tattoos. Some of us do however care about our future. Mr Trump might be loud, rather orange looking and sometimes offensive but he might just be our only chance of getting ourselves out of this mess we have all allowed ourselves to get into. I also quite like that Indian guy who’s name nobody can quite pronounce – he makes me feel all warm inside when giving his speeches – honestly, he does. I really don’t want to see anything bad happen to him. To this end, I would far rather face the uncomfortable truths of the current western allied tactical doctrine, than to pander to current trends in the hope that I will maintain popularity among the online shooting community.

The bottom line is this - It’s you that matters, not the marketing drivel of an industrial military complex selling the latest must have items. In no way do I wish to insult or disrespect those who put their life on the line for others. I have had enough people sling shit at me for errors in my own understanding to know just what this feels like. Welcome to the club. Nevertheless, it is my belief that we are gradually being dehumanized by technology, a subject which I have warned against for many years now within my book series. Best that we clean up our acts now - lest we have to learn the hard way after being drafted into some forever war.

This article is not about ‘I am a good shot versus they are bad’. To the contrary, I know just how bad I can shoot on any given day.

List of points to consider / experimentation / acid testing

• How do I separate rifle accuracy potential from human potential / human error?
• How do transferable skills pertain to shooting?
• What does the term bedding platform mean?
• If I cannot control ammunition as a variable (i.e. factory), what variables can I control?
• What happens if I use two hands to hold the rifle?
• What is the purpose of a sling?
• What is the difference in POI when shifting from one type rest / surface to another?
• Can I shoot a rifle accurately, without a suppressor?
• How does suppressor usage effect the velocity, ES and POI? Carbon build up considerations?
• What are the benefits of the 3” sighting rule and how can I put this to practical use?
• How do analog drop charts differ to digital outputs?
• Which is more effective, single shooter or two-man team?
• If using a two-man team, how should the roles be divided (i.e. can the spotter effectively supply range, geographical descriptions and come ups in a continuous manner)?
• If I have to work alone, how can I reduce variables?
• Is a wind meter effective at estimating down range wind?
• How do quick dial turrets and laser ranging scopes compensate for wind?
• Would my current set up be effective (to what range) if I had a flat battery or at worst following a Carrington type event?
• What is the difference between target shooting and killing?
• Is it possible that people have been lying to me or making up ‘new methods’ in order to gain financial rewards for themselves?

Nathan Foster’s qualifications

• Worked a decade in security including bodyguarding in the UK.
• Have experienced armed confrontations.
• Have experienced the warm feeling of a .30 caliber 180 grain bullet passing through my arm (and went to work the next day unlike todays “sorry the PCR test says I have to be on my play station for the next week even though I feel great”).
• Long range shooting instructor.
• Extensive research in the field of rifle accuracy and ballistics.
• Books sold and used worldwide.
• Have worked counter terrorist projects.
• Have provided government level research for tactical units.
• My books are utilized at a major gunsmith school in the U.S.
• I own a pair of 511 pants.
• I have a small goatee but sadly cannot grow full tactical beard as I end up looking like Osama Bin Ladin.
•  

The author shooting from a prone position.