What type of firearm did von Brunn use?

I am finding it hard to find in the media exactly what kind of weapon von Brunn used in his attack. The best I can find is "a rifle".

Does anyone have a link that says exactly what kind of weapon was used?

And this is a block or two off the Mall.

by Pete Williams it was a .22 rifle that appeared to be older than von Brunn was.

n.t.

to shoot someone as he is holding the door open for you.

Law enforcement officials said James W. von Brunn, a white supremacist, was under investigation in the shooting and that his car was found near the museum and tested for explosives. The weapon was a .22-caliber rifle, they added. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss the investigation just beginning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_re_us/us_holocaust_museum_shooting

The problem I have is, I don't trust anonymous sources. That's not to say I discount the claim, but without any way to corroborate it, I'm not going to take it for granted that it's true.

Still, if it were a .22 rifle, well, it's hard to find a type of weapon that's more obviously made for a "sporting purpose" and supposedly innocuous (for a firearm).

I have no trouble believing it was a .22 rifle, and that explains why the media is giving it no attention. If it were some evil "high capacity" pistol, or a "high powered rifle", or even a mouth-watering "assault rifle", we would have heard it coming repeatedly and breathlessly from the media.

Since it was just a .22 rifle, not only is it not sensational, you can't really get all up in arms about banning those since as far as firearms go the .22 is about as innocuous as you can get. Move for banning those and your agenda will ring all too loud and clear.

that are supposed to be used for things like this.

Unless, did it have a bayonet lug?

only evil characteristics like having a bayonet mount or a pistol grip are. So the assault weapon ban (that would put an end to these sort of things) would have done nothing here.

The '94 AWB defined the term "Assault Weapon" and since the '94 AWB has sunsetted, so have its definitions.

Therefore I officially nominate that referring to everyday rifles as "Assault Weapons" be deemed regressive.

that the term assault weapon is meaningless, and its legal definition didn't cover weapons that were necessarily more dangerous, just scarier to certain people.

I am 100% opposed to the AWB, just FYI. I was being snide in my initial comment because reporters usually jump on "the killer used an assault weapon" bandwagon immediately.

Even in California, 22lr rimfire rifles can have pistol grips, muzzle breaks, and other evil features as long as they do not run afoul of the federal definition of a Short Barreled Rifle which I believe is 26 inches. We also have a 10 round limit on magazine capacity regardless of firearm, unless you owned prior to the AWB.

In fact, bringing a preban Marlin Model 60 .22LR squirrel rifle into the state of New Jersey will land you five years in the state penitentiary.

The AR15 was originally chambered in 5.56mm NATO for military and .223 Remington neither of which are what most people consider a "22".

Although the 5.56mm NATO is no super round it is kinda in a whole new league compared to the .22 Long Rifle Rimfire. Any centerfire cartridge is.

So while the diameter of the AR15 cartridge is .22 caliber the term "22" often is used to indicate .22 Long Rifle.

5.56x45mm NATO
Case Length: 45mm
OVerall Length: 57.40mm
Bullet Weight: 62gr
Muzzle Velocity: 3,100 ft/s
Muzzle Energy: 1303 ft.lb

.22LR (Long Rifle)
Case Length: 15mm
OVerall Length: 25mm
Bullet Weight: 40gr
Muzzle Velocity: 1,080 ft/s
Muzzle Energy: 104 ft.lb

.22 usually refers to .22 Long Rifle, which is a very-low-power rimfire cartridge. It's mostly used for target practice and killing vermin.

In any event, I'm sure that if it had been an AR-15 we would have heard the media going ape-shit over it.

I'm just being obtuse. :)

Same diameter bullet, But WAY different power behnid them.

And really, there isn't a worse gun to use if you're planning on committing mass murder.

Which, if I think about it, actually makes it the perfect gun to use. Totally innocuous, as you said and designed pretty much solely for target or sport shooting. Heck - half the time I think the shots practically bounced right off of the bales of hay used as a back-stop at the rifle range at Scout camp.

.. one was a young girl.

A .22 would jibe with the witness reports of 'pop' not 'boom' from those standing in line (the girl who reported a shotgun thought it was some kind of civil war re-enactment, I doubt she would have said that had she been standing close to a guy discharging a shotgun.)

Most people who have never seen real firearm fired have no idea how loud they are.

A .22 in real life is about as loud as a shotgun in Hollywood.
A shotgun is more like a howitzer in the movies.

A reasonable mistake.

I wonder if we'll have someone's camcorder tape to audio analyze at some point. One student reported a series of 'pop'.. 'pop pop pop'.

attenuate/cap maximum DB levels, and even if you record true audio using high end microphones the speakers used to play back will rarely ever output any recorded Db level as the lowly .22lr (120db-150db).
I'd be surprised if many average speakers could output even low 100's.

I'll have to take my camcorder to the range and record 22lr vs 12ga and see if the playback sounds different!

I can has science? hehe

but don't expect that recording to give a real-life experience as to how gunshot sound.

www.silencerresearch.com

That is an excellent site dedicated to the research and dissemination of firearm & silencer accoustics.
be weary, it's a gun site so naturally you may run across some "freeper stuff" in the forum section.
Just stick to the published reviews and videos and it's fairly neutral.

"Rimfire rifles have no sporting purpose. They are the weapon of choice among criminals because of their high availability and low cost. The round that killed the security guard cost less than $0.05. Gun manufacturers are intentionally flooding the market with this cheap ammo to facilitate crimes by criminals with less resources at their disposal."

I have been waiting for years for the "You can buy 500 rounds for less then the cost of a movie ticket" or "You can carry a 1000 rounds in an average pair of cargo pants." etc.

what the media reports would read like if I was ever arrested on the way home from a 22lr big box store stock up trip...

"A Caucasian male was stopped by police today with over 4000 rounds of ammunition in his trunk."

What's sad is, had the guard been wearing a vest, he probably would have survived the stomach wound he suffered. The wrong person died in surgery.

:banghead:

:sarcasm:

:-(

Coal Companies once dropped bombs on a picket line. Wonder where they got that ordnance?

A $600 vest is cheap compared to the payout Wackenhut might be facing now. If you are working a detail armed, then it's pretty safe to assume you're preparing to face an armed adversary.

wouldn't be suprised if it was a mauser.

Killing someone with one .22 to the chest would have to have been a very (un)lucky shot

I would like to know what weapon it was.

There have been reports of people being shots with .22 multiple (7, 8, 10) times then driving themselves to the hospital.

I mean .22LR is weaker than most handgun cartridges.

Very strange choice of weapon for a mass shooting.

Just thinking out loud here but I would think any rifle cartridge other than .22LR would have done substantially more damage to the door?

Also what a chilling photo.

..unless that was 00 buck against bullet proof glass (and bulletproof glass tends to be 2 layers of tempered / safety glass with a layer of polycarbonate film sandwiched between, or very thick acrylic / polycarbonate.)

Tempered glass tends to shatter when cracked (it's actually under tension as a solid), it almost looks like two layers of non-tempered glass with polycarbonate between (or some low-e film).

(My other hobby is reef aquariums, so I spent a lot of time researching glass for my latest tank.)

photos I shot after the Moscow, Id. sniper shooting, he used an AK

perhaps NIJ Level III or comparable. The photos are a little distant, but the rounds didn't even come close to penetrating, and I suspect 7.62x39mm wouldn't have either.

FWIW, here are some photos of various calibers not penetrating, and penetrating, a sheet of Polycast (ballistic window material). A lot of installations would use something like this laminated with a thin glass outer surface to protect the acrylic from oxidation.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot6.htm

.22LR:



.223 Remington/5.56x45mm FMJ:



7.62x39mm (AK round):



.308 Winchester/7.62x51mm:



12-gauge (.729) shotgun slug:



.45-70 Government:

Now I know it isn't a direct comparison (material, thickness) but the damage by larger rounds are much more substantial so I think the weapon was a .22LR.

What do you think?

In a lot of installations, I believe the acrylic is laminated between thin outer sheets of actual glass to protect the acrylic from oxidation and allow easier cleaning, and if so that would account for the haze of cracks right around the impact points. But the craters (or lack thereof) are very comparable.

I shot after the Idaho sniper I was amazed how deep the rounds went into the concrete.

Cinder block cemented into a wall will stop handgun rounds and small- to intermediate-rifle calibers (up through 7.62x39mm or so), but they'll crater impressively.

?v=0

Solid poured concrete will stop most anything short of an elephant gun or .50 BMG, but rifle rounds will still cause cratering, though less than for a cinder block wall. There's a fair amount of energy to dissipate (2 to 4 kilojoules for common rifle calibers), and the effect is volumetric. Obviously, the denser the concrete, the less volume is required.

into those red bricks while some shots went into the mortar. If you look at the window with the grate behind it the glass appears to be much thicker.

Looks like that window was designed to resist break-ins (it may even be regular plastic-core laminated glass) but is definitely not ballistic glass/acrylic.

BTW, I don't remember if the Moscow shooter was using preban steel-core FMJ or not. I don't know that it would make a difference in brick penetration, though, as that's mostly an energy function.

BTW, for kicks, here's a Box o'Truth photo of a brick hit by .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm FMJ after penetrating 12 sheets of drywall and a gallon jug of water:



Bricks generally don't fracture like that if they're cemented into a wall, though; since the brick can't fracture, the energy is dissipated by powdering the relatively soft brick until the bullet stops.

That is probably laminated ballistic glass or cast acrylic.

According to what I just read the killer only fired 3 rounds before the guards bullets took him down. The guards according to the reports were firing .38 caliber revolvers.

Killer supposedly was shot in doorway (as was the guard who died when he held open door for killer). Those in the door glass could've been from guards firing from the inside.

On edit found info on rifle:

The gun was a vintage Winchester rifle manufactured between 1908 and 1928, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case. The gun is too old to be traced to a purchaser, the official said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_re_us/us_holocaust_museum_shooting

In an interview with federal agents, Teel said the suspect moved to the location two years ago and arrived with two rifles, a 30-30 and the .22-caliber weapon.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-06-11-museum-shooting_N.htm

since the .38's didn't go through, either.

Von Brunn was let in the door, then started shooting. Guards shot back. So the guards shots are the ones that were most likely to be hitting the doors. Odds are, 9mm.

For once news reporters who wrote "service revolvers" are correct. Just one of my pet peeves with news writers how years after all most all police agencies went to semi-auto pistols the news writers still report "service revolvers".

The gun was a vintage Winchester rifle manufactured between 1908 and 1928, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case. The gun is too old to be traced to a purchaser, the official said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_re_us/us_holocaust_museum_shooting

About 1906 Winchester Rifles
The 1906 Model was the second in a series of Slide-Action rifles that Winchester produced. It was actually designed by John and Mathew Browning and followed the 1890 Model in production. The 1906 was produced as a lower cost version to the 1890 Model, selling for 66% of the cost. All guns were of the take-down variety. The 1906 Model was chambered initially for .22 short (up to serial # 113,000). But after 2-years, guns were produced that shot short, long, and long-rifle interchangeably, with this modification assuring the continued success of the 1906. This Winchester Model was produced from 1906 to 1932 with over 800,000 guns sold.

http://aaa-webs.com/aaa/webs/homestead/courses/1906/1906-History.htm

Imagine what will happen now they know a .22 RF can be lethal.

A friend once opined that more deer have been taken with a .22 RF than any other caliber. He pointed to deer shot in the fields on the farms (some would call that poaching but not the farmer that planted the corn the deer got fat on), deer really poached everywhere, and deer shot before there were seasons and gun rules.

So all firearms can be lethal and that's why it's silly to ban some based on mechanical features.

What Brunn did was despicable and his possession of that firearm was illegal.

Every evil thing that can be done with a gun is already illegal. We don't more laws.

I have an older, circa 1930, Savage 87J semi-auto with a tube magazine. Kind of the forerunner of the Marlin Model 60 design.

The Model 87A dates back to the early 1900's

For him to get off 3 shots while the guards drew and started firing it would have had to be a semi-auto IMHO. I can't see anyone using a bolt action and even a pump would be a challenge since the scumbag took rounds to the face.

I heard this AM that the guard was actually holding the door for "the elderly man" he saw coming up the steps. Basically the cowardly "Hero of the Reich" bushwhacked him.

But then I've seen authorities be wrong before.

Who only give a shit about 22s being banned.

They won't be banned.

..whose express purpose is to talk about such subjects. What do _you_ consider on-topic with those givens?

n.t.

I posted it here.