Ballistics Expert Explains The Shot That Ended Charlie Kirk's Life - Viva Frei w/ Fenix Ammunition

I saw a comment, I know I shouldn't answer these comments, but I have to. Here, this one here, WC76 says, complain that she uses his name for money when you are literally using her name for money. ROF clown. First of all, I have to address it because there's no cure for stupidity, so I don't expect to help you WC76, but maybe I can help other people out there. I didn't accuse of doing anything for money. I've always long said people deserve to get paid for the work that they do. So much so, by the way, that I actually put out a tweet earlier in response to, which one was it? Is it here? In response to James Lindsay, who says, throwback to one of the all-time worst takes of all time. Where was it? I just lost my screen here. Where Cernovich said, in response to Candace Owens pricing her Manect at like, whatever, $150 a minute or something, I said, Cernovich was right when he said it. Candace is a superstar, for lack of a better word. Her time is worth what she says it's worth, and she's not wrong to price things at a way that if she doesn't want to do it, she won't do it unless it's worth the money. I've never faulted her for making money. Everybody deserves to make money for their hard work. I faulted her for being wrong, for doubling down, and for spreading disinformation. I faulted her for appealing to a murdered man's name to build her brand. Do you understand the difference between that and me criticizing the work that she does? Who was this guy again? C-76 something. Where was it? There's a bit of a difference there, and if you don't see it, I don't expect you'll ever see it. Now, I'm bringing in Justin from Phoenix Ammunition. We're going to have an amazing discussion. This was a surprise last minute. Phoenix Ammunition has a Twitter handle. They do this for a living. I'll bring up his tweet after I bring him in and let him introduce himself because I'm going to clip this segment and post it everywhere afterwards. Sir, we have never met, never spoken. Thank you for taking this up so quickly on such short notice. I know your name is Justin. I don't know if I can ask your last name, but tell everybody who you are. Yeah, sure. Of course you can. Good to meet you, brother. I'm Justin Nazaroff. I'm the CEO of Phoenix Ammunition, and I'm here to talk about ballistics. You're the guy that I see with the humorously branded bags of bullets, correct? Yeah. We've been putting memes and various political messages on our ammo since, I think, 2021, right around that time. I'm neurotic. This is not my imposition of my standards on you. I always find it a little risky to put political messaging on bullets just given the nature of what bullets are. In Canada, hypothetically, if someone wants to say that that's a call to whatever, I err on that side of—I don't call it cowardice. I call it just extreme, extreme caution. Alas, America has a true First Amendment, and you are exercising it with humorous and also business savvy. You make ammunition, or you sell ammunition? Yeah. We're a manufacturer. I guess I would call us a high-speed assembler. We take parts that are manufactured by other companies, and we put them together into the finished cartridge. We're doing all the QC on the incoming components. We're doing the assembly of all those components into the cartridge. Then we're doing the outgoing QC and packaging to make sure that everything was manufactured correctly before we send it out. Not to be crass, but I imagine business has to be good and getting better given what's going on in America. Everybody says guns, gold, and what's the other one? A getaway is how you prep for crisis. From the ground level, from the business level, sales—and not to get into finances, but sales are up and people are stocking up? Yeah, it's up and down. To be honest, the summer season is actually a bit slow. You would think a bit the other way around, maybe. But especially here in Michigan, you have a lot of other outdoor sports to compete with—boating and people going up north and things like that. The majority of people are shooting ammo at indoor ranges, and around here, that's predominantly in the cooler months. We slow down a little bit in the summer. We do have a big network of competitive shooters that really like our product, so those guys get busy in the summer. Then from the political, economic side, it's a bit up and down. There's a lot of political strife happening, as you well know, but the economy sucks. Shooting is a hobby for most people like golf or anything else. When groceries are expensive, you're probably going to be shooting a little bit less or maybe not at all. That's been a challenge. There's a lot of wars going on across the world. While we don't supply any ammo at all to military or law enforcement, we are unfortunately subjected to the supply chain disruptions that occur as a result of that. Most of the companies that make the component parts are very large conglomerates, and the majority of their revenue is military and law enforcement, sometimes exclusively. In the civilian world, we get the leftovers. When they get real busy, prices go up. Despite the fact that the economy is not great, they have buyers with money, i.e., government and military. We have to play that game a little bit and find a way to fit in. It's not bad. We've been doing all right. You've been following the Charlie Kirk assassination from the beginning. One of your tweets, which has regained attention, was a tweet from back in April, and I'm bringing it up right now. April 19, you said, literally, 16, 17 Remington products. This is the original one, right? Yeah, that's the original one. That's a clip right from... This is back when... To be honest with you, I've been talking about this since the week that it happened. I did a Twitter Live about a week, maybe four days after the shooting, and I said, we need to slow down here. We don't know anything about... At that point, I think all we knew was possibly the caliber because they had recovered what they thought was the gun that was used. We already had people speculating on all kinds of things. The bullets can't do this. Bullets can't do that. It couldn't have been this. I said, guys, we don't even know what type of projectile it was. This is all very important. We have to know, was it a hollow point, a soft point, FMJ? That won't give us any maybe 100% conclusive information, but it will give us a lot more to go off of it. It will maybe help explain some of these things that right now seem unexplainable to people. Of course, as months went on, we really didn't get a lot of additional information, but little bits and pieces would come out here and there. Anything that was ballistic related, I felt compelled to discuss because this is literally what I do for a living. Watching the amount of disinformation and just straight up lies being pulled by people in order to gain attention, and then people building on top of that and using that misinformation or just straight up lies to then build their podcast and become a featured commentator for Candace and Ian. I'll just say it. Everybody knows who I'm talking about at this point. It's been very frustrating because, like I said, I've dedicated my whole life over the last 10 years to trying to learn everything there is to know about ammunition in the search of making the best product possible, making a better product in whatever way that we can, using modern technology to solve problems that we couldn't 20 or 30 years ago with the manufacturing techniques we had back then. I thought, hey, it's a good idea maybe to get a voice of reason in here, somebody that's in the industry, but you hit a wall with people who do not want to be told anything except what explains the narrative that they've already decided in their head. It's just really ******* weird to me to be honest. It's insanity because the thing is, I've never made any definitive statements on ammunition because I know that I don't know enough or anything about it. And when people immediately, the only thing we knew from the beginning, it was a .30-06. And then everyone says a .30-06 would never behave like that. And all that I know is that when I have people who I know and trust and some of them say it would never behave like that and others say, what are you talking about? I've hunted and I've had a shot of deer and it didn't go out, hit the shoulder blade and went. Well, then I know that it's not impossible and far from being impossible. Anybody saying it's categorically impossible is more likely wrong than right. That's before we know how old it is, the condition of the round and the manufacturer of the round. Just walk us through this because you have FMJ, which is full metal jacket. You got a hollow point, which I don't know if they make a hollow point for a .30-06. I know you get your soft tip, your core. Was it called a core center? Core Lock is Remington's brand of what they call their particular projectile. But yeah, so let's get into that. So, you know, with rifle ammo, especially in, you know, hunting calibers like .30-06, most of what you're going to see is some type of projectile that's designed to deform. So, you know, in my original post that you referenced, I had pulled that up specifically because I had a pretty good idea from the get that it was going to be a Remington Core Lock and I'll tell you why that is. Remington Core Lock is something that you can find on the shelf at basically every single Cabela's or Dick's Sporting Goods, any Walmart that sells ammo, any place that sells guns is going to have this product. It's been around forever. It's a staple. Now, having said that, it's really, to be honest with you, not that great of a product. It's a projectile design that's been around for a long time. We have much better ways of doing things than we do now, but it's cheap, it's readily available, and it works well enough. And so I had a pretty good suspicion that, you know, Tyler Robinson, assuming he's the shooter, would walk into the store, see the green and yellow box with a deer on the side and pick that one. So in Remington's lineup in .30-06, they make 17 different products. Only one of them is a full metal jacket bullet because, you know, there's not a lot of people that are going out and doing target shooting with a .30-06. They might sight their rifle in with some FMJ bullets, but the minute that they go out to hunt or, you know, do whatever with, they're going to be using some sort of a deforming projectile. So in this case, we're looking at what's called a soft point. So when you have a full metal jacket, explain what that means. Yeah. Yeah. So full metal jacket means, so bullets are mostly comprised of lead and copper. So you have a lead core and we use lead because it's heavy and you want that, you want the density and you want the weight to deliver energy on target. So you have a lead core and then you have a thin copper jacket that gets stretched over the copper to form what's called the jacket. And the reason you need the jacket is because, especially with rifle ammo that's going at high velocity, the lead would be so deformed by the pressure and the velocity of going through the barrel that it would break up at the velocities you see in rifle ammo. So you add a copper jacket to keep structural integrity of the lead core until you want it to do whatever it is that you want to do. There's other reasons that you have the jacket, but that's a good starting point. So FMJ bullets have a copper jacket that encloses the entire lead core. And generally when those hit things, they're going to go in one side and out the other. They're not designed to fragment or deform. This is the cheapest stuff that you would take to the gun range and shoot just for the purposes of testing out your gun, making sure it works, whatever the case may be. So then if you want to cause the bullet to deform, which you want because you want to keep that bullet from exiting whatever it is that you're shooting. In a hunting application, you don't want to pass through because you want all that energy to be delivered on the target, and you don't want to perhaps hit something that's standing behind the deer. I mean, that's a weird situation, but that's why we use things like hollow points and other deforming rounds for defensive applications because you definitely don't want to pass through if you're shooting somebody in a crowded mall or something like that. So this is what they're designed to do. And in this case, so a soft point, what it's doing is taking the copper jacket off of the tip, leaving... I actually have one here. It's funny that this is a Remington Corlock 30-06. I don't know how well you can see it, but you can see there's a little bit of exposed lead on the tip. So what happens there is when this strikes something, whether it's bone or tissue, that lead is going to start to deform and be pushed into the copper jacket, which then expands. And that copper jacket, because it's very, very thin, I mean, we're talking 0.02 of an inch, right? About 33% thinner than a credit card. So what happens is the copper starts to stretch and split. It generally will look something like this, right? This is an example of a 300 blackout projectile that's been expanded. So you can see what happens. So this occurred shooting this particular projectile into ballistics gel, right? All this hit was gelatin, and look how deformed it is. Okay, now- And if you could actually, sorry, bring that back up. I'm just going to take my cell phone so people can see it. That is the entire tip, correct? Yeah, this is the whole projectile here. And so this projectile is probably about that long. And so it's been deformed about 25, 30% of the way. Okay. And is that the same round that is now suspected as having been used by Tyler? No, this is not the same one. This is just an example of, I want people to see what happens. So in this case, this bullet was only going 1,000 feet per second into ballistics gel, and this is what it looked like. Okay. Now, in Charlie Kirk's case, the bullet was probably going something like 2,200 feet per second, maybe a little bit faster in that range. So in his case, again, we know based on the medical reports and everything that's been said, that projectile hit him in the spinal cord, right? It hit him in the bones. And so when you have a more or less, all bets are off. And I may just pause there because some people are going to say it didn't hit bone, it entered the front and then it hit the, there's a difference between spinal cord, which is not bony and the spine, the sections of the spine, which is not. No, no, George. The first vertebrae, correct. The crowd can be very, very finicky when it comes to discrediting everything someone said because of one thing. We know. Yeah. So when the narrative, the evidence, the theory now is it went in his neck, hit the spine and then fragmented up and down after it hit the spine and ruptured, severed his heart and caused the catastrophic damage. Okay. Sorry. Go on. Yeah. Yeah. All I was going to say is, so you look at the bullet that I just showed you and you think, okay, but that doesn't look like the bullet that they pulled out of Charlie Kirk. And my answer to that is, yeah, I know that's because this bullet didn't hit any bone and the bullet that hit Charlie Kirk did. And so once that happens, you really can't predict what's going to happen. Will it break into two pieces or three? Will it not break into any pieces, but you know, bend itself into a boomerang shape? I mean, I've seen bullets of all different shapes after, after hitting, you know, a deer, a human being brick walls, car doors, ballistics, gel everything you can possibly imagine. The issue that many people have, I'm going to bring it up here because they're going to say, you know, soft tips are designed to, you know, mushroom like this, like this in, in, from the autopsy, if we believe the autopsy or I guess from the, from the medical examiner's findings, this one fragmented into four to seven pieces. There's some disagreement as well, not as four or seven. I think there's a lot of logical explanations for the discrepancy, but set that aside. At least it broke into four separate pieces and people are going to say, ha ha, even the mushroom, the way it's supposed to mushroom indicates that this would never have been the case. Therefore, I don't know what other But the broader question just is a soft tip when it mushrooms and expands, there are perfectly plausible circumstances in which it fragments into several pieces. Yeah. I have seen, I've seen jacketed bullets fragmented into pieces, shooting them into bare ballistics gel with no obstructions whatsoever. So again, as soon as you have, so what you have to understand is the lead core and the jacket in this particular case, there's no, uh, mechanical interlock between the two, the jacket gets stretched over the lead bullet and encased, but it's not like they're glued together or they're attached with some sort of like mechanical adhesion or like reverse barbs or anything like that, that keep the two pieces together. And so the minute that they hit something and they start to slow down and change directions unpredictably, like they do when they hit a solid object, uh, those pieces are going to separate probably more often than not. And like I said, in some cases I fired bullets into ballistics gel that separated the jacket from the core, um, hitting nothing but gelatin. So if we look at like some of the other examples in Remington's product lineup, they specifically solve that problem with modern by making what are called bonded bullets, which have a jacket with, um, there's various ways to do it, but some of them will make the jacket in two pieces. Uh, they're crimped in the middle and that way that crimp, uh, provides a mechanical lock between the jacket and the lead core to keep specifically to keep them from separating. And if you look at most modern hunting ammunition, that's what people buy specifically to solve that problem. Because in a hunting application, you don't want lead scattered all throughout the meat. If you can avoid it. Um, many hunters have gone to solid copper projectiles specifically for that reason. But even in cases where you're using a lead core copper jacketed bullet, they have with modern manufacturing, we have various ways of locking those two pieces together, but the core lock bullet is not that it's been around for decades and decades. It's, it's a, it's an extremely simple, cheap and cost-effective design. And that's the reason that it exists. It's not the best round. I'll be honest with you. The only reason I have these is because they were on sale and I wanted something cheap to shoot out of my M1 Garand. I would never go hunting with a Remington. And that's the question I was about. I mean, I'm going to ask is because the likes of the Ian Carroll's of the world and all of the skeptics who will, I don't blame people for being skeptical. I just blame them for being stubborn and not accepting an answer is they're going to say it's a soft tip. It's meant to mushroom and not break into pieces. Cause you don't want to be picking pieces of meat bullet out of the meat after you shoot a deer. And so when you, when you say the Remington is it's a, it's this particular round is bad, cheap, and sometimes doesn't, you know, doesn't function properly. I guess it's not the word you said, but what does go wrong with this? You are right about that. And I don't want to pick on Remington in particular, almost every large, you know, Winchester, all these big companies, they all make a similar version of the same thing. A soft, soft tip bullet with, you know, no bonding, no mechanical interlock. So yes, you do want to avoid getting, you know, lead in your meat, but not everybody is going to go to the store and pay a dollar 50 around, or, you know, whatever it is for a solid copper, uh, you know, special bullet that some people just don't really care all that much. And hunters have been picking lead out of the meat of their animals for, you know, a century for as long as firearms had existed. So yeah, it's not ideal, but it is going to happen. And as far as the mushrooming, again, we're talking about like perfect case scenario. Is it supposed to break into pieces? No. Um, but will it? Absolutely. I mean, this is, it's like talking about, you know, if you, if you, if you drive your car, uh, 40 miles an hour into a brick wall a hundred times, is it going to, uh, smash and deform in exactly the same way every single time? No, of course not. You know, if we ran that accident a hundred times, we would see in some cases, the airbags go off and in some cases they don't. In some cases, the occupants are injured. In some cases they're not bullets. We're talking about an extremely high speed, high energy collision happening in a fraction of a second. And so anybody who thinks that they can predict exactly what's going to happen just has not shot enough things pretty much. And I'll, I'll bring up a couple of a chat here. I'll get to built on in a second, but our Sergeant 31 says, Hey Viva, would you mind asking your guests to finish this phrase bullets do and crazy things is how it should end. This is what drives me nuts is, is I don't know enough to rely on my own authority when having these discussions, but everyone's like the bullets traveling 2,200 feet per second. It's going through anything period. And then, you know, I don't know what percentage of soldiers in world war two who were shot with 30 on six didn't have an exit wound. Martin Luther King. Now I'm seeing an online debate as to whether or not it had an exit wound, but ultimately his body stopped the bullet. If it went around and if it exited again, it went back in the idea that there is no categorically true statement. I tried to just apply basic reasoning, like has a 30 ought six ever misfire. And if the answer is yes, then you can't tell me what the bullet does a hundred percent of the time when it impacts something. And at the time we didn't know the age of the condition. Now what we're seeing is that it looks like it was a Remington. And then the question is, is it beyond the pale of possibility that a six inch neck, if it hits the spine bones after making entry at the front, that it fragments into four to seven pieces without causing an exit wound, not to ask you an expert opinion, but is that beyond the pale of possibility? Not at the slightest. And, you know, this is not just my opinion either. I do consider myself an expert in this topic, of course, but this is, you know, been backed up by hundreds, if not thousands of people in my comment section and other unrelated people on Twitter, posting pictures of all kinds of animals that they've shot with no exit wound. We have some people, uh, actually soldiers who have been shot with maybe not 30 out six, but very similar, you know, medium caliber rifles with no exit wound. You can find examples of this all over the internet again, world war two go, you know, I spent some time looking this up. You can read a lot of information about, um, exit wounds and, uh, you know, bullet wounds and things like that. And we were shooting a ---- ton of people with 30 out six. So the idea that not a single soldier that was shot with 30 out six ever failed to have an exit wound is it's just categorically false. And there's so much information to dispel it. I don't understand what the problem is. Let me, if I may bring up, you'll let me know when you have to go. I don't want to abuse of your time in our locals community. Uh, mr. Mike said, what manufacturer of bullet was noted at the prelim as being found at Tyler Robinson's residence. The, they have definitively, they shown pictures of a bullet. Is it, is it, I want to get the picture of the evidence. Um, it's definitively a Remington, correct? Like that is the, the, the bullet that was at least found afterwards. Yeah. All the, all the exhibits that I saw yesterday where they were showing the ammunition recovered that the case recovered from the rifle in addition to the other cases that had the inscriptions on them. If you look at the head, you know, we know the manufacturer because every manufacturer has a different headstand. So if you were to turn that case and look at, look at the base, look at the bottom of it, which they do show in one of the photos, it's, you're not gonna be able to see it on this camera of course, but there's, uh, most companies have a two or three letter designation. You can see on this one right at the top, it says RP Remington products. So we know that it was a Remington, uh, and we know the caliber because that's also on the bottom of the headstand. We would be able to tell the caliber based on the dimensions anyway. So we know that it was a Remington product. And again, Remington only makes 17 products in 30-06. Every single one of them is designed to either mushroom, fragment, or somehow break into pieces upon contact. And that's exactly how they market the product. Yeah. And specifically so that it, uh, maximum, well, let's say the math, I don't know what the word is, but to create as much, uh, impact velocity, if that's the word. And so that it. Correct. Yeah. Typically they're marketed to limit over-penetration. That's a common, you know, terminology in industry. You're trying to, you're trying to dump the energy into the target, keep the energy in the target and, uh, prevent or reduce over-penetration exit wounds, et cetera. Uh, now I don't know if you know this or if it's, you know, there is no way or very difficult to trace, even if you had a fully intact or sufficiently intact bullet and I called the projectile very difficult to trace that to a rifle, unless there were distinctive bore markings on the inside of the rifle that allow you to sort of, I don't know, match some sort of fingerprint. Yeah. So, uh, you know, I'll, I'll, I'll, again, I'll, I'll reference this, this bullet, this 30, this, uh, printer blackout. You can see in this case, you know, a lot of the, a lot of the base in the body is still in one piece. So again, I'm not sure if you'd be able to be able to see it on here, but I can actually see the, the rifling grooves that were imparted into the copper jacket from the barrel of the rifle that this was fired. So, um, it is possible to match a bullet to a particular barrel. If you have a bullet that is in enough of a, uh, you know, it has survived well enough to be compared. So again, I'll use an analogy. If I, if I cut my hand off with a knife at the wrist and I hand it to you and I say, Hey, get a fingerprint off this hand, that would be very easy, right? But if I hold a firecracker in my hand and I blow my hand into a hundred pieces, do you think you'd be able to recover a fingerprint? Probably not. Maybe it's possible that, you know, the tip of my finger gets blown off and separated and, and, you know, the fingerprint has been perfectly preserved. Yeah, that's theoretically possible. But if, if you look at the images of the fragments recovered from Charlie's body, you can see that, you know, the lead core would not have any rifling on it because it's the core. So that doesn't really matter anyway. The only thing that you can really use as a reasonable comparison are the lands and grooves that would have been imparted on the jacket. And if you look at the pictures of the jacket, it's, it's completely mangled. There's no way that you can untwist, you know, the problem is people have watched way too much CSI Las Vegas and they see these real impressive, you know, computers in a laboratory somewhere. And they think that these scientists are able to like unfold the pedals of the jacket and get them all lined up perfectly. And they can use whatever AI or something to make this comparison. And the computer is just going to like pick up all the little points and match them up. And, and Oh, we've got a hundred percent identification and it's all just, it's bullshit. It's completely made up. That is not how ballistic forensics works at all. And so this is just people who have no idea what they're talking about. And now, so set aside, tracing the projectile end of the bullet to the casing. They are, I would say experts are able to relatively conclusively determine that it was in fact a bullet. They can make sure the metal that was pulled from Charlie's body is the same metal as the tip or the same lead and copper as the tip of the bullet, right? There's not like an ambiguity as to whether or not what they pulled was in fact the, the, the tip of a bullet. There's not ambiguity there. It's easy to say, yes, that is the same copper and lead composition as all of the other Remington rounds. Yeah. I mean, I would say it would be, there are, there are types of copper that are used in the industry wide to make copper jackets. So would you be able to definitively say that this is a copper jacket specifically from a bullet? If you just found a piece of copper laying on the ground, potentially not, but because of the thickness and the way that it's mangled and the fact that it was inside Charlie's body there's really no other conclusion that you could reach other than this is the jacket of a bullet of some type. Now they can do some analysis and if they have enough of the fragments of the bullet that they can put all that together and weigh it and maybe get a rough idea of the diameter, you know, it's possible that they could narrow down the caliber of the bullet, even if it's been fragmented into pieces based on the weight and the, the size and the length, you know, there are some approximations there that that could be done, but yeah, if you have a bullet that's broken into five or six pieces, you're not going to be able to positively identify that to any particular firearm at all. But what people keep avoiding is the fact that the ATF said, we cannot conclusively say that this came from the gun, but we also can't conclusively say that it did it. And this is again, very common. Like the problem is this entire case from the perspective of the skeptics is hinging around this bullet. But you know, ballistic evidence is used in trials all the time. And so there are very few trials that are either won or lost based on the idea that you couldn't positively identify a bullet to a particular firearm. Typically that's like the cherry on top for a prosecutor if they can manage to do that. Usually those kinds of cases are one with, you know, the preponderance of a lot of other evidence that's collected and they're hoping that they get some ballistic evidence that can make it, you know, completely definitive. I just wanted to say the question was so that you could make sure that it's actually bullet fragments and not say a shape charge on an exploding lapel microphone, for example. I mean, that's right. They didn't make a mistake that it was a bullet. And then the only question is if you want to stick to the theory that it wasn't Tyler Robinson, who else could it have been? Someone said, dude, talk trajectory. I don't necessarily want to ask people this question. I'll ask you how it came from our locals community as well. People said, you know, at that distance, is it an easy shot to make and, you know, set aside all the issues about the scope and putting together the rifle? I mean, I don't know. You know, the circumstances. Is this a difficult shot? Is this a standard hunting shot? You know, does the scope need to be perfectly zeroed in for the shot? Was he going for a torso shot missed and actually hit in the neck? Like what do you make of the shot itself? Yeah. I mean, as far as the difficulty of the shot, it's not difficult at all. One hundred and forty yards with a scoped rifle. I mean, that's that's extremely easy, even if it's a fairly low magnification optic. That's that's something almost anybody with a little bit of training could do after an afternoon of working with them. And we know that Tyler shot guns. It's not like he was a complete neophyte and had no training or no experience with guns whatsoever. So, yeah, it's it's it's totally reasonable to think that he could make that shot as far as, you know, the zeroing of the rifle. Again, there's a lot of factors in play here. I have optics and rifles where I can take the optic off the rifle and put it back on the rifle in the same position, torque it back down, and the zero does not change at all because of the quality of the rifle and the quality of the optic mount. Now, there are others that that would not be the case and it would change the zero to a degree. Is that going to matter at 140 yards? Well, it depends. Depends how well the rifle was zeroed in in the first place and it depends what he was actually aiming at, which we don't know. Like you just said, he may have been holding at for a chest shot and the zero on the rifle was compromised when it was disassembled and it caused the bullet to go, you know, several inches higher than what he expected. So, we just we just have no idea and so any speculating on it seems silly. I mean, as far as shape charge, you know, I'm not a shape charge expert. I'm not going to weigh in on whether it's possible in the light reading I've done from people who are experts in such things. They seem to believe that the physics behind it are not possible, that there isn't enough room inside the microphone to have a large enough charge and then where do you put the projectile? And again, if the microphone exploded on the front of his chest here, then why is there no entrance wound in his chest? They're gonna say there is. I'll even... It's just insanity. I'll steal many even more shape charges are possible. They use them in pagers. Israel is really, you know, use it to assassinate people. Why would anyone, if that's the goal, complicate what would otherwise be an easy shot on an unsecured roof at 140 yards? So, although possible idiotic in that there's no evidence to substantiate it and why on earth would anyone want to complicate it with a more risky method than what was easily available? I don't want to abuse of your time, Justin. Let me just see if I can get... I got plenty of time. Okay, good. We got what manufacturer bullet was noted in the preludes? Okay, I got that. Phoenix, my neck of the woods. Buy from him all the time. Tell him I'm a fan of his ex-spicy commentary and ammo bags. We had a couple of... Here, let's see this one. Viva, you're spot on with that. It's one thing to be skeptical, but the Candace class, their sycophants seemingly refuse any conventional wisdom. Let me say something about that real quick, just so everybody understands who I am and what I'm about. I have zero interest in this aside from the ballistics. Having said that, I'm entirely open to the idea that Tyler Robinson was talked into doing this by who knows, the FBI, the CIA, the IDF. I'm as conspiracy minded as anybody that you've ever met, I promise. But at the end of the day, I have to look at what makes sense. So when you start creating this gigantic narrative involving exploding microphones and three or four different countries conspiring together and Egyptians... Guys, this is just way too complicated. It's not that hard. We've seen a lot of high profile political assassinations. We've seen these transgender shooters getting coerced into things over the internet and discord servers. The FBI and the CIA have been doing this for people who support Muslim ideology, Islamic terrorism. They've been coercing people into doing things here. So I'm totally open to the idea that all of that is possible. But what I'm not going to do is create this super convoluted narrative that seems to only exist for the purpose of having a daily podcast and getting a bunch of people to tune in and having some new detail. This is like micro pay. It's like playing these video games where every five minutes they ask you for 50 cents or a dollar for some upgraded armor or some way to get to the next level quicker. That's what Candace and Ian are doing. They're going home every night thinking of some new detail to drip out the next day to keep people tuning in, to keep their views up, to keep their clicks up, because that is their product. They don't sell anything. The only reason that they exist is to have the podcast. And now that they're all in on it, they're just going to continue to come up. I mean, look at Ian. Yesterday, he misidentified the bullet as an FM. And then hurried up and changed his answer. Oh, wait, actually, it is a soft point. But that's problematic, too. It's like, OK, dude, you already have an excuse lined up when you were dead wrong just three seconds ago. Why is anybody listening to you anymore? But you look at it and the guy will get five, six hundred thousand views. And it was my I do find it surprising as well. I don't complain or criticize people for their success. It's just that I'm surprised when the success is not when the reputation is not tarnished by being diametrically opposed and contrary to reality. I saw that full metal jacket. That's why it should have gone through. Oh, it wasn't metal jacket. Well, that should have gone through also because it's supposed you don't want to be picking pieces of lead on a deer. Oh, wait a minute. It's a crappy round that does that. That's why people buy them because they're cheap and it happens. Well, let me just move it back. We're back to the microphone theory, because now the bullet theory has been not debunked and not confirmed just within the realm of possibility. Yeah, I mean, I got no problem with people having a successful podcast, being an influencer, whatever. I'm not jealous of Ian or Candice in any way as far as that goes. What I do take umbrage with is people lying knowingly and willingly lying for the purpose of becoming successful. I think everybody can relate to that. I don't think anybody likes it when you find out that somebody was cheating in their career, you know, lied to get a promotion, anything like that. I think, you know, people find that to be a bit scummy. And in this case, it's not just that they're lying. I mean, they're they're they're disparaging dozens of people who in some cases had, you know, Candice was trying to identify everybody that happened to be wearing a maroon shirt that day. I mean, are you ******* kidding me? She misidentified a member of our locals community who was a guy with a prosthetic arm that they suggested was was it's irresponsible. And the problem I like I said to the person in the beginning, I don't care that they make money off it. It's just it's when you're wrong. At some point, you just take a step back if only for your own dignity. But, you know, alas, people don't like admitting they're wrong because they know that they would hold it against someone else. So they imagine someone else is going to hold them, admitting they were wrong against them. But after a certain point, when you say a lot of really untenable, crazy things, I think you become captured by the audience that demands more of it and will turn on you as fast as they turned on everybody else. Justin, this is we're going to keep in touch. I'm going to text you my number because I would love to have you back on as questions come up. Where are you based out of? So we're based in Novi, Michigan. We're, you know, 25, 30 minutes northwest of Detroit, out in the suburbs. You know, we do all of our almost 100 percent of our sales is through our website, phoenixammo.com. And if you guys are interested in what we do and you like our products, I encourage you to check those out. You know, we have a lot of fun on Twitter. We try to be a thorn in everybody's side as much as you can, which is why this is such an interesting place to be in, because, you know, for years I've been attacked primarily by people on the liberal left. You know, they tried to shut us down during COVID. You know, we got fined for not wearing masks, all that kind of stuff. And now I'm in a position where, to be honest, these days I get a lot more criticism from the right in some cases like this. But we're just we're trying to be the reasonable middle. And especially in the gun community, there's a lot of mythology. There's a lot of what we call FUD lore, just things that people have been saying for years that are just absolutely not true. And we're happy to try to wade into those conversations as much as we can, because we're a small company. We don't have an HR department. You know, we don't have shareholders, nothing like that. We're a family owned business and we're speaking our minds. I say the exact same things on Twitter that I would say to anybody in real life and anybody who's met me in real life would know that. And I could say the same for the other guys here. So we're just, you know, we're trying to be the militia industrial complex. We're here to serve the citizens of the United States. We're not here to be a military contractor. We're trying to be, you know, we're trying to be about what the Second Amendment was originally written for, which is about arming citizens, demanding more from your government, calling out politicians and making those people feel afraid again, which they should. If you do not already have merch that says militia industrial complex, that was too good not to have already been coined. Justin, this has been amazing. We'll keep in touch because we'll do this again. But thank you so much for coming on and sharing your wisdom. I say when someone has a proven track record of being right, you should tend to listen to them more. And when someone has a proven track record of having been wrong on substantial issues because they jumped to conclusions, just listen to them with that degree of caution on a going forward basis. You were proven right, man. And it made sense at the time. It makes sense now. And this will be the answer to everybody who says a 30-06 could never do that. They will continue to believe that, but hopefully they'll listen to you. Well, I appreciate you having me on, brother, anytime. All right. Awesome. Talk soon.