A Scout Sniper’s Forensic Analysis of the Charlie Kirk Assassination: Terminal Ballistics, Hydro-static Shock, and the Science Behind the Shot July 11, 2026
Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.Tags: Assassination, ballistics, Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, Charlie Kirk Murder, Chris Mark, security, Shawn Ryan, sniper, TPUSA
trackback
UPDATE! I have expanded upon this post and turned it into a much more comprehensive whitepaper. You can download here at Zenodo.org! or directly from this site below!
This is a long post but I think it is important. Recently I came across what I can only describe is an offensive AI ‘explanation’ by Candace Owen’ group that attempted to refute that Charlie Kirk was killed by a rifle round. More disturbingly, the ‘video’ is a mocking explanation of ‘conspiracy theorists’ who know what happened. The video was wrong at nearly every turn and was, quite frankly, offensively incorrect. Unfortunately, reading numerous comments on her page, a number of social media members believe and bought into her commentary. I want to refute her and explain with very direct math and science why it is 100% how Charlie Kirk was killed. Who am I to comment on this? I am a former Marine Corps Scout/Sniper, and Urban Sniper with combat time as a Sniper in the USMC. I was also a Force Reconnaissance Marine, and I have not only shot tens of thousands of rounds through rifles and am an avid hunter, but I also write extensively on firearm technology. In fact, I was selected for a DARPA counter sniper project during my time in the military due to my knowledge of ballistics and shooting.
Every time a high-profile shooting makes national news, social media fills with confident proclamations from people who have never fired a weapon in anger, never studied wound ballistics, and whose entire frame of reference comes from action movies and video games. The commentary ranges from the merely ignorant to the dangerously misleading (as in Ms. Owen’s) — and in some cases it is being amplified by public figures with large platforms who should know better. Recently, I was on a popular political commentator’s website and was amazed at how many people are now, suddenly, ballistics experts. Some of their comments were staggeringly ignorant. One person actually justified her very incorrect statement by saying she was the “ex-girlfriend of a hunter.” That is not a ballistics credential.
This post is not political. It is a ballistics education to provide insight into a terrible murder that is being overshadowed by a person’s pursuit of clicks, and money. That being said — for every so-called “ballistics expert” on social media who is doubting that Charlie Kirk was actually killed by that rifle at that distance, you need to read this post and understand a bit about how terminal ballistics actually works.
On September 10, 2025, at 12:23 PM local time, a single shot was fired from the roof of the Losee Center at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. The shooter was positioned approximately 142 yards from where Charlie Kirk was speaking. The weapon recovered was a Mauser-type bolt-action hunting rifle chambered in .30-06, loaded with (what appeared to be) Sierra GameKing 180-grain soft point ammunition. For consistency and we will simply say a non-bonded soft point bullet. Kirk was struck in the neck by a single bullet and was pronounced dead at Timpanogos Regional Hospital a short time later.
Within 5 minutes of the shooting my phone was blowing up with people asking what happened. My response: “Watching the impact, he was hit hard by a .30 cal. From an incline, close range. He was smacked so hard it looked like a .30-06”. Then, the hard question. Do you think he will live? My response? “No chance. His brain was dead nearly immediately and that was not a survivable wound. People asked why I thought that? Easy. He showed Decorticate posturing immediately upon being hit. Decorticate posturing is when arms flex inward, hands curl in. Indicates cortical or upper brain stem disruption. This is classic with hydro static shock impacting the brain (to be explained later). Classic high powered rifle shot that impacted the brain or nervous system.
People are claiming the distance is too far, the rifle was not ‘zeroed’ etc. etc. etc.. Many claimed that the wound characteristics don’t add up. That the bullet behavior was inconsistent with the stated circumstances. Every one of those claims reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of projectile physics, atmospheric ballistics, and terminal wound mechanics. This post addresses them directly, with math and science. What I am seeing circulate on social media right now needs to be corrected with facts, not speculation. A hunter is not a ballistics professional nor a professional at shooting humans.
I have radically updated the whitepaper as I received a number of requets from people wanting more information. You can download the whitepaper here or at Zenodo.com
Chris, This is an excellent article. Thank you for writing it. Very well documented and expertly written.
Hope all is well.
Seth Horrell
On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 9:31 PM Global Security, Privacy, & Risk Management
Great information as usual, Chris. Not surprised you can’t find a debate partner. Perhaps the prosecution will call you up as an expert.
Thank you for the kind words. All the “experts” come out of the wood work. Very frustrating. Thank you again!
Chris, I hope you take the time to read all of this and approve of the content. Below are the a few instances where I disagree.
Mark errs in his acoustic pressure calculations by utilizing the acoustic impedance formula to calculate the alleged pressure wave, claiming a result of 204,300 PSI. The formula used is P=ρ×c×v. In fluid dynamics, the variable v represents the acoustic particle velocity, which is the microscopic speed at which fluid molecules oscillate. Mark incorrectly substitutes the macroscopic velocity of the bullet, 866 m/s, for the particle velocity. This constitutes a fundamental error that mathematically inflates the result.
Because the projectile moves through a fluid medium and physically displaces it, the acoustic wave equation is incorrect for finding the peak pressure at the leading edge. The correct calculation utilizes Bernoulli’s principle for dynamic, or stagnation, pressure: P=0.5×ρ×v^2. Using Mark’s provided variables of 1070 kg/m^3 for density and 866 m/s for velocity, the resulting pressure is approximately 401,226,460 Pascals, or roughly 58,193 PSI. While significant, this is merely a fraction of the fabricated metric exceeding 200,000 PSI.
A supersonic tissue contradiction occurs when Mark argues that the bullet arrives at 866 m/s and creates a supersonic shock-wave because it travels at more than twice the speed of sound in air. However, terminal ballistics is governed by the speed of sound in the target medium, not the atmosphere. The speed of sound in human fluid and muscle tissue is approximately 1,520 meters per second. Because 866 meters per second is significantly less than 1,520 meters per second, the bullet remains definitively subsonic within the tissue. A projectile cannot physically produce a supersonic bow shock in a medium where its velocity falls below that medium’s speed of sound.
Demonstrating a misunderstanding of pressure versus strain, Mark claims that a hydro-static pressure wave fractures the cervical spine without any direct mechanical contact from the bullet. Uniform hydro-static pressure applied to a fluid-dense system does not cause bone fractures. Tissue and bone suffer damage through strain, meaning they stretch beyond their elastic limit, rather than through transient ambient pressure. An acoustic blast of uniform pressure does not shear bone.
Mark also conflates the acoustic pressure wave with the temporary stretch cavity to validate his third mechanism of remote skeletal damage. The radial velocity of tissue displaced by a bullet creates a temporary stretch. Stress on a material is related to its elastic modulus and strain by Hooke’s Law: σ=E×ϵ. Cervical support musculature is highly elastic and withstands massive temporary strain without reaching the failure point. A temporary stretch cavity generated in the lateral neck muscle does not mathematically transfer sufficient non-elastic shear stress to shatter the vertebrae unless the projectile or its fragments directly strike the bone structure.
A direct contradiction of primary sources occurs when Mark cites Dr. Martin L. Fackler and Duncan MacPherson to support theories of hydro-static shock and remote nerve damage. This constitutes academic fraudulence. Both Fackler and MacPherson dedicate their respective careers and texts to disproving the concept of hydro-static shock. Fackler extensively documents that sonic pressure waves pass through tissue without causing macroscopic damage, while MacPherson’s mathematical models draw a rigid distinction between an acoustic wave and physical hydrodynamic flow (Chapter 2 in Bulletproof). Mark cites literature that explicitly dismantles his core thesis.
Mark fixates on kinetic energy deposition, claiming that a bullet expending 100 percent of its energy inside a target represents the ultimate measure of lethality and performs exactly as designed. His own cited sources, specifically Fackler and MacPherson, explicitly reject kinetic energy transfer as a mechanism of wounding. Crushing and stretching destroy tissue, not a mathematical energy dump.
Mark mathematically misrepresents lethality using a scalar energy equation, KE=(mv^2)/450437. In contrast, the scientific standard established by MacPherson uses Wound Trauma Mass, which evaluates the actual physical volume of crushed tissue. The mass of crushed tissue is mathematically expressed as
m_crush ≈ ρ ∫₀ᴰ A(x) dx, where D represents the total penetration depth. When a non-bonded soft point fragments violently and stops early, its penetration depth is severely truncated. A small depth mathematically limits the volume of crushed tissue, regardless of the kinetic energy expended.
Mark asserts that complete fragmentation with no exit wound remains the statistically dominant outcome for a 150-grain .30-06 soft point at 142 yards, claiming it occurs 72 to 82 percent of the time. This inappropriately applies standard longitudinal gelatin test depths to the transverse width of a human neck. Given that a human neck is approximately 4 to 5 inches thick, the sectional density and residual momentum of the lead core overwhelmingly result in a pass-through exit wound.
Asserting that a high-powered rifle round stopping inside a 5-inch-thick anatomical structure serves as the baseline expectation represents a severe misrepresentation of probability.
Mark claims that a shot at the C4-C5 vertebral level constitutes the textbook no-reflex shot in sniper doctrine. This is anatomically and doctrinal incorrect. Precision hostage rescue sniper doctrine dictates targeting the medulla oblongata or the C1-C2 junction to sever the brain-stem and achieve instantaneous flaccid paralysis. Severing the spinal cord at C4-C5 paralyzes the diaphragm via the phrenic nerve, but it does not instantly shut off cranial nerves or facial reflexes.
Regarding negligible atmospheric variables, Mark emphasizes that the 4,750 feet elevation and warm temperature at the incident drastically enhance terminal performance by reducing aerodynamic drag. While it is mathematically true that thinner air reduces drag, the difference in retained velocity for a .30-caliber projectile over a short distance of 142 yards between sea level and 4,750 feet is roughly 30 to 40 feet per second. This marginal velocity difference remains statistically negligible regarding terminal tissue deformation and does not transform fundamental wounding mechanics
.
Mark concludes the marksmanship section by stating the shooter almost certainly zeroed the Mauser 98 at 100 yards, proceeding to build a trajectory and drop model on this assumption. There is no forensic evidence presented in the text to confirm the rifle’s actual zero distance. Constructing a definitive ballistic model on an unverified assumption invalidates the rigidity of the subsequent conclusions.
Look into PETN explosives.
PETN explosives crammed into a lapel roadmic and the entry wound being viewed as an exit wound is a hypothesis that seems more and more plausible with the data you bring up in your research.
I can help with version 3.0 if you are willing.
Reference List
Mark, C. (2026). A Scout Sniper’s Forensic Analysis of the Charlie Kirk Assassination: Terminal Ballistics, Hydrostatic Shock, and the Science Behind the Shot (Version 2.0).
United States Department of Defense, Defense Technical Information Center. (n.d.). Report ADA526059.
Fackler, M. L. (1987). What’s Wrong with the Wound Ballistics Literature, and Why. Letterman Army Institute of Research, Division of Military Trauma Research. Report No. 239. DTIC ADA183285.
Fackler, M. L. (1988). Wound ballistics: a review of common misconceptions. JAMA, 259(18), 2730-2736.
Fackler, M. L. (1996). Gunshot Wound Review. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 28(2), 194-203.
MacPherson, D. (1994). Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma. El Segundo, CA: Ballistic Publications. ISBN 0964357704.
Connor, I want to thank you for taking the time to write such an honest and well thougth out critique. I am not fully on board with all of this yet as you have given me a LOT to churn through ‘_ That is, quite bluntly, a good thing. I am going to go through part by part and update, as it is revealed. I will admit off the block, you are right about the C2/3 as opposed to the C4/5. That was a miss on my part. Additionally, another easy ‘change’ although I don’t think it changes the outcome materially is relying to heavily on the Fackler positions. That was a good catch, as well. I will churn through some of the heavier points you brought up tomorrow but I wanted to recognize your very thorough and well researched and thought out analysis. Overall, this is the scientific method,as you know. Give me a day or so for a more comprehensive opinion as I am dealing with a massive fluid dynamics problem in real time. My sister’s house flooded and I had to race to Dallas to help her fix it 😉 Again, nothing but appreciation for the close read and very comprehensive analysis. I will get back with some of my comments in short order.