quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Has anyone considered the possibility that it didn't happen the way it was told?

I've heard these long range stories many times, and skepticism is appropriate IMO. Seems that a good percentage of those who claim such-and-such are as good or better at exaggeration as shooting.

KB

Interesting prospective on the actions of the allied troops in the desert!!!! What a vote of confidence in the work that they are doing over there under the most difficult conditions!!!

1.54 miles
2478.39 meters
8131.20 feet
2710.40 yards.
I would say. that man is good ..!!!

quote:

Originally posted by TEANCUM:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Has anyone considered the possibility that it didn't happen the way it was told?

I've heard these long range stories many times, and skepticism is appropriate IMO. Seems that a good percentage of those who claim such-and-such are as good or better at exaggeration as shooting.

KB

I doubt that he was the one who released it to the media.
And too many witnesses as well ?

And that he didn't know until he got back to the UK ?

Everything is written up in After Action reports on everything that happened.
I doubt they write BS as they would have had to confirm the AAR.

I would love one of you long range experts to show us what a man size target would look like at 2700 yards!! I've seen the optics used in the military and a standard target at 1500 yard looks very small at max magnification!! I couldn't even imagine what it would look like a dot twice as small as the mil-dot!

"At a distance like that they cannot even see anyone and they would not even hear the muzzle report," Plaster said.

And this scope don't cut it at 2700 yards! S&B 5-25x56 Day Scope

quote:

Originally posted by wfh:
Okay guy's we are over my head here, but we know they are doing it. How about saboted bullets? Seems like the reports on the remington 22 cal sabots fired in the 3006 rifles were fast and accurate. Could be A game changer.

To light, anything less that 225 grains will be doing gymnastics around 1000 yards (if not sooner)!

Talked to several Lapua fandangos at the range today and the conversation was very interesting. Most agree with me on the special weapon theory. However, there was a couple of hold outs who said it can be done. With that said, I challenged them at the tune of $500.00 to come up with a round (published) that will get the job done. Here is the challenge. And it's very simple. Hit a 32"X24" rectangular plate at 2,700 yards. They get 10 shots and only need to hit the plate 2 times!

I will post photos of the event and a picture of my check here next week!

Bullets don't necessarily tumble before they hit the ground. OK, maybe 168 Sierras, but not all bullets are like that.

Aren't you familiar with Jenson's "balanced flight" theory? There are alot of bullets other than Jenson that do not tumble.

The scopes for the 338 Lapua rifle in use by the british army is the S&b 5-25x56, unsure wheter its the mil dot or the P4 fine reticle in use. the 5-25x is quite versatile since you are basically covered in various ranges and areas of use .

quote:

Originally posted by BECoole:
Bullets don't necessarily tumble before they hit the ground. OK, maybe 168 Sierras, but not all bullets are like that.

Aren't you familiar with Jenson's "balanced flight" theory? There are alot of bullets other than Jenson that do not tumble.

No, I'm not even familiar with my damn Blackberry that I have had for almost two years now (who designs these things anyway?) but I'm well versed in the FACTS not theories of physics and its relative applications to gravity, linear and parabolic flight. "Balanced flight" as explained in aeronautical terms is that being of a perfectly balanced air-frame that provides an equal and opposite lift to weight ratio. However, that has never been achieved otherwise trim systems would not exist (every plan, rocket, missile etc. has them). Bullets and other projectiles (less round balls) are designed on angular principles that amount to weight distribution (this is not external ballistic info i.e. c.o.e or sectional density etc.) but rather the weight being distributed for and aft of the bullet to best balance the flight based on a specific purpose. This is why bullets (in the match) series always balance their bullets "neutral" to cover multi ranges (which of course provide multi angular positions during flight). In other words and to try to keep this short, a bullet can be developed for 1 specific ballistic value. You can design a bullet to travel to a target of 600 yards based on redesigning its internal and external values to match the angular parabolic flight path to be 99% perfect! Problem is it would suck at other ranges! And bullets tumble regardless of EB/IB. It's a simple matter of gravity and lift which are constant! Which means to try and manipulate the principles means you will be constantly wrong!

You sure seem to have a lot of reasons why a long range shot couldn't happen, but it did. You have no idea how.

You probably think Billy Dixon's shot is BS too.

WhatThe

You are very sceptical.

Relate it to this.

2 blokes, (me and a mate), 2 OPEN sighted guns (45/70 lever action, Win Mod 70 458WM), 1 metre square metal plate at 550 yards. Both of us took 7 shots to drop a bullet onto the plate and from then on would hit it at least every second shot.

2 blokes, high end Sniper rifle, High end scope, knows the cartridge, trajectory, rifle backwards and etc etc, no wind perfect conditions, target doesn't know they are being fired at.

OK, the first round HIT / KILL MIGHT have had a fair amount of luck to it but once he knew he was "on" the target, the other shots would be good.


Just my HO.

quote:

Originally posted by BECoole:
You sure seem to have a lot of reasons why a long range shot couldn't happen, but it did. You have no idea how.

You probably think Billy Dixon's shot is BS too.

This is just the point here, I do believe it happened! No doubt about it! These guys are incredible hands down! The answer I seek is a coherent explanation is to HOW! Someone give me the load data that pulled this off. The truth is IT'S NOT AVAILABLE. So my theory is; that the weapons these guys use are built to exceed commercial max pressure? They can load up to higher velocities to achieve their goals. This is it! I really think it's that simple. My only argument was not that these guys didn't pull off the shot, I believe it, I just don't believe they are restricted to commercial loads. If they were, than it simply couldn't happen!

Any "standard" load with a 250gr Scenar or Matchking could do it.

I'm sure if you asked for .338 Lapua loads, the guys here could give you a dozen that would do the job.

quote:

Originally posted by BECoole:
Any "standard" load with a 250gr Scenar or Matchking could do it.

I'm sure if you asked for .338 Lapua loads, the guys here could give you a dozen that would do the job.

Nope, It can't happen. The Highest velocity commercial load carrying the 250 is 2998. At 2200 yards the bullet is traveling at 887 FPS. At 2700 yards it's doing 251 FPS. The bullet @ 250 grains destabilizes at 949 FPS. Like I said, it simply can't happen. Been researching this for a long time. So here's the deal. Anyone that can put a load together for me with a 250/300 grain Sierra MK for the .338 Lapua Mag that will arrive at 2700 yards at 1100 FPS will get a check from me for $500.00 for developing the load for me!

A little late responding but I wonder if Savage's use of the term "carbon steel" was meant to describe a mild steel as opposed to chromoly alloy. I would bet it was a generic reference to distinguish it from stainless steel.

You're right WhatThe...


The article doesn't say he was shooting the .338 LM. I saw a Future Weapons episode where they were using the .408 at close to that range. It stays supersonic to 2500 yards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDxmDVDqWok

quote:

Originally posted by TEANCUM:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Has anyone considered the possibility that it didn't happen the way it was told?

I've heard these long range stories many times, and skepticism is appropriate IMO. Seems that a good percentage of those who claim such-and-such are as good or better at exaggeration as shooting.

KB

Interesting prospective on the actions of the allied troops in the desert!!!! What a vote of confidence in the work that they are doing over there under the most difficult conditions!!!

Just like you to twist things where their original meaning is distorted. That's what you do best. Obviously I meant that if the source of the "factual info" came from anyone who thinks like you, then the probability that it didn't happen as told is real. Furthermore, the physics of the deal seem to support the skeptism, aside from personality. To my recollection, physics keep it real. Beyond that is where your favorite domain begins.

Yes, I'm a skeptic, and that has nothing to do with my respect for our troops, and their mission. To say otherwise is a red herring BS, and very insulting.

KB

Hell, even if its not true, its great propaganda. It'll give would-be terrorists a tight dooty-hole if they get within 3 klicks of our guys.

As to being able to see a target at 2,700 yds with a 25 power scope, that's like asking if you could hit a man-sized target at 108 yds with open sights or a red dot. I don't see any great issue w/that. Especially with eagle-eyed 20 something year-olds.

I'm sure if he attempted the shots he was confident of pulling them off. That means he had adequate equipment. Maybe he did use the .408 or some discarding sabot sub-caliber, hyper-velocity round based on it. Might be even some super secret smoothbore .408 firing a fin stabilized penetrator like an Abrams main gun. Project SALVO in the 1960's developed a .22 flechette firing round that had dead flat trajectory out to 400 meters. The 120 mm tank round has a muzzle velocity of 5,700 fps and an effective range of 6 km. If scaled down to a rifle, that would be one screaming long-range "virgin dating service". Also might have been a proximity fused smart munition that detonated near the target. Who knows?

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
A little late responding but I wonder if Savage's use of the term "carbon steel" was meant to describe a mild steel as opposed to chromoly alloy. I would bet it was a generic reference to distinguish it from stainless steel.

Could be, I don't know. Carbon steel starts off as mild steel then so on. Who knows?

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
Hell, even if its not true, its great propaganda. Who knows?

That was part of my point, but I didn't want to say it quite so bluntly. We certainly want to avoid starting rumors, or giving doubt to the good rumors. But, obviously it's great fodder for propaganda and those who love speculation. My theory is the technology could have come from area 51, and the Govt has Martian slave labor there, a colony of decendents from the 50s, producing these magic bullets in top secret, from an alloy derived from moon rocks. That certainly opens up a lot of possible explanations for a broad set of mysteries.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
You're right WhatThe...


The article doesn't say he was shooting the .338 LM. I saw a Future Weapons episode where they were using the .408 at close to that range. It stays supersonic to 2500 yards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDxmDVDqWok

The only thing it did say that tipped it off was that he was shooting an AI L11583 which is a .338 LM or a 300WM (God I hope someone doesn't say he did it with the 300 WM). I am very familiar with this rifle and own it's brother with identical specifications(AW Series). Below are the specs for the L11583. I do own a Cheytac M200 408 and it's really all one can do just to get it out to 2200 yards with and type of consistency but it will maintain super sonic speeds out there at 2500 yards and a bit more with some very careful tweaking. Now that's me and frankly I suck in comparison to those British Commandos or anyone else for that matter, so the Cheytac in the hands of these commandos is very doable. But we are talking about the .338 and I still stand by my theory in that; their rifles have been manufactured to tolerate higher pressure levels to achieve the velocities required to go that distance. With my current load (about 5.5 grains below max) I would need another 17 grains of 7828 (based on my incremental load data) to get the velocity to get out to 2700 yards.

Manufacturer Accuracy International

Weight 6.5 kg (14.3 lb) (.300 Winchester Magnum)
6.9 kg (15.1 lb) (.338 Lapua Magnum)
with stock, bipod and empty magazine

Length: 1200 mm (47.2 in) (.300 Win. Mag.)
1230 mm (48.4 in) (.338 Lapua Magnum)

Barrel length: 660 mm (26 in) (.300 Win. Mag.)
686 mm (27 in) (.338 Lapua Magnum)

Cartridge: .300 Winchester Magnum
.338 Lapua Magnum

Action: Bolt-action

Effective range: 1,100 metres (1,203 yd) .300 Winchester Magnum[1]
1,400 metres (1,531 yd) .338 Lapua Magnum[1]

Feed system: 5-round detachable box magazine

Sights: detachable aperture type iron sights day or night optics

A 300 grain SMK started at 2800 FPS at an altitude of 9,000 feet will have 1078 FPS at 2,700 yards

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
A 300 grain SMK started at 2800 FPS at an altitude of 9,000 feet will have 1078 FPS at 2,700 yards

There's alway's some smarta$$ out there. But I don't care who you are, that there is funny!

Sitting on this side of the pond, I'll try and get some answers regarding super pressure rounds in the new accuracy intl offering but I suspect they're within acceptable working pressures, tied in with a 40MOA rail that is!. I'm very proud that a member my countries armed forces is the current holder of the longest sniper shot and comments aimed against that fellow smack of sour grapes. kablewey, get a life/job etc. Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean you have to slag off those that can.

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
A 300 grain SMK started at 2800 FPS at an altitude of 9,000 feet will have 1078 FPS at 2,700 yards

There's alway's some smarta$$ out there. But I don't care who you are, that there is funny!

Why is that so funny? Are you saying that Exball ballistics software is incorrect?

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
A 300 grain SMK started at 2800 FPS at an altitude of 9,000 feet will have 1078 FPS at 2,700 yards

There's alway's some smarta$$ out there. But I don't care who you are, that there is funny!

Why is that so funny? Are you saying that Exball ballistics software is incorrect?

Exball is great!, problem is that the sniper would have to be on a mountain or in a plan to that altitude 9K and the target would have to be at sea level. Read the story it didn't happen that way. Sorry, I thought you were joking.
===============================================
Oh you may have something here! re posting this: you are talking about neutral elevation and sectional density. I'm going to check it out...

===============================================

Re posting: Nope it doesn't work! Check your inputs and you will see that @ 9K' with = density you only get another few FPS about 297 FPS to be exact!

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
A 300 grain SMK started at 2800 FPS at an altitude of 9,000 feet will have 1078 FPS at 2,700 yards

There's alway's some smarta$$ out there. But I don't care who you are, that there is funny!

Why is that so funny? Are you saying that Exball ballistics software is incorrect?

Exball is great!, problem is that the sniper would have to be on a mountain or in a plan to that altitude 9K and the target would have to be at sea level. Read the story it didn't happen that way. Sorry, I thought you were joking.
===============================================
Oh you may have something here! re posting this: you are talking about neutral elevation and sectional density. I'm going to check it out...

He could have easily been at 9000 feet of elevation in the Afgan mountains. I hunted at 11,000 ft elevation in New Mexico for Elk, not at all impossable or improvable

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
A 300 grain SMK started at 2800 FPS at an altitude of 9,000 feet will have 1078 FPS at 2,700 yards

There's alway's some smarta$$ out there. But I don't care who you are, that there is funny!

Why is that so funny? Are you saying that Exball ballistics software is incorrect?

Exball is great!, problem is that the sniper would have to be on a mountain or in a plan to that altitude 9K and the target would have to be at sea level. Read the story it didn't happen that way. Sorry, I thought you were joking.
===============================================
Oh you may have something here! re posting this: you are talking about neutral elevation and sectional density. I'm going to check it out...

He could have easily been at 9000 feet of elevation in the Afgan mountains. I hunted at 11,000 ft elevation in New Mexico for Elk, not at all impossable or improvable

I went back to my com and checked out a neutral elevation senerio like I said above but you don't get enough change to make any difference.

Here is the deal: I have absolutly no reason to doubt that this guy took these suckers out! And the world is going to be better off without them! I am only saying once again that and without being perched 9000 feet above your target, the LM as we know it can not deliver to 2700 yards period! A rifle must have been built to exceed pressures that restrict current "civilian" data. In addition and just for grins. Think about the shot you were talking about before "9,000'" above the target. Can you just imagine the angular (geometric) math that would have to go into that! Even if you got the math right one section of density would blow the shot not to mention any little gust of wind between you and the target that's now almost 2 miles away with the elevation! So look at the whole picture, do the math with your altitude, guess your atmosphere conditions down range and plug 2 guys with two shots!

The 300 SMK will have 1087 FPS at an elvation of 9000 feet and that is super sonic at that elevation and I do not mean shooting down hill. The Brit's standard load is a 250 grain Scenar and it is not super sonic at that elevation at that distance

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
The 300 SMK will have 1087 FPS at an elvation of 9000 feet and that is super sonic at that elevation and I do not mean shooting down hill. The Brit's standard load is a 250 grain Scenar and it is not super sonic at that elevation at that distance

Time to end this. Maybe some day we can meet, sip some suds and beat it up some more. I'll be a gentleman and let you buy the first round.

The shot described required three thing:
1. Incredible skill; and,
2. A purpose-bult firearm; plus,
3. Luck.

Not unlike a double eagle. Very hard to do, damn near impossible to replicate.

quote:

Originally posted by Haggis:
I'll try and get some answers
I'm very proud
comments aimed against that fellow smack of sour grapes.
kablewey, Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean you have to slag off those that can.

What makes you think my comments were aimed against that fellow, or I was slagging off on him? You made that up. I have no reason or basis to call him personally a lier, or conversly to believe hearsay about something he did or said. May I remind you that no matter how often said, speculation doesn't add validity to all this.

I never heard it from his lips. All I read on the internet were comments supposedly quoting him, and a partial story. Do you let your pride cause you to believe what you read on the internet, without question?

Also, I never said he couldn't or didn't do it. How the hell would I know that for sure? I just said I'm skeptical, and there's reason and evidence to support that skepticism - far more reason and physics to support the skepticism than actual facts to support it happening in the way presented in this thread. There's plenty of speculation, which makes no difference to me as far as supporting the event as presented.

Please allow me to remain a skeptic, without demeaning me, and inferring I'm unpatriotic, I'll be quiet, and let you guys enjoy and savor your exercise in speculation. Meanwhile, I'll just await some real facts, which I seriously doubt are forthcoming. I'm certainly willing to be wrong about that, so we'll see.

KB

At the Sporting Rifle Match we have at Whittington, Saturday is sight in and practice day after we set up the steel. After everyone is done in the evening, we have a plate at 1700 yards that the match directors and others who have the .338 Lapua and RUM like to bang away at.

They're shooting the 300 grain MK's. Usually someone hits the target after quite a few attempts....the wind there is tricky at best in those canyons. The 300 grainer makes that steel move pretty good with a hit.

I laid down with them at the previous match to spot with my 25X Mark IV on top of my 6.5 Creedmoor. They were banging away without much luck; all over the place really. I decided to give it a try. I realized that the 139gr Scenar at 2900fps I was shooting may not give any indication of a hit at that range, but what the hell! I ran the data on BulletFlight and there was 60MOA come-ups from my 100 yard 0. I dialed it and there was plenty of scope travel.

I took the shot and missed right by 6"! It was the best miss of my life! 2 more shots with no indication....I bet they were hits..

My point is that with 1000 more yards with the Lapua with the loads the guys are shooting there is no way they would be supersonic and be able to take down a man. WhatThe is right...They're either shooting the .408 or have some super-duper rifles with unreal high pressure capabilities to allow for unheard of velocities to stay supersonic.

Just ran the calc on JBM kinda quickly

At 2900 Fps the 300 gr MK at 2700 is at 900fps, so maybe!

RC, how big was the plate and what power scope were you/they using? Was mirage a factor? What could you see. I do have access to those distances so, I too am wondering just what you can see through, say, a 25x scope at 1700 yards.
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
RC, how big was the plate and what power scope were you/they using? Was mirage a factor? What could you see. I do have access to those distances so, I too am wondering just what you can see through, say, a 25x scope at 1700 yards.
Peter.

1,700yds / 25x = 68 yds/x

The same sight picture you would have at 68 yds w/no magnification.

Bobster, to set the record straight I was asking about RESOLUTION and, in addition, the distance that the crosshairs subtend at 1700 yards. Plus of course, mirage!
Peter.

The plate is 18"x24" I believe and with 25 x it's no problem to see it very well.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
Just ran the calc on JBM kinda quickly

At 2900 Fps the 300 gr MK at 2700 is at 900fps, so maybe!

Problem is, there is now way to get a 300 Grn. bullet to 2900 FPS without exceeding current max pressures. If I'm not mistaken, 2750 to perhaps 2800 FPS is the very max. We tried this load in several variations and was just to hot to maintain any consistent accuracy. And when shooting the round, you could tell it was "hot" with one heck of a kick and bank! You know this has to be taxing the limits of your breech and barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Bobster, to set the record straight I was asking about RESOLUTION and, in addition, the distance that the crosshairs subtend at 1700 yards. Plus of course, mirage!
Peter.

I guess it would depend on the quality of your scope. I'm using a Mark IV 8.5-25. The glass is good and I don't recall thinking that target visibility was an issue. How much distance the crosshairs took up I don't know, but it seems the plate was plainly visible with the crosshairs on it. The magnification is large enough to do this. Of course there was wind so I was holding off and using the TMR reticle.