I would bet that the Tasco scope had 5 feet of paralax at 1,600 meters.

465H&H

E-mail dated 12/02/2006 received from Mkonto Manufacturing cc -

quote:

Thank you for your enquiry, whilst we do believe that we make the most accurate barrels in Africa we are unfortunately not in a position to confirm nor deny the controversial grouping which were allegedly shot by Mr Sarel Badenhorst as we were not present at the time. We first got to hear of the grouping when it was published in SA Hunter.

Best Regards

Craig Klintworth


Mkonto Manufacturing cc

104 Main Reef Road, Benrose, Johannesburg, South Africa

P.O Box 551 Melville, 2109, South Africa.

Tel: +27-11-6181909
Fax: +27-11-6181910
e-mail: barrels@mkonto.co.za
website: www.mkonto.co.za

Well, well, now the ball is in Mr Sarel Badenhorst's court!
Anybody know where to get hold of him?

/

quote:

Originally posted by DanEP:
Well, that ain't Adobe Walls, and the shooter ain't Billy Dixon.

http://www.pan-tex.net/usr/p/pampa-hist/pa03000.htm

"... Quanah saw the tiny puff of smoke from the saloon window and saw the man with the quirt fall before hearing the rifle's faint boom. That ended the fight. Warriors scattered, totally defeated by a gun that could hit a man at a distance of a mile."

Dan

True enough mr. DanEP, you did fail to mention however, that other buffalo shooters were there (including non-other than Bat Masterson) and that the (Cherokees or Comanchees?) could not get close to Adobe Walls without getting picked off! When they were regrouping to stratigize, the "coupe des gras", was the "Billy Dixon" shot.

quote:

Originally posted by Zeke:
The part about a Trascho sitting on top of a 375 and surviving has a few holes in it.

ZM

No it doesn't!!! I have the cheapest Bushnell on a .458, it's been there almost 20 years, still shooting small groups.

/

I have shot 1000 yard competition. From that experience I know that when a bullet transitions from supersonic to subsonic flight it goes through a period of buffeting that is very bad for accuracy.

That alone tells me that if this happened it was a total fluke.

But enough monkeys can type Hamlet if they try long enough, so I can't say this did not happen.

quote:

Originally posted by .366torque:

quote:

Originally posted by DanEP:
Well, that ain't Adobe Walls, and the shooter ain't Billy Dixon.

http://www.pan-tex.net/usr/p/pampa-hist/pa03000.htm

"... Quanah saw the tiny puff of smoke from the saloon window and saw the man with the quirt fall before hearing the rifle's faint boom. That ended the fight. Warriors scattered, totally defeated by a gun that could hit a man at a distance of a mile."

Dan

True enough mr. DanEP, you did fail to mention however, that other buffalo shooters were there (including non-other than Bat Masterson) and that the (Cherokees or Comanchees?) could not get close to Adobe Walls without getting picked off! When they were regrouping to stratigize, the "coupe des gras", was the "Billy Dixon" shot.

I suppose I could have done a full recounting of the tale -- but I figger I should have been able to get away just with the name: Billy Dixon. The details that have been recounted included the fate of his dog -- who had been left behind, and found to be alive some weeks later.

On the other hand, I referenced it to point out that some folks had done some absolutely amazing and humbling shooting with cartridges I've seen called troll fodder here (no -- I don't want to get into that argument -- suffice to say most of their trajectory is subsonic), with rifles with relatively primitive sights, which were likely more appropriate for such long shots than the scope that was on the .375H&H. Actually, that is the BIGGEST reason I raise my eyebrows when I read the account. I think IF the rifle was up to it, the scope likely wasn't -- but then, that's just my opinion.

Dan

ALF wrote:

quote:

I have Mr Badenhorst's e-mail address and sent copies of my mails to Mkonto to him as well.

Any reply received from Mr Badenhorst yet?

From what I can see from Mkonto Manufacturers cc's basic price list is that their rifles are so expensive that if they don't shoot 4" groupings over 1600m distances, you should ask for a refund!

?

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Jagter:

Yes Sarel answeredme and then another E-mail from his brother?

Actually I have and a reply in Afrikaans from his ? older brother one Casper who takes me on for daring to question the validity of the claim.

Sarel contends that the shots were fired at 100m and then the 1600m shots were mathematically calculated???????????????

Casper claims all kinds of stuff about Special Forces and the border war and being snipers during the bush war and thus they validate their ability according to this ???????? any case more info than I need about the subject.

In any rate the article taken verbatum as copied seems to be in error ?

Finally! It makes sense!

Jesus has come back, and, he's a sniper.

I've always thought God invented guns for a variety of reasons: Now I'm sure...

S

Gentlemen,

Take any one of your rifles that has a 9 power scope. Go out and loot at any target that might be about a mile away.

This sounds like that write - I forgot his name, may be Alexander Lake - who said he was using a 303 British to shoot baboons for money.

He found one large male at about 700 yards, and he fired a shot at hiom and killed him.

Whenh he got to him he realized he had hit the baoon 3 inches LOWER than he had aimed!!

This is the sort of thing that does not only insult the intelligence of the reader, but proves beyond any doubt that the writer has none!

Thanks Alf.

I have e-mailed the editor of SA Hunter and brought the obviously incorrect facts in this article as well as that of another article they have placed in their February 2006 issue, to his attention.

Trust they will be more selective with their future articles as this type of incorrect information jeopardizes their magazines' credibility.

/

Alf:

I agree with you about the "other options and calibers that certainly are capable at 1000 yards".
My late father took part in the annual Bisley shoots at Bloemfontein each year. They used .303 Lee Enfield rifles with only 'peep sights' (no such thing as a rifle scope in those days), only factory loaded ammunition and he regularly scored 14 out of the possible 15 points on 1000 yrds. - that is two bulls and a 4, and on some occasions full score, 15 points. That was achieved from the prone position with the elbows as the only support.

But when one uses a large calibre like the .375 over 1600m distances without highly specialised supporting equipment, I doubt it strongly!
Also Badenhorst's own "1600m shots were mathematically calculated???????????????" tells the whole truth.

Só, it is not about picking a fight with these individuals as much as it is rather an effort to put the records straight as Saeed summed it up so nicely:

quote:

This is the sort of thing that does not only insult the intelligence of the reader, but proves beyond any doubt that the writer has none!

Alf:

I yield to no one in my love for the 375 H&H ( as you can see from my user name) but I'll jump right out on the limb and say that I don't believe it. My main reason for saying so is because 1600m ( according to my calculations as an American not using the metric system) is that it's almost a land mile in my calculations. In my long ago days (when dinosaurs roamed the earth) I received some preliminary training as a sniper (I washed out eventually) but I shot, first a honed (by US Army Ordnance) Springfield '03 and later a honed M-1 using special loads ( loaded by Ordnance people, sorry, I just don't know the specifics) 30-06, of course, 180 gr (I think, I know it was because the Army was interested in killing bad guys at longer ranges than the 150 gr. standard "ball" cartridge) and shooting at 1000 yards. It just seems impossible from a standpoint of sheer physics that a 375 H&H, 300 gr. could do such groups at what was very nearly a full land mile. I had expert instructors who did things with a 30-06 that humbled us pupils - and I don't think they did 4" groups. ( BTW, being an old man, I find it hard to believe that such groups were done with anything but a Zeiss (then) or a Kahles (now)!) (for the curious, we used Lyman and Redfield. Zeiss wasn't back in business officially then but I know that there were "liberated" scopes (meaning scopes grabbed by our people in Europe during WW2) that were Zeiss and which some of our instructors used. (We said they cheated - behind their backs) (my father had an expression - "It's a poor workman who blames his tools") In subsequent years I came to love Lyman and Redfield scopes - but Zeiss was a magic name in those days. (around 1949-1950) Anyway, just an old man's rambling thoughts.

so, his range finder was accurate to 800M, but he was able to "Stretch" it to 1600M.. aint the only thing being stretched...

what a crock ... total fertilizer.


and if the gent complains, I'll ask him to repeat the "stunt" at 1/2 the range with video cameras on him.


total bullucks

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
so, his range finder was accurate to 800M, but he was able to "Stretch" it to 1600M.. aint the only thing being stretched...

what a crock ... total fertilizer.


and if the gent complains, I'll ask him to repeat the "stunt" at 1/2 the range with video cameras on him.


total bullucks

jeffe

It's OK Jeffe...you can use the term BULLSHIT....we've all heard it before. Actually a one word reply is the best one can offer....