A BRITISH Army sniper has set a new sharpshooting distance record by killing two Taliban machinegunners in Afghanistan from more than 1 miles away

[LOGUNSOLO177 0]

If this is true AWESOME!!!! About time the british snipers got some recognition!!! Well done son!!

[spanj 11]

what a man! better still,he beat the previous record set by a yank .wish it was videod as id love to see it 'The british army,what heroes!!'

 

Canada......... part of America hmmmmmmmm

[chimp 299]

peace of piss that shot

 

either way thats two more rag heads dead

[blackfox 9]

Try some elementary physics you mucking fockers. At 10,000 feet atmospheric pressure is half that at sea-level. MV is higher, range is longer, side wind effects far less. I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claim.

 

So There!

 

Ric

 

 

[waidmann 105]

if he hit on the first shot and the spotter tells him where then the second shot can and should be placed better(his poa would be the "center of visible body mass" so hitting him in the stomach was really not bad!!!).

to hit the machine gun with the third,well thats just showing off

 

3 rounds 3 hits at that distance is absolutley great shooting by anyones standards. i hope the lad gets the recognition he and his spotter deserve.

 

waidmann

[Deker 3,478]

Guys...I'm sorry, but it just doesn't do it for me, think about it....a world record shot, then a harder world record shot, then another to shoot the machine gun????

 

I'm good, I know many better than me, and I know what 1200 yard shooting is about, but this is 2707 yards.

 

Ideal conditions or not, he should have done the lottery as well that week!

 

Of course I'm impressed with the work all our lads are doing and I am not for one minute having a go at our forces...but I remain skeptical...something just doesn't smell right, SORRY!

[hogdog 61]

I know this fella and he's no bullshitter and neither are his colleagues, he's a very modest man with no need to exaggerate his achievements.

 

He's always been a bit of a legend in his regiment and now even more so, top bloke.

[Aaron Proffitt 142]

Heard about this on the radio over here today....well done. Ooohh-Rah !!

[Colster 1]

Personally I don't think we get enough of this sort of reporting on Afghanistan, when I was a kid during the Falklands the news every night gave an almost blow by blow account of the progress there. With this conflict, all we ever seem to hear is more deaths of our troops due to roadside bombs etc. It's like the media just want to give it a negative spin, it's no wonder most of the British population can't work out what we're doing there.

 

 

However, and before I start I'll qualify this by saying I have no experience whatsoever of long range shooting (my furthest was a 120yard bunny with an LR), given that the target was a mile and a half or so away, what sort of mag would he need to even see the target and what sort of range would he have zeroed at as I'm surprised he would be able to even see the target given that would need fairly high mag and god only know how much holdover wouldn't the target of then been off the bottom of the scope as I'm guessing his zero for the scope would be around half the distance he was shooting to.

 

As I say, I don't know the answer but hoping someone on here can bring some experience to bear.

[JonathanL 4]

Try some elementary physics you mucking fockers. At 10,000 feet atmospheric pressure is half that at sea-level. MV is higher, range is longer, side wind effects far less. I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claim.

 

So There!

 

Ric

 

I'd tend to agree. The Canadian guy did it at altitude as well.

 

I don't agree with the nay-sayers claiming the story is bollox merely on the basis that he did it three times in a row. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it didn't happen. It you accept that it did happen on one of those occasions then there is no reason why it didn't happen three times. In fact, just becasue something is unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen - it actually means that sooner or later it will happen!

 

J.

[waidmann 105]

once the first target is spotted he KNEW the hold over precisly for the second shot,if the second was spotted well then the third is also realistic(say the machine gun was 4inch deep and 10inch long at the action).

 

i'm sure the man is a very good shot and has shot at ranges far further than most of us previous to this.

if the report was confirmed then its true as far as i'm concerned.

 

waidmann

[kevin from bristol 95]

goverments have long used snipers for good war reports if it is true then fairplay ,i expect the air is thinner at 10,000 ft but its still hard to believe, he sounds like a hero when you read the other things he,s been through so keep it up lad

[Deker 3,478]

Guys

 

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I've been around a bit longer than many of you and perhaps I'm just a bit harder to convince......

 

It's in the papers now, it must be true, ... even though it happened 6 months ago

 

Nobody ever heard of propoganda, we filled the media with it in the Falklands and just about every conflict you can name, it's all part of warfare!! There remains a funny smell about this, perhaps it is just the way the Army PR department has dealt with it!!

 

It may well be true, but anyone who knows anything about shooting will still be scratching their head a little! It doesn't matter how perfect the conditions and how good you are, there are variables of enormous proportions on shots of this length, once is exceptional, twice is unbelievable and 3 times probably needs divine intervention!

 

My compliments and gratitude to all our forces wherever they be flying the flag!!

 

Just another viewpoint!!

[RicW 67]

OK, hands up if you believe that a highly trained sniper operating at 10,000 ft rather than sea level would rely on his sea level zero. Or might it just be the case that he would reset his sights for the drop at 15psi atmospheric pressure rather than 30psi?

 

If I were going to shoot mountain goats at 10,000 ft in the Andes I'd reset my zero to suit. Especially as the Army provide the ammo!

 

Ric.

[HUnter_zero 58]

OK, hands up if you believe that a highly trained sniper operating at 10,000 ft rather than sea level would rely on his sea level zero. Ric.

 

Hey Ric, out of interest I ran some data through Sierra Infinity 5.

 

Based on a MV of 956 mps & 200 grain .338 bullet.

 

At sea level a zero of 1000 yards would give a -2050.82" drop at 2000 yards, -9321.89" drop at 3000 yards

 

At 10,000 ft above sea level : 2000 yards would give -1245.33" drop and 3000 yards would give a -6255.44" drop.

 

Means not a lot but it's interesting to see the difference altitude makes. In comparison if the guy had kept his "at sea level zero" the bullet drop would have been equivalent to him shooting a target at 1800 yards (2000 yards 10,000 ft above sea level) and 2750 yards (3000 yards 10,000 ft above sea level).

 

If that makes sense.

 

John

Edited May 4, 2010 by HUnter_zero