Just WOW, 😎
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4630850/Sniper-s-bullet-flew-ten-seconds-speed-792mph.html
😎
I have read the book about Carlos Hathcock's "Marine Sniper". The amount of WORK that goes into such a shot, is unbelievable. The wind, the humidity, watching the leaves, at 1-1/2 miles away, and the leaves at 1/4 mile away... lots goes into these shots.
N
I bet even Leroy Jethro Gibbs would be impressed with that.
Jed Clampett, Elly Mae Clampett and Jethro Bodine could all do it at the same time.:p:p:p
OK you guys...that's one helluva shot. I'm a shooter also and am truly amazed at the skill required to drop a round in on a target at 11K feet. But being a surveyor there is something else about that shot that I find astounding...the optics in the shooter's scope. Or even his spotter's glass for that matter.
Working in a PLSS State I know all too well how small a human looks like at 880 yards. At 1760 yards (80 chains) that human looks a lot smaller, even for high quality surveying instrument optics. At 3600 yards there would be so much radiant shimmer and amplified dust scatter with our survey optics I would be hard pressed to identify a vehicle, let alone a human.
Yeppirs....those scopes are probably some really, really fine pieces of equipment.
paden cash, post: 433753, member: 20 wrote: OK you guys...that's one helluva shot. I'm a shooter also and am truly amazed at the skill required to drop a round in on a target at 11K feet. But being a surveyor there is something else about that shot that I find astounding...the optics in the shooter's scope. Or even his spotter's glass for that matter.
Working in a PLSS State I know all too well how small a human looks like at 880 yards. At 1760 yards (80 chains) that human looks a lot smaller, even for high quality surveying instrument optics. At 3600 yards there would be so much radiant shimmer and amplified dust scatter with our survey optics I would be hard pressed to identify a vehicle, let alone a human.
Yeppirs....those scopes are probably some really, really fine pieces of equipment.
"Evan McAllister, a former Marine sergeant who served multiple deployments as a sniper in Ramadi, Iraq and in Afghanistan??s Helmand province, said little is known about the capabilities of a unit like Joint Task Force 2. The team was likely operating with an array of systems to help make the shot, he said.
??While the shot was possible with the outstanding ballistic properties of a match .50 projectile, a conventional rifle scope would make seeing the target at that range almost impossible, and it may be likely that the sniper team had some form of assistance either from an extremely advanced rifle scope or an overhead drone,? McAllister said. ??There is also a chance that the sniper couldn??t exactly see the target or the impacts, but a spotter with an advanced optical device was able to verbally walk the sniper onto the target and correct his aim.?
A good article on the history of he Canadian sniper program
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/23/how-canadas-tiny-military-produced-deadly-record-breaking-snipers/?utm_term=.daca383ad42a
Nate The Surveyor, post: 433732, member: 291 wrote: I have read the book about Carlos Hathcock's "Marine Sniper". The amount of WORK that goes into such a shot, is unbelievable. The wind, the humidity, watching the leaves, at 1-1/2 miles away, and the leaves at 1/4 mile away... lots goes into these shots.
N
At that distance the rotation of the earth plays a factor.
It should be noted as well that with a .50 caliber sniper rifle it doesn't really matter where you hit the target... still an absolutely amazing shot though.
...and I can't even hit a bullseye at 200 yards!!
paden cash, post: 433753, member: 20 wrote: Yeppirs....those scopes are probably some really, really fine pieces of equipment.
No matter how good the optics are there is just no way around the fact that looking through 2 miles of atmosphere is going to be murky. I found with the Trimble 5603, which tracked an LED on the target, tightly repeatable angles could be measured through heavy heat shimmer even when you couldn't see the target through the scope at all. So I'm going to guess that this snipers rifle had some sort of scope that imaged a different frequency of EMR than visible light, one that isn't so effected by heat shimmer.
Shooting from a tower would help with the shimmer from heat waves. Time of day would also be a major factor. I would like to know more details but I fully understand why they won't release any.
If you want to read up on an old fashioned sniper, read about Jack Hinson.
This is truly an amazing feat, but I can't understand why this info is released to the public. I don't need to know this information...
Andy Bruner, post: 433767, member: 1123 wrote: At that distance the rotation of the earth plays a factor.
There's an app for that
[INDENT]Coordinate ranging - The program also allows the user to calculate target range by inputting the shooter's Latitude/Longitude coordinates in a variety of formats or UTM coordinates, and the target's coordinates. The program will then calculate the range of the target, its bearing and the shot angle. The latitude and bearing will also be used by the program to calculate Coriolis effects. Input may be accomplished via coordinates directly from a map or by GPS signal.[/INDENT]
I agree the instruments used were probably pretty hi-tech. But I read up on CPO Chris Kyle and was surprised at the equipment he preferred. Apparently he was fond of the .300 Magnum Winchester (a bolt action I think) and the Lapua .338 (semi-auto action). Reports vary about the scopes he used but in civilian life he was fond of a standard shelf 8-32x56 optical which was available while he was in country. Most survey instruments are around 28 to 32 power magnification with a 50 to 52 mm objective lens. So apparently Kyle made some pretty fantastic shots looking through some tubes that weren't that different than our theodolites. That was also more than 10 years ago.
Mark Mayer, post: 433794, member: 424 wrote: No matter how good the optics are there is just no way around the fact that looking through 2 miles of atmosphere is going to be murky. I found with the Trimble 5603, which tracked an LED on the target, tightly repeatable angles could be measured through heavy heat shimmer even when you couldn't see the target through the scope at all. So I'm going to guess that this snipers rifle had some sort of scope that imaged a different frequency of EMR than visible light, one that isn't so effected by heat shimmer.
Just pick the center. I have turned 3 or 4 sets of angles in really bad heat shimmer and returned first thing in AM, only to find that my data was pretty good.
paden cash, post: 433753, member: 20 wrote: OK you guys...that's one helluva shot. I'm a shooter also and am truly amazed at the skill required to drop a round in on a target at 11K feet. But being a surveyor there is something else about that shot that I find astounding...the optics in the shooter's scope. Or even his spotter's glass for that matter.
Working in a PLSS State I know all too well how small a human looks like at 880 yards. At 1760 yards (80 chains) that human looks a lot smaller, even for high quality surveying instrument optics. At 3600 yards there would be so much radiant shimmer and amplified dust scatter with our survey optics I would be hard pressed to identify a vehicle, let alone a human.
Yeppirs....those scopes are probably some really, really fine pieces of equipment.
Check out this group on FB Long Range Shooters.
Those rifles average 8-10K each on the civilian market. The optics can bee more expensive than that They are at least as good as the best survey instrument optics, without the degradation of having an edm focus through them.
I have read sometime in the past that the best way of demonstrating the coriolis effect is to put two people opposing each other on a merry go round and have them toss a tennis ball between them. Just gotta try that some day.
James
worrisome device
Jim in AZ, post: 433827, member: 249 wrote: This is truly an amazing feat, but I can't understand why this info is released to the public. I don't need to know this information...
Beats me, why do they show videos on youtube on how to make bombs or better yet your very own nuclear reactor?
