TexasCHLforum.com

I'm guessing that the Military or History channel (or both) will run a show on great sniper kills and then talk for 20 mins about this. I'm glad they do as I like hearing the details. What I HATE is that they will then do a re-enactment complete with a "sniper's view" through his scope that makes it look as though the target is 20 feet away and magnified. Able to count the buttons that are undone on the targets shirt kind of view. I hate that.

Dang good shootin'. But, targets at that distance are best left to mortars or artillery if available.

I imagine he had to crank maximum elevation on his scope, and still hold over somewhere near the bottom of the reticle.

I just checked some .338 ballistics, which show that with a 1200 meter zero, drop at 1800 meters is over 600 inches. This claimed shot was 2700 meters.

chabouk wrote:I just checked some .338 ballistics, which show that with a 1200 meter zero, drop at 1800 meters is over 600 inches. This claimed shot was 2700 meters.

So he was duck hunting and just happened to kill two BGs on a MG. No biggie, I'm ok with that. He picked his story and now he's sticking to it.

MoJo wrote:Dang good shootin'. But, targets at that distance are best left to mortars or artillery if available.

That's the problem. They may well have been operating without fire support, or without priority of fire. That, and there may have been restrictions on indirect fire. Collateral damage and all that.

chabouk wrote:I just checked some .338 ballistics, which show that with a 1200 meter zero, drop at 1800 meters is over 600 inches. This claimed shot was 2700 meters.

You must have skipped over the part where he had a 60 MOA scope mount

threoh8 wrote:

MoJo wrote:Dang good shootin'. But, targets at that distance are best left to mortars or artillery if available.

That's the problem. They may well have been operating without fire support, or without priority of fire. That, and there may have been restrictions on indirect fire. Collateral damage and all that.

Doesn't this shot qualify as indirect fire?

*Disclaimer: I am fully aware of the definition and use of indirect fire, this is an attempt to inject humor based on what must have been an incredible elevation for a rifle. Do not take the comment seriously.

Not sure of exactly which 8.59mm round they use but here's a link for more info on 8.59mm.

ChuckHawks

MedicMan218 wrote:

chabouk wrote:I just checked some .338 ballistics, which show that with a 1200 meter zero, drop at 1800 meters is over 600 inches. This claimed shot was 2700 meters.

So he was duck hunting and just happened to kill two BGs on a MG. No biggie, I'm ok with that. He picked his story and now he's sticking to it.

I'm sure there was a spotter and probably post shot comms to confirm.

Dragonfighter wrote:Doesn't this shot qualify as indirect fire?

*Disclaimer: I am fully aware of the definition and use of indirect fire, this is an attempt to inject humor based on what must have been an incredible elevation for a rifle. Do not take the comment seriously.

LOL. It had to be pretty close to high angle fire. (Definition: high angle fire is any firing solution where an increase in elevation results in a decrease in range.)

Dragonfighter wrote:I'm sure there was a spotter and probably post shot comms to confirm.

Sorry if it sounded like I doubted the story. I don't.

MoJo wrote:Dang good shootin'. But, targets at that distance are best left to mortars or artillery if available.

With the kind of hold over he needed, you could probably say that is was artillery with non-explosive rounds.

I was wondering if he fired the 2nd shot before the first one hit.