using an Accuracy International L115A3, British Corporal Craig Harrison killed two Taliban with consecutive shots at a distance of 2.47 kilometres (8120 ft) in Helmand Province, Afghanistan last November (2009). He then fired a third shot and hit the Taliban's PKM machinegun in perhaps the most prodigious feat of marksmanship in military history.
Quote:
The previous record holder - Furlong - killed an al-Qaeda fighter from 2.43 km during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan in 2002.
cracks me up that there is an iPhone app to help snipers/hunters..........seems impressive that you could tap somebody from that far away. wonder how long it took him from the time he acquired the target to the time he pulled the trigger.
i now want to search for the clip on leathal weapon where mel is talking about doing a guy in nam from XXXX feet with a crosswind.
article gets bonus points for the use of prodigous......
I always find it awesome to think that a bullet traveling at 2700+feet per second versus the speed of sound which is about 1116 fps.
So the bullet would arrive in about 2.9 seconds
the sound would arrive in about 7 seconds.
So literally the guy getting shot would be hit by the bullet while seeing the flash about about the same time, gurgle a little and die and then 4 seconds later his buddies would be alerted to the gunshot.
So they would probably be dead or underfire before they heard the first gun shot, depending on the snipers speed.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
^^^ Speaking of the speed of projectiles, the Navy has just (yes, just!) received its first prototype railgun.
Quote:
While the muzzle velocity of gunpowder-propelled projectiles is generally limited to around 4,000 ft per second (2,727 mph/4,389 km/h), the U.S. Navy says its railgun will be capable of launching projectiles at velocities of 4,500 to 5,600 mph (7,242 - 9,012 km/h).
So literally the guy getting shot would be hit by the bullet while seeing the flash about about the same time, gurgle a little and die and then 4 seconds later his buddies would be alerted to the gunshot.
Probably wouldn't even see the flash from nearly 3km away.
What I find incomprehensible is how they'd aim. Like where are you putting your crosshairs in relation to the target? Waaaay up and to the left?
Probably wouldn't even see the flash from nearly 3km away.
What I find incomprehensible is how they'd aim. Like where are you putting your crosshairs in relation to the target? Waaaay up and to the left?
Aim at the target. They adjust the scope to account for the distance, wind, temperature, humidity and altitude. As long as their measurements, math and the settings are all perfect, then they have a chance. Assuming the target doesn't move or change direction for a couple seconds, the breeze is consistent, etc.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bobblehead For This Useful Post:
Aim at the target. They adjust the scope to account for the distance, wind, temperature, humidity and altitude. As long as their measurements, math and the settings are all perfect, then they have a chance. Assuming the target doesn't move or change direction for a couple seconds, the breeze is consistent, etc.
Aim at the target. They adjust the scope to account for the distance, wind, temperature, humidity and altitude. As long as their measurements, math and the settings are all perfect, then they have a chance. Assuming the target doesn't move or change direction for a couple seconds, the breeze is consistent, etc.
They even have to consider the rotation of the earth. Quite an interesting read.
Canadian Sniper's Record Broken
