300gn Scenar at 2700 yards

[BountyHunter]

Phorwath

I certainly understand your reluctance to factually respond. I would be embarrassed too if caught like you.

Contrary to your post, I went back and quoted your previous posts and comments. Anyone can go back and read them. Hardly call that unsubstantiated even if you try to deny now, which you obviously are.

They stand as you said them and they said nothing about journalists until recently. That is unless you want to go in and delete them.

You can backpedal and try to discount them, but they are what you said.

You can attack me and go ahead, my beef is with what was said and has been very readily implied all along. That takes no mind reading, it is super clear.

Your reluctance to even admit that it can be done and has been duplicated says more than anything else. Blind obediance and loyalty is really chilling watching. But then, that is your cross to bear, not mine.

You seem to think that as you put it a public debate on what happened in somehow actually supports the military. I can tell you with 100 percent certainty it does not and they absolutey despise those that think it does. It is most certainly an attack on them. That is your biggest and most egregious fault in this. Somehow you really think it helps.

BH

 

[Pdvdh]

Phorwath

I certainly understand your reluctance to factually respond. I would be embarrassed too if caught like you.

Contrary to your post, I went back and quoted your previous posts and comments. Anyone can go back and read them. Hardly call that unsubstantiated even if you try to deny now, which you obviously are.

They stand as you said them and they said nothing about journalists until recently. That is unless you want to go in and delete them.

BH

BH,
Factually respond to what? There's STILL nothing of substance to respond to.

You have not quoted me. Because you state that you have quoted me once, twice, three, four, or a thousand times, doesn't make your statement suddenly come true. I reread your posts and find no quotes credited to me. Not one. All you have done to date is type your judgments on this matter. Based not on outlandish or outrageous statements posted by me or others, but rather based on your knowledge and understanding of the hearts and minds of another man. Based on your personal interpretations of other's posts. I am prepared to respond to statements I have made. Not to deductions you've fabricated or pulled out of thin air.

Here's a quote of your's, in case you define quote differently than most:

"First off, everyone knows that journalists have no credibility 99.999% of the time anyway.

It absolutely defies credibilty for you believe that anyone here is stupid enough to remotely believe that is why this started."

Note the quotation marks, so as to give you full credit for this quote.

How does one respond to that quote of yours? That statement does more than "defy credibility". It defies any and all logic. This entire Thread began, continued, and continues, based entirely on information provided by a journalist. If you know differently, here's your opportunity to explain yourself and clear it all up. Most everyone that posted in response to this article must not understand or agree that "99.999% of the time anyway" journalists have no credibility. Because the entire Thread was based on journalist-provided information. The sniper or his sighter never posted to my knowledge. The whole story is the product of a journalist; at best a 2nd hand version based on the conveyed facts. At worst a complete misrepresentation of those facts.

Your attempt to transfer member's comments on journalist-provided information into an attack on everything you hold holy - well that's your mission. Not mine. Show me my blasphemous statements in quotes. Use "quotation marks". Show the world the folly of my ways. Your mind turned these posts of others into an attack on the credibility of whatever you hold true and dear. Not mine.

Now that you've expressed yourself, all you need to do is explain yourself based on the statements of others that you disagree with - not based on your mind-reading ability. Expressing comes easy. Explaining what's been expressed - there's my challenge. I don't feel compelled to respond to judgments and conclusions I never reached - ones that you've reached to protect all that's dear and holy. If your all-knowing deductions happen to be false, don't expect a response to a deduction, thought process, or scenario that never existed in my mind. So for the third, fourth, or fifth time, bring forth and extract statements I have typed in posts in this thread. Present them. Turn the heat on - as you put it. Then I'll have something to respond to.

You may be a mind reader, but you've failed on every account with your Posts on this Thread to date. Like I stated earlier, there is nothing more dangerous than a person that doesn't know what they don't know, and then proceeds under the belief they know all the pertinent information or requirements. Your mind reading and posting based on the presumption you know - when you really don't - well, there you go.

Not one to waste an opportunity to clear some of your smoke; you're the one with the history of deleting heated posts after the fact. Not me. Those posts where you lost emotional control and later made the tempered and rational decision to excuse your prior posting. I actually give you credit for that. I give you no credit for insinuating I do the same, or might do the same now to prevent a need for backpeddling.

While you're looking for the damaging statements I've posted in this Thread that you believe require backpeddling, go ahead and search for posts I've deleted due to temper tantrums. When you don't respond, that will tell the story better than a mind reader - any day of the week.

And let's not forget this story, as reported, has evolved over time. The story that started this Thread was three shots, three hits. 1st shot one kill. 2nd shot another kill. 3rd shot a machine gun. Last I knew, the report stands as nine misses, and then two consecutive hits on two different enemy. None of this is from the mouths of the sniper or his spotter, to my understanding. All information is 2nd hand, 3rd hand, 4th hand... The majority of the comments from the unbelieving were based on the original article. Not the second revision, third revision, fourth revision or version... Not only was there doubt, that doubt was warranted - indeed proved correct. liltank responded earlier that he never claimed or believed the machine gun was hit. Well my first Posts, and I could only presume the early Posts of others, were based on the 1st version report. Not a limited portion of the story that others chose to respect from the original article. How could I know what others chose to respect or reject.

 

[Pdvdh]

Phorwath

You seem to think that as you put it a public debate on what happened in somehow actually supports the military. I can tell you with 100 percent certainty it does not and they absolutey despise those that think it does. It is most certainly an attack on them. That is your biggest and most egregious fault in this. Somehow you really think it helps.

BH

BH,

I never said a public debate supports the military. If I did, locate that quote and bring it to the light of day. A debate doesn't end in a pre-destined conclusion.

Here's what I responded to:
"With respect to the question of "from History, has anything good come from the public debate of military actions, can it help the moral of the troops, are our troops coming back and feeling supported and honored, not one I have talked to.""

And here's what I stated:
"If the troops feel like the debate is targeting them as individuals? Well we cannot control how others interpretate a valid public debate."

Your re-wording of my post lacks any resemblance to what I stated.

And here are my final comments in the Post you refer to:
"No public debate is a recipe for disaster. No public debate cripples a true democracy. Full public debate can, and usually does, strengthen it. At least over the long haul. In the interim period, things can admitedly, get a little fiesty."

I'm comfortable with those statements. No backpeddling here. I'm not responsible for what you make of those statements, or answering to any alternative, preferred interpretations of your own making. My statements speak clearly, just as typed. I read no ****-the-troops intention into it. That's seems to be your mission in this Thread. Turn anyone with a difference of perspective or opinion into an anti-troops, anit-American. After all, that'll teach'em. Or intimidate them into silence. You'll even have some supporters, no matter how outlandish your interpretation and re-stating of the facts.

So I believe I've heard your position. What I have not heard is how the Posts and statements in this Thread justify your presumption of troop-bashing or sniper-bashing. You've conjured up the worst and responded in defense of life and limb. Not my goal to send you over the edge. Why you would imagine I or other's would take pleasure in attacking the troops that defend us is beyond me. Are you unable to separate this Thread - a discussion of the possibilities of ultra long range hits and whether or not the article could be true or embellished, from a troop bashing mission? If not, I can only conclude that life's experiences have caused this to be an ultra-sensitive issue for you. Don't presume everyone that hasn't served as a sniper or in some other role is out to defile the reputation of the military. Frankly, I want our enemies to fear our snipers and military organization. No fight at all is the best fight.

It's reported some troops find this discussion disheartening. It's also been reported others do not, and would not. Democracy is about compromise. We are all a little different. Yet we mostly agree to live with the majority concensus. I'm not willing to forego discussion of the credibility of reports covering the war effort, because the discussion might step on sacred ground to some. Placing the discussion off-limits also steps on sacred ground. As other's have already aptly expressed.

My advice - if you're up to receiving any? Take the statements for what they say and are - nothing more until there's no denying the motive. You want to end interest and discussion of sniper's shots on this Forum? Good luck. Every long range hunter or shooter will take an interest. I never presumed, and when all was said and done, concluded that any member that posted had it in for the military. Most, including myself, made the equivalent of such a statement, supportive of the sniper. I didn't feel it should be necessary, but I did it anyhow to communicate my intentions in that regard. You don't wanna believe me? As you say, you've earned that right. As have all other Forum member's from my perspective. I've earned rights also, believe it or not.

Don't interpret this Post as backpeddling. I've never had a motive that would require backpeddling.

 

[Umm]

Hello,

Having been there both days, we did use a Vector IV. It was my shot that hit the 36" steel. It was the 4th of my first string of 6 in strong winds.

It was a handload with VV N570, 2900 fps, 3.735 OAL that hit . The Corbon factory 300 gr Scenars at 2800 fps shot more consistent groups both days.

They brought out the camera the second day for this reason exactly, people wouldn't believe it.

You can go do this yourself, we are not magicians and the conditions will be better then what we shot in.

When you finish, you will agree, standing next to that target is no place to be.

It is posted in detail at the below links, no military guys have mentioned they are upset.

I loaded up 250gr Scenars with VV N560, will see how they do at the same range and distance in a couple weeks.

Detailed discussion below.

Beyond 1000 Yards - Sniper's Hide Forums

Login To: Lightfighter Tactical Forum

YouTube - SRS .338 Lapua Magnum effective at 2707 Yards (1.54 miles)

 

[bigbuck]

Hello,

Having been there both days, we did use a Vector IV. It was my shot that hit the 36" steel. It was the 4th of my first string of 6 in strong winds.

It was a handload with VV N570, 2900 fps, 3.735 OAL that hit . The Corbon factory 300 gr Scenars at 2800 fps shot more consistent groups both days.

They brought out the camera the second day for this reason exactly, people wouldn't believe it.

You can go do this yourself, we are not magicians and the conditions will be better then what we shot in.

When you finish, you will agree, standing next to that target is no place to be.

It is posted in detail at the below links, no military guys have mentioned they are upset.

I loaded up 250gr Scenars with VV N560, will see how they do at the same range and distance in a couple weeks.

Detailed discussion below.

Beyond 1000 Yards - Sniper's Hide Forums

Login To: Lightfighter Tactical Forum

YouTube - SRS .338 Lapua Magnum effective at 2707 Yards (1.54 miles)

Nice shootin !! I counted 5 seconds from the time I herd the gun go off until I saw shot impact. Someone run the numbers on LB or exbal just to see how long it will take .

Mighty fine shootin !!!

BigBuck

 

[Topshot]

Umm,

As the originator of this thread I would like to thank you for your post. Welcome to the forum by the way.

When I posted this thread it was because I thought it would be of interest to fellow forum members. I didn't mean to start a fight between members.

I thought it was some great shooting and the video is also great.

As a hunter, of particular interest to me was the terminal performance of the 300 grain scenar bullet at that range. I have shot the .338 cal 300gn SMK out past 2200 yards out of my .338 Edge and was less than impressed with its stability and lack of expansion.

Do you rate the 300 grain Scenar bullet as "softer" than the 300 grain Sierra Matchking? It seemed to expand at the 2700 yard range going by the pictures you posted on the Snipers Hide. Or did they hit rocky ground?

 

[edge]

If I recall the story correctly, Richard the Lionheart was walking around a castle ( out of longbow range and without his armor ) when he was hit with an arrow from a crossbow....died of gangrene.

It is often better to be lucky than good

edge.

 

[RussW1911]

I'm just wondering if Mr. Allen is going to be responding to the post about him on SnipersHide.com. Seeing as how I was "asked" to leave for a year over there, I won't be able to make any comments, but Kirby, if your as sure about things as you say you are. You might want to see if you can't set the record straight as far as your concerned.

Me, I know exactly what happened that day, I was there for both of them. I'm the one who set up the range...... Initially I was a few yards off with using GPS and Topo maps..... The Vector (yeah, we had some) squared away the 5 yard discrepency for us though. I mean if we shot it at 2701 like I had set up, people might be calling BS.....wait, isn't that what was done?

 

[jmden]

I'm just wondering if Mr. Allen is going to be responding to the post about him on SnipersHide.com. Seeing as how I was "asked" to leave for a year over there, I won't be able to make any comments, but Kirby, if your as sure about things as you say you are. You might want to see if you can't set the record straight as far as your concerned.

Me, I know exactly what happened that day, I was there for both of them. I'm the one who set up the range...... Initially I was a few yards off with using GPS and Topo maps..... The Vector (yeah, we had some) squared away the 5 yard discrepency for us though. I mean if we shot it at 2701 like I had set up, people might be calling BS.....wait, isn't that what was done?

Again, what may be the defining issue concerning this shot in question by Harrison is the accuracy or inaccuracy of the reporting. Wikipedia has some info at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Harrison_(sniper) . Is this information accurate or not? How do we know?

Does this info differ from that which you have that started you and friends on your quest to shoot at 2700 yds?

The Wikipedia article (just using that as it was easy to find on the internet) specifically states regarding the load likely used:

"The external ballistics software program JBM Ballistics further predicts that the bullets of British high pressure .338 Lapua Magnum cartridges using 16.2 g (250 gr) Lapua LockBase B408 bullets fired at 936 m/s (3,071 ft/s) muzzle velocity under International Standard Atmosphere conditions at 1,043 m (3,422 ft) elevation (air density ρ = 1.069 kg/m3) and assuming a flat fire scenario and a 100 m (109 yd) zero arrive at 2,475 m (2,707 yd) after approximately 6.017 s flight time at 251.8 m/s (826 ft/s) velocity and have dropped 120.95 m (396.8 ft) or in angular units 48.9 milliradian (168 MOA) on their way. To accomplish such an extreme range shot the Schmidt & Bender 5-25x56 PM II LP telescopic sight with its P4 reticle offering 0.5 mil spaced holdover hash marks has to be mounted with a vertically canted base or canted rings to be able to dial in the required amount of vertical adjustment if the operator opts to use more magnification than the 5x minimum magnification the telescopic sight offers. Accuracy International produces mounts for telescopic sights with a 13.09 mil (45 MOA) built in cant designed for their .338 Lapua Magnum rifles fitted with the Schmidt & Bender 5-25x56 PM II LP telescopic sight."

If this is the info you guys have and everybody has to work with, then shooting with 300g Scenar's is not a good comparison. Impressive that the target was hit at all? Yes. And once the target was hit, how many consecutive shots consistently hit the target during the test, replicating the Harrison reports?

I'm guessing if you did it with the load mentioned in the above article, then more will listen.

Or, do you have other information that this feat was accomlished using 300g Scenars? I don't know. I'm just asking. Otherwise, the comparative test should happen with 250g LockBase B408, right?

Or, are we just speculating that Harrison might have had access to 300g Scenars? That may be, but what info is there that this may be the case and why use them in this test unless there's very good info that he did use 300g Scenars?

I'd be interested to see what happens at 2700 yds using the load in the Wikipedia article. Do it in calm conditions and use the info Harrison apparently supplied in the BBC interview:

"In a subsequent BBC interview, Harrison reported it took about nine shots for him and his spotter to initially range the target successfully. Then, he reported, his first shot "on target" was a killing shot."

Take the 9 shots, or whatever it takes to get on target and from there see what kind of consistency you have with several shots in a row.

Maybe I'm not too bright, but it seems like so far, we're comparing apples to oranges unless the reported load above is used.

Many of us would appreciate seeing the results.

 

[RussW1911]

For starters, it was said that we were not trying to replicate shot, hence the title of 338LM Mythbusting and to show that bullets dont drop from sky when they go subsonic.

We had that one type of ammo on hand and we were at over 3000 ASL lower than he was.

Also, Wiki is written by random people on the web. Not really what I would call a GREAT source of factual information.

 

[jmden]

For starters, it was said that we were not trying to replicate shot, hence the title of 338LM Mythbusting and to show that bullets dont drop from sky when they go subsonic.

We had that one type of ammo on hand and we were at over 3000 ASL lower than he was.

Also, Wiki is written by random people on the web. Not really what I would call a GREAT source of factual information.

So, were you guys just trying to hit the yd. square target period?

I realize that Wikipedia may not be a great source if info, but is it different info than what you have on Harrison's shot?

The Harrison report is what started thing whole thing, right?

Or, did you guys just decide to got shoot at 2700 yds for fun w/o being prompted by the Harrison report? I don't know. I'm just asking.

The (potentially not reliable) Wikipedia article states: "The shots were aided by the ambient air density near the valley in which Musa Qala is situated and where CoH Harrison operated, which is significantly lower than at sea level due to Musa Qala's 1,043 m (3,422 ft) mean elevation."

Do you guys have different info that places Harrison quite a bit above the 3422 ASL info in the Wikipedia article?

 

[RussW1911]

Ofcourse the Brittish Snipers story is what started the talk of this.

What prompted us to go do it was the fact that so many people were running their man pleasers about how there is no way that the bullet could make it that far and it won't retain energy. "People" saying that it couldn't be done period.

You can hear the shooter in the video, towards the end call a shot that he knew was going to be to the right, all others were **** close. Also, the first day when we started this, we were fighting winds in the 20+ mph range.

There was no intention of besting the record or proving the multiple shots, but we did intend on proving that the shot was feasible. I absolutely belive that it was feasible and I was calling BS from the start. I'm not the only one out there that was.

 

[jmden]

Ofcourse the Brittish Snipers story is what started the talk of this.

What prompted us to go do it was the fact that so many people were running their man pleasers about how there is no way that the bullet could make it that far and it won't retain energy. "People" saying that it couldn't be done period.

You can hear the shooter in the video, towards the end call a shot that he knew was going to be to the right, all others were **** close. Also, the first day when we started this, we were fighting winds in the 20+ mph range.

There was no intention of besting the record or proving the multiple shots, but we did intend on proving that the shot was feasible. I absolutely belive that it was feasible and I was calling BS from the start. I'm not the only one out there that was.

I can see what you are saying, but I think, at least in my mind, more than making it 'feasible', I personally think it needs to be consistently repeatable for the data to be worth much. Basic scientific process stuff. Do it in calm conditions and be repeatably and consistently on target.

 

[Pdvdh]

What's the definition of feasible?