# U see where a Canadian Sniper



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Got an ISIS guy from 2 miles away? They said it took 10 seconds for the bullet to make the trip. I would have thought that it would take less than 1/2 that


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

it would take less than half if the bullet kept moving at the speed it left the barrel but it slows all the way to the target 

2.2 miles = 11,616 feet , Muzzle velocity is roughly 3000 fps leaving the barrel if it maintained it all the way to target it would take 3.827 seconds , but it does not , it looses an average of about 75 fps every hundred yards all the way to the target , it actually looses more early in the arc and less later in the arc but about 75 fps for rough figuring so if at 2000 yards the bullet is moving about half the speed it was leaving the barrel you can see where you get to 10 seconds easily it was already going to take nearly 4 seconds just to get there if it maintained muzzle velocity


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

He got lucky.


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

Those grapes ain't very sweet are they?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

krackin said:


> Those grapes ain't very sweet are they?


It's just reality.
The insurgents were setting up to ambush Iraqi troops who couldn't be contacted by radio to warn them, so the sniper started firing in an effort to disrupt the ambush and warn the friendly troops.
He got lucky and hit one.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadian-sniper-hits-isis-militant-with-record-setting-shot-1.3471687



> The sniper’s shot was a “remarkable” one, former NATO commander retired Maj.-Gen David Fraser said during an interview with CTV News from Gagetown, N.B. on Thursday.
> 
> “It defies description,” Fraser said. “The distance would have been easy to determine, but the swirl, the heat, the obscuration, all of that would have made this shot absolutely almost impossible.”
> 
> Just imagine *a one millimetre deviation at the end of that sniper’s barrel would have been a three-and-a-half-metre miss at the target*,” Mitic said. “He had to maintain that position and maintain that sight picture and pull that trigger just perfectly so that bullet would find its target at three-and-a-half kilometres.”


That's 0.039 inches difference between a hit and a miss, and that's only one of the many variables.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Maybe he was already dead is why he was in the same place for 10 secs lol


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

One time, years back we were out chuck hunting. I was using my #1 sporting a 4x12 Bushnell Banner in .270 with hand loads. Way off across the tater fields I saw a small flock of dump ducks and brought it to the attention of my hunting buddies. They glassed the flock as I scoped them. I told them which one I would take out. I did. We measured it out to 550 yards. According to your theory that would be 'luck'. Correct?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

krackin said:


> According to your theory *that would be 'luck'. Correct?*


No, that would just be an "internet hunting story" that can't be proven, and would also be a federal crime since rifles aren't legal weapons for hunting waterfowl.


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

You don't even know what a 'dump duck' is do you? Do a search on that too.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

I once dropped a deer with a single shot at 400 yards. It ran about 40 yards and died.

I would never take a shot like that again because the risk of a bad hit is too great. I was shooting for the head and hit it in the liver.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

krackin said:


> You don't even know what a 'dump duck' is do you? Do a search on that too.


You're correct.
You're the only person I've ever heard use the term.
You called it a "duck" and I made the mistake of assuming you knew what it really was.
You can explain what you meant if you think it matters.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fishhead said:


> I was shooting for the head and hit it in the liver.


You were intentionally trying a head shot from 400 yards?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

krackin said:


> You don't even know what a 'dump duck' is do you? Do a search on that too.


Well, if your referring to a sea gull as a dump duck which is considered protected and requires a permit then yes it is still a crime. Honestly depending on the rifle 550 on a bird could be luck. You can be the best shot in the world with a 1moa gun and miss all day everyday. The Canadian fella is lucky, he was using an anti-material rifle against a point target. 50cals are not the bees knees when it comes to sniper rifles a 375 CT will spank it all day everyday in long range accuracy, it may not stop a car at 2500 but it'll stop a person.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

krackin said:


> You don't even know what a 'dump duck' is do you? Do a search on that too.


Aren't seagulls consider "migratory"?


Bearfootfarm said:


> You were intentionally trying a head shot from 400 yards?


Yes. My thinking was that it would either be a good hit or a clean miss. I know better now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fishhead said:


> Aren't seagulls consider "migratory"?


Yes.
It's illegal to kill them under Federal law.
I don't believe he really made that shot anyway, and if he did it was pure luck.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Is this the thread were everyone has their panties in a bunch?

Easy down.

Luck or not it was an incredible shot.


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

Not illegal when they are doing damage, fouling, commercial crops. I call it a lucky shot myself. Where I was off, wind drift corrected.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

krackin said:


> *Not illegal* when they are doing damage, fouling, commercial crops.


It's illegal if you don't have a depredation permit.
You can't get a depredation permit if it's not your crops or property, and you have to try other methods of solving the problem before resorting to killing.

At a bare minimum you need a permit from the USFWS and may also need a state permit. You're also required to use a shotgun and non-toxic shot.
https://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-13.pdf


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

That shot was 40 years ago. Nobody gives a ratsass
Put on your pink hat, stand in your safe box and preach to somebody else. 

I work with USDA Wildlife Services on an ongoing basis. I have for many years and expect to do so for many more. They stop by now and then to exchange information and insight, inspect damage and are ready to do PR with problematic neighbors.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

krackin said:


> That shot was 40 years ago. Nobody gives a ratsass
> Put on your pink hat, stand in your safe box and preach to somebody else.


I'm not preaching.
I'm correcting your misinformation.



krackin said:


> I work with USDA Wildlife Services on an ongoing basis.


More internet anecdotes that can't be proven.
You claimed it's "not illegal" to shoot seagulls when it is without proper permits.
Trying to insult me won't change the fact you don't appear to know the laws.


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

You really are hilarious, I'll give you that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

You probably think you are too.


----------

