# Impressive shot



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

"A sniper with Canada's elite special forces in Iraq has shattered the world record for the longest confirmed kill shot in military history at a staggering distance of 3,540 metres."

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...ttps://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Incredible.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Think of the ramifications,
The president must now be protected from a man over two MILES away.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Think of the ramifications,
> The president must now be protected from a man over two MILES away.


"Now"?


----------



## ShannonR (Nov 28, 2012)

I saw that yesterday. Quite impressive!!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nice toys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMillan_Tac-50


> The *McMillan Tac-50* sniper rifle is produced in Phoenix, Arizona in the United States by McMillan Firearms Manufacturing. This long-range anti-materiel/anti-personnel weapon is based on previous designs from the same company, which first appeared during the late 1980s. McMillan makes several versions of .50 caliber rifles, based on the same proprietary action, for military, law enforcement and civilian use.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Send him to N Korean


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Anti-gunners like to talk about "powerful assault weapons" or "high powered rifles" like the AR's and AK's.
The ones to the right are the "assault weapon" cartridges, the middle ones are common hunting rounds, and the far left is the 50 BMG used in the sniper rifle:


[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rifle_cartridge_comparison.jpg']
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rifle_cartridge_comparison.jpg
From left: *.50 BMG*, 300 Win Mag, .308 Winchester,7.62×39mm, 5.56×45mm NATO, .22 Long Rifle[/URL]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

Hope he shot the right guy.


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

ed/La said:


> Hope he shot the right guy.


From the radio report I heard, they were observing an Iraqi military operation and saw insurgents setting up an ambush. Couldn't get through to the Iraqis on the radio so he started firing at the insurgents trying to break up the ambush and warn the Iraqis. Doesn't say how many shots he fired but apparently it worked


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

An equal amount of credit is due the spotter. To be able to calculate the wind conditions, angle of descent, etc is not easy.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Lets not forget that the military is developing longer range smart sniper rounds that use microelectronics to produce a miniature cruise missile type projectile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXACTO


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shrek said:


> Lets not forget that the military *is developing*


I suspect if they are telling us that now, it's already been operational for a while.


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

Do a search on smart bullets. They have been around for at least 15 years.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Anti-gunners like to talk about "powerful assault weapons" or "high powered rifles" like the AR's and AK's.
> The ones to the right are the "assault weapon" cartridges, the middle ones are common hunting rounds, and the far left is the 50 BMG used in the sniper rifle:
> 
> 
> ...


Humm I have a hard time believing the forth cartridge from the left is a 7.63x39

I think this picture isn't with the right label


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

OPPS


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

OPPS again


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Humm I have a hard time believing the forth cartridge *from the left* is a 7.63x39


From your other left.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> From your other left.


That's a 7.62X51


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

krackin said:


> Do a search on smart bullets. They have been around for at least 15 years.


Yes the smart rounds have been around for about a decade, however from some articles I have read, the effective range is almost 3 times what it was initially. If they are developed much more, not only could almost anyone be a sniper, the round could almost travel from one zip code to another.

That Canadian's shot was impressive , but soon marksmanship in the military may not hold as much meaning as it has to date.


An interesting side note that my gun dealer / gunsmith pointed out to me as I was looking at a .50 bolt action single shot rifle he had on display in his store was that in the American Revolution, the snipers of the period used black powder single shot rifles often in .50 caland today our snipers still often employ single shot bolt action .50 cal weapons as he has on display.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Shrek said:


> Yes the smart rounds have been around for about a decade, however from some articles I have read, the effective range is almost 3 times what it was initially. If they are developed much more, not only could almost anyone be a sniper, the round could almost travel from one zip code to another.
> 
> That Canadian's shot was impressive , but soon marksmanship in the military may not hold as much meaning as it has to date.
> 
> ...


Being able to shoot long distances doesn't make you a sniper. Some of the best bench rest shooters can shoot better then most snipers but they aren't snipers. Being a sniper is more than long range shooting and no just anyone can do it. USMC is still using the Barrett as a 50 SASS. This guy made a damn fine shot even if it took multiple shots to do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Actually he used a system the Russian 7.62x54 was set up for. 
If you have one of those from pre WW1 you will see they are graduated out to 10,000 angstroms , about 5000 yards or 3 miles. 
They wouldn't knock a button off a shirt at those ranges with iron sights. But with a plattoon of men shooting at something moving at horse speeds they had plenty of time to disrupt things.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> AmericanStand said: ↑
> Humm I have a hard time believing the forth cartridge *from the left* is a 7.63x39
> I think this picture isn't with the right *label*





> Bearfootfarm said: ↑
> From your other left.





coolrunnin said:


> That's a 7.62X51


Wrong again.
Here's a hint.
(1,2,3,*4,*5 6. *Left*-Right.)

(*From left*: .50 BMG, 300 Win Mag, .308 Winchester,*7.62×39mm*, 5.56×45mm NATO, .22 Long Rifle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rifle_cartridge_comparison.jpg


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Wrong again.
> Here's a hint.
> (1,2,3,*4,*5 6. *Left*-Right.)
> 
> ...


You said other left, but good try.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> *You said other left,* but good try.


I'm well aware of what I said. I said it because AS was counting from the *wrong* side.
Otherwise he wouldn't have also said the labels were incorrectly placed.

You don't pay attention to the details because you're so eager to "prove me wrong", but you generally fail, as you are now. You should stop digging the hole.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm well aware of what I said. I said it because AS was counting from the *wrong* side.
> Otherwise he wouldn't have also said the labels were incorrectly placed.
> 
> You don't pay attention to the details because you're so eager to "prove me wrong", but you generally fail, as you are now. You should stop digging the hole.


Explain all you want we all know what you said, but again nice effort.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> Explain all you want we all know what you said, but again nice effort.


Yes, we all know what was said.
It seems you're the only one confused as to what it all *means*.

It all comes back to:


> coolrunnin said: ↑
> I amuses me to make you look foolish so no need to really pay attention to anything you say.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, we all know what was said.
> It seems you're the only one confused as to what it all *means*.
> 
> It all comes back to:


It's good you recognize you look foolish, that's the first step...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> It's good you recognize you look foolish, that's the first step...


I see you're still digging the hole you got yourself in.
You're only making one person look foolish, and it's not me.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see you're still digging the hole you got yourself in.
> You're only making one person look foolish, and it's not me.


You're right I leave you looking foolish to you, no one can surpass the job you do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> You're right *I leave you looking foolish to you*, no one can surpass the job you do.


Deeper and deeper with no end in sight, while not even being coherent.


----------



## mustangglp (Jul 7, 2015)

coolrunnin said:


> That's a 7.62X51


Another one of these tricks to confuse us into thinking were getting senile and don't know left from right


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

BFF you seem to have mixed a picture from another  location with a label from the wiki ..50 bmg picture.
I suspect you are not seeing it the same way the rest of us are.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

N


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> BFF you seem to have mixed a picture from another location with a label from the wiki ..50 bmg picture.
> I suspect you are *not seeing it the same way* the rest of us are.


That's because you're looking at the wrong picture.
The pictures and captions aren't "mixed".

One picture was visible and the other was a link.
The only picture *with labels* was the one at the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rifle_cartridge_comparison.jpg
WIKI often doesn't allow pictures to be posted to other sites so a link is the best one can get sometimes
Go back and look at the post.

A box followed by "IMG" or a box with an "X" indicates there was supposed to be another picture that didn't show. The caption and the link is for that picture.
Everything in the post means something.
In this case it means you assumed things without clicking the link.


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

You tell 'em Baldwin. You ARE Alec aren't you? Maybe not, the unglued lib fanaticism threw me mayhap.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> An equal amount of credit is due the spotter. To be able to calculate the wind conditions, angle of descent, etc is not easy.


Just what I was thinking.

I've always been a very good Long Range Shot and always by myself it was very mental but at that range there is factors that change so much.

big rockpile


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Very awesome shot. Have a friend who was season three champion of Top Shot that cant make that shot I dont think. 

Maybe if he had multiple shots.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's because you're looking at the wrong picture.
> The pictures and captions aren't "mixed".
> 
> One picture was visible and the other was a link.
> ...


 Lol you know very well that many of us don't or can't do links from here. 
You also know you are supposed to give a synopsis of any link. 
Sorry things didn't work out the way you wanted but you might want to work a bit on your editing skills


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol you know very well that many of us don't or can't do links from here.
> You also know you are supposed to give a synopsis of any link.
> Sorry things didn't work out the way you wanted but you might want to work a bit on your editing skills


How am I supposed to know you can't or won't "do links"?
It's not my fault you won't take advantage of what is available to you.



> You also know you are supposed to give *a synopsis* of any link.


No synopsis is needed for a picture.
You knew what it was and where it came from.
You even said so.
You simply chose not to look even though you knew it was a picture:


AmericanStand said:


> BFF you seem to have mixed a picture from another location with a label *from the wiki ..50 bmg picture*.





> Sorry things *didn't work out the way you wanted*


You're the one (though not the only one) complaining, not me.
It worked exactly the way I wanted.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How am I supposed to know you can't or won't "do links"?
> It's not my fault you won't take advantage of what is available to you.
> 
> 
> ...


 You. Should. Know many here can't or don't do links because you have been told. 
More than once. 
A synopsis is needed for any link. 

"It worked exactly the way I wanted."
Yep I'm not surprized.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You. Should. Know many here can't or don't do links because you have been told.
> More than once.


You're the one complaining because you were confused.
That's not my problem.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Where does it say a synopsis is required? Don't be lazy, click the link. At first I thought the same thing and then....I clicked the "x" and low and behold the correct photo. No synopsis required!

Either way it was a great shot that he himself probably would have a hard time doing again. Shooting past 300 is hard enough for many let alone a 1000. Yes there is skill involved and a lot of it but probably more luck than anything.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Where does it say a synopsis is required?


He's referring to the general rule that when posting a link *to an article*, one should not copy and paste the entire thing, but rather only a paragraph or two to let people know what to expect.

When the link ends in ".jpg" it should be obvious a picture is worth 1000 words, and the caption I posted serves as a "synopsis".

Some just want to argue even when they have to invent a reason.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Where does it say a synopsis is required? Don't be lazy, click the link. At first I thought the same thing and then....I clicked the "x" and low and behold the correct photo. No synopsis required!
> .


It's not a matter of lazy some computer stations won't allow links to work. 
It's a security rule I think. 
And some are on dial up or limited data so it's a hardship.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> It's not a matter of lazy some computer stations won't allow links to work.
> It's a *security rule* I think.
> And some are on dial up or limited data so it's a hardship.


If your computer "won't allow" links, you should get off the internet and get back to work.

I'm on dial-up and I can open links and view websites.
You can too or you couldn't be here.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ya gotta try walking a mile in the other guys shoes. 
When a dial up connection is slow some things just are not worth the waiting for. 
And of course you could just follow the rules and treat people with respect 
Others time out before loading.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Ya gotta try walking a mile in the other guys shoes.
> When a *dial up* connection is slow some things just are not worth the waiting for.
> *And of course you could just follow the rules* *and treat people with respect *
> Others time out before loading.


I know all about slow dial up since that's what I have.
WIKI is one of the few things that generally always opens quickly, which is why I often use it.

You're *still* trying to blame me for your own mistake.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> It's not a matter of lazy some computer stations won't allow links to work.
> It's a security rule I think.
> And some are on dial up or limited data so it's a hardship.


Copying/Pasting: Please ensure that if you are copying an article, you copy a short paragraph with a link back to the original article and please provide a brief summary. Please review videos and articles to ensure they meet HT standard for profanity.

Security rule you think??? Shouldn't you know? Links work fine from my phone and computer. 

That's the rule listed as approved by HT members. So a synopsis is NOT required because it was NOT an article, it was a picture. Quit whining and stop being lazy, your mistake not BFFs, be a man and own it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know all about slow dial up since that's what I have.
> WIKI is one of the few things that generally always opens quickly, which is why I often use it.
> 
> You're *still* trying to blame me for your own mistake.


Lol only you would see it that way. 
Throw the shovel away.


----------



## Bungiex88 (Jan 2, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I suspect if they are telling us that now, it's already been operational for a while.


That is exactly right. Anything that the public knows about is old news and there is something else better then what the public knows being tested already


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol only you would see it that way.
> *Throw the shovel away*.


You're the one who keeps digging this hole.
Why continue making it deeper?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bungiex88 said:


> That is exactly right. Anything that the public knows about is old news and there is something else better then what the public knows being tested already


Here's one of their toys from a few years ago:
http://wethearmed.com/rifles/darpa's-computer-assisted-sniper-rifle/


> The One Shot sniper scope has a computer system that uses lasers to track not only distance, but also the wind turbulence in the path of the bullet. A set of crosshairs appears not in direct line with the gun's barrel, but instead where the bullet will actually hit, and also displays the confidence of that shot.


This one is for sale to the public:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_Optical_Ranging_System


> The *Barrett Optical Ranging System (BORS)* is an integrated ballisticscomputer manufactured byBarrett Firearms that aides snipers and long-range marksmen in taking precise and accurate shots. The system mounts directly to theriflescope and couples with the elevation knob. With the aid of the BORS, marksmen can rapidly account for temperature, barometric pressure and aiming at an upward or downward angle.[1]


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Copying/Pasting: Please ensure that if you are copying an article, you copy a short paragraph with a link back to the original article and please provide a brief summary. Please review videos and articles to ensure they meet HT standard for profanity.
> 
> Security rule you think??? Shouldn't you know? Links work fine from my phone and computer.
> 
> That's the rule listed as approved by HT members. So a synopsis is NOT required because it was NOT an article, it was a picture. Quit whining and stop being lazy, your mistake not BFFs, be a man and own it.


Lol it was a article with a picture as part of it. 
Pictures were one of the prime reasons for the rule since they can use up a lots of Data and viruses are frequently hidden in them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol it was a article with a picture as part of it.


All I posted was the picture and it's caption.


AmericanStand said:


> Pictures were one of the prime reasons for the rule since they can use up a lots of Data and viruses are frequently hidden in them.


Now you're just making things up.
The reason for the "rule" is copyright infringement laws.
I didn't "copy" an article, so the rule doesn't apply.
You just keep digging the hole.

https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/threads/ht-rules-infractions-discussion.537048/


> *Copying/Pasting:* Please ensure that if you are copying an article, you copy a short paragraph with a link back to the original article and please provide a brief summary. Please review videos and articles to ensure they meet HT standard for profanity.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol it was a article with a picture as part of it.
> Pictures were one of the prime reasons for the rule since they can use up a lots of Data and viruses are frequently hidden in them.


You using your data is not my problem and your lack of understanding is making you look like a fool. Update your antivirus software if it's such a major concern....your the only one!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Someone besides me must have had some concerns since I didn't make the rule.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Someone besides me must have had some concerns since I didn't make the rule.


The rule is due to copyrights, not "viruses" or "data"
How would a synopsis help with viruses or data usage?
If it were what you say, the rule would be "no pictures".


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

With a synopsis you don't need to open the link.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> With a synopsis you don't need to open the link.


There is no "synopsis" for a picture.
There was a caption though. 

The rule is about "articles".
It's not my fault you're afraid to look at information to educate yourself.

I think you did look *after* your mistake though, because you said there was an article and a picture, which you couldn't have been sure of without looking.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I should have known a plea for helpful consideration would be met with condescending ridicule and nitpicking justification.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I should have known *a plea for helpful consideration* would be met with condescending ridicule and nitpicking justification.


I must have missed that post.
I just saw the ones that repeated what you had already said.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Could that be because I start by repeating myself ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Could that be because* I start by repeating myself* ?


That's not possible, so that can't be it.


----------

