New sniper record...........

[Dan Shapiro]

3 shots from 1 1/2 miles.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2956579/Sniper-Craig-Harrison-kills-2-Taliban-from-a-record-154miles.html

[Cecil]

Very good shooting but because of weapon used it doesn't compare to Hathcock's shot. I hope in the record book he is set apart from these modern day long range behemoths we have built.

[snakehunter]

Very good shooting but because of weapon used it doesn't compare to Hathcock's shot. I hope in the record book he is set apart from these modern day long range behemoths we have built.

Amen to that. I would have given my left nut for some of the equipment they have now.

[Timberwolf]

Very good shooting but because of weapon used it doesn't compare to Hathcock's shot. I hope in the record book he is set apart from these modern day long range behemoths we have built.

Or Rob Furlong's shot. He used a McM 50.

Rob's the man that broke Hathcock's shot in 2002.

[Art]

I love this stuff. The comments on this are like saying none of the world records today in the 100 Meters compare to Charles Paddock's in the 1920's because he ran on dirt tracks with long spikes, without starting blocks or modern training methods while modern runners have synthetic tracks, modern shoes which are vastly superior, starting blocks and modern training methods.

[Timberwolf]

I think all of the records are relevant, they set the pace for the next record.

Hathcock's record stood for about 41 years before it was broken and Furlong's for 8 years.

[Art]

[quote=timberwolf;60755]i think all of the records are relevant, they set the pace for the next record.

Hathcock's record stood for about 41 years before it was broken and furlong's for 8 years.[/quote

ABSOLUTElY!!!!!

[ltcboy]

How about this guys record???.........

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hayha.html

[Andrew W. Priestley]

A .338 Lapua Mag isn't really intended to be used out beyond 1500 meters or so, let alone another 1000 on top of that. At least the Canucks were using a McMillan .50 caliber. Those three shots were made with a pretty underpowered rifle for that range (by conventional wisdom). The skill involved is pretty much the same. Range it accurately, read the wind at various ranges, relative elevation, etc. account for all of it in your calculations and then squeeze off a damned near perfect shot. Let's consider the math. At that range, about 2640 yards, a good sniper rifle/ammo combination has a mechanical area of error of about 1/2 MOA or about 15 inches. so if the rifle is bolted into a rest and fired mechanically, that's the random area of dispersion you could expect for a group of 5 - 10 shots. A little smaller than the width of the average human torso. This guy had to shoot at least that good to make those three shots. That means he did rock solid ranging, wind estimation and correction and then damned near perfect execution the the mechanics of the shot. That's just plain amazing, regardless of the equipment.

[snakehunter]

A .338 Lapua Mag isn't really intended to be used out beyond 1500 meters or so, let alone another 1000 on top of that. At least the Canucks were using a McMillan .50 caliber. Those three shots were made with a pretty underpowered rifle for that range (by conventional wisdom). The skill involved is pretty much the same. Range it accurately, read the wind at various ranges, relative elevation, etc. account for all of it in your calculations and then squeeze off a damned near perfect shot. Let's consider the math. At that range, about 2640 yards, a good sniper rifle/ammo combination has a mechanical area of error of about 1/2 MOA or about 15 inches. so if the rifle is bolted into a rest and fired mechanically, that's the random area of dispersion you could expect for a group of 5 - 10 shots. A little smaller than the width of the average human torso. This guy had to shoot at least that good to make those three shots. That means he did rock solid ranging, wind estimation and correction and then damned near perfect execution the the mechanics of the shot. That's just plain amazing, regardless of the equipment.

The Chey Tac M200 comes with a hand held computer that does all the calculations for you. And I mean _all_. That's the system I want, if I have to do any long range work.

[Cecil]

Shooters today are "trained" as snipers. They have natural ability which is enhanced by the best high tech equipment money can buy. It's expected that they make the kind of shots they make today. Earlier shooters like Hathcock made the shot because they were natural shooters who grew up shooting and were able to accomplish great things with what was thrown together. All the scopes in the US arsenal during WWII and Korea were 2 1/2x scopes with the exception the Marine Corps which had a 4x and 8x setup. Magnification didn't increase until the middle of Viet Nam. The rifles built today are 1 moa at a 1000 yards. Shooters today just can't be compared to the earlier guys that's just a fact. I would love to see what natural hitters like Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig could do with todays modern baseball equipment. There's just no comparison.

Ok go ahead and blast away.

[Art]

Shooters today are "trained" as snipers. They have natural ability which is enhanced by the best high tech equipment money can buy. It's expected that they make the kind of shots they make today. Earlier shooters like Hathcock made the shot because they were natural shooters who grew up shooting and were able to accomplish great things with what was thrown together. All the scopes in the US arsenal during WWII and Korea were 2 1/2x scopes with the exception the Marine Corps which had a 4x and 8x setup. Magnification didn't increase until the middle of Viet Nam. The rifles built today are 1 moa at a 1000 yards. Shooters today just can't be compared to the earlier guys that's just a fact. I would love to see what natural hitters like Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig could do with todays modern baseball equipment. There's just no comparison.

Ok go ahead and blast away.

This is emphatically not "blasting away"

I made a comment similar to yours on baseball regarding Track & Field. The fact is we don't invalidate records because any activity evolves. As I said before, Charles Paddock was the greatest sprinter in the world for a while, in the 1920's, running on dirt tracks, without starting blocks in clunky shoes, who knows how fast he would have run had he had starting blocks, modern shoes and run on synthetic tracks. That does not invalidate Usain Bolts accomplishments because he suffers under none of those disadvantages.

We can not resurrect Paddock and use modern methods to see how he would fare against Bolt nor can we put Bolt in a time machine to run against Paddock. Both were, as the Brits say, "a glory in their day." It's just that one of their "days" is gone.

To quote Theodore Roosevelt "It is not the critic that counts, rather it is the man who is actually in the arena......" no matter what the time period.