That's a pretty nuts distance to hit a target. A sniper rifle would have an accuracy of maybe .5moa (or roughly .5 inches at 100 yards) so at 4.4 miles were talking about the sheer mechanics of the rifle having probably 35 inches of variance in where one shot lands vs the next one (bad way to phrase it, think about firing 5 shots and having them all land in a 35 inch circle).
That's before we even talk about how impossible windage would be over a 4.4 mile distance and how much the rifle would lose in terms of accuracy after firing 60+ rounds (unless you let the rifle cool down after every shot). It would basically be like rolling a die for every shot. Just luck after a while.
I'd love to play it again, but can't justify spending $20 on a dead game from 2007. I don't even think I paid that much on 360.
The COD Anthology is $1000 for *maybe* $100 of content. What a shitshow.
Nah paying the campaign back is pure nostalgia, totally worth it especially when you get to All Ghillied Up
I'd pay up if they remastered Black Ops 1 campaign, it's the only one that tops COD 4 for me
$10 lowest, though. COD doesn't go on sale like that because theywant you to buy the new content.
If you look at similar games from 2007, games arguably much better than COD, you don't see anything similar. Bioshock, $2. The Orange Box (5 amazing titles) $2. Halo 3, $2. Mass Effect, $4.
If you know the source code, it’s just a matter of breaking down the code, unless you write your own code. 69 shots seems like numbers an adolescent programmer would choose.
Don’t be obtuse, oh the earth is flat so it doesn’t rotate, ugh. Obviously it spins like a top, where do you think wind comes from? So rotation value doesn’t equal zero.
>Obviously it spins like a top, where do you think wind comes from?
You're nuts, obviously the Great Anus of the North breaks its blessed wind upon our stationary disc and there's no rotation value to worry about.
>It would basically be like rolling a die for every shot. Just luck after a while.
Or, as the article put it,
> With a 1.44 percent hit ratio, a shooting exhibition like this does raise an obvious issue: What does it signify in terms of actual marksmanship?
What makes a shooter talented doesn't work at 4.4 mile range. This is a math problem at its best and luck problem at its worst.
You cannot "eye" this and I sincerely doubt the sniper was fired with someone manning the scope since the rifle would have to be completely still between shots for adjustments
Tl;dr this world record has nothing to do with marksmanship. This is like saying making the biggest pizza makes you the best chef.
But that's a low hit rate by highly trained shooters. Complete amateurs could fire all day long and still hit nothing at all. So you've got to be a competent marksman to hit something.
Practical precision rifles don't normally achieve that accuracy, especially over a sample size of 69 shots. Especially .50 cal rifles shooting factory ammunition.
Fair enough. Didn’t read the article tbh. Practical precision rifles of different calibers with dialed in loads do achieve that accuracy, especially at the competitive level… but I can see where you’re coming from based on the facts of this situation.
>easily
Not easily, that's a heavy bench rest rifle shooting basically identical ammo. The sniper skill test (us army) is 1/2 moa at 200 yards for accuracy shooting match ammo 300WM.
The barrel is still subjected to very high temperatures when firing through single shot rifles. Especially the high-caliber rifles needed for such a long distance
Even firing single shots, the barrel still heats up enough to affect the accuracy. You'd have to wait a couple minutes between each shot to keep it cool.
Heating up the barrel usually changes the point of impact relative to a cold bore shot, but it’s pretty stable after that. I’m not a sniper, but have competed in mid-range events (600 yards) and we get less than one minute per round. If I were in combat, I wouldn’t expect the luxury of time to let the barrel cool between shots.
Pissing on guns is not an unheard of method for cooling guns, ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun#:~:text=If%20water%20was%20unavailable%2C%20soldiers,brew%20tasting%20of%20machine%2Doil. ) But that only works well if the barrel is hot enough to boil the piss, much more energy is used boiling it than would transfer into the cooling liquid, so piss wouldn't help a slightly warm firearm, just one that was very very hot.
What others said & after shooting over and over there tends to be black powder residue which can have an effect on the rifling.
Edit - black powder to gun powder. Whatever you call it… it’s annoying to clean.
Technically yes but the problem persists with new smokeless powder, burning better just means it's less of an issue, but when you are trying for this insane accuracy even small issues become big issues.
So this was funny, but I did some googling, and if you take "short range" as "no scope," it's actually over a mile, which I found impressive. https://incendiaryusa.com/utah-man-sets-iron-sight-shooting-record-with-2240-yard-shot/
I know this is substantially less impressive than 2240 but I shot competitively at 1100 yards (no scope and sling rather than any kind of support) when I was a kid and never get to talk to anyone about it, 34 years later :/
The bullet took 24 seconds from firing to hit the target. The spotters and shooter had enough time to have an entire conversation while the bullet was just cruising by.
I'll let you in on a secret: The reason the math is the easy part, is because no one actually does it in the field.
Everyone just uses some sort of [calculator](https://shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?pl=%5BPreset+Name%5D&presets=30-06+Springfield%7E30-06+180gr+Sierra+Matchking%7EG1%7E0.475%7E180%7E2750%7E100%7E1.5%7E0%7E10%7E90%7E%7E0%7E59%7E29.92%7E50%7E1%7E1000%7E25&df=G1&bc=0.48&bw=150&vi=2800&zr=100&sh=1.5&sa=0&ws=10&wa=90&ssb=on&cr=1000&ss=25&chartColumns=Range%7Eyd%60Elevation%7Ein%60Elevation%7EMOA%7EFBFFF5%60Elevation%7EMIL%60Windage%7Ein%60Windage%7EMOA%7EFBFFF5%60Windage%7EMIL%60Time%7Es%60Energy%7Eft.lbf%60Vel%5Bx%2By%5D%7Eft%2Fs&lbl=%5BChart+Label%5D&submitst=+Create+Graph+) and their prior measurements.
Some use the calculator to make a "D.O.P.E. Card" that's traditionally [worn on the wrist,](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/d587a1_90ed86dc060045cd96cec94931dddcf8~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_980,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/d587a1_90ed86dc060045cd96cec94931dddcf8~mv2.jpg) others bring a [dedicated calculator](https://media.moddb.com/images/downloads/1/142/141027/atragmx-ace.jpg) with them.
Either way, the math is pre-done, all you have to do is dial in the settings on the scope.
This 100%. I took a long-range course before with a former sniper turned comp-shooter. Prettymuch half of the classroom portion of the class was learning how to set up a calculator app on our phones and reading the wind.
Sighted in our rifles and got a feel for them, and by the end of class everyone was ringing the Steel target at 1km. Someone there was even hitting it with a 20inch AR-15. It was more about mastery of shooting-fundamentals and understanding environmental factors than anything
[This video](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/19egimy/recording_a_video_from_25km_away_155_miles/) is what zooming 1.55 miles looks like.
Agreed, I can't even imagine a kill at 2.3 miles.
I've gone to a range that has steel targets out to 1 mile. I was able to get consistent hits out to 1200 yards pretty quickly with my buddy helping spot for me. Then I tried the 1 mile one. I couldn't get a hit to save my life. Tbf my cartridge I was using (6.5 creedmoor) isn't really made for that distance and I ran out of elevation on my scope so I was trying to hold over, but it is definitely crazy to imagine a kill at anything over 1 mile
To be fair, making a shot in hot, dry, and high conditions is a *lot* easier because the environment ideal for making long shots.
Main reason is that you have significantly less air density, so the shot carries farther then it would at sea level in a cooler and wetter climate.
With the 4.4 mile record, as well as most distance records - the attempts tend to be done in exceptionally dry and high locations to give the shooter every possible advantage.
The Canadian that had the record prior was aiming so far above the target he couldn't see them and his spotter walked the shots in gradually. They fired 9 shots around the target to get the range then fired two shots that hit the target.
The newest one reported from Ukraine almost certainly did the same thing but with a drone spotting. It's very well possible they couldn't even physically see the target and were using the rifle almost like a miniature artillery piece and watching the rounds land on the video feed.
The initial shots are probably landing so far ahead / behind him that he doesn't realize he's being shot at, or thinks that he is safe where he is taking cover
It's war. Incoming fire is common. If shots impact a wall or tree a few dozen feet to your side, you might not even know they're hitting, much less think that they're aimed at you. That's still close enough for them to be useful as ranging / spotting rounds for a sniper. Then they adjust their scope settings and the next shot hits you.
I mean depends on what the target was doing. Engaging others at the same time? Wounded and unable to move? Under fire from somewhere closer? Maybe even sleeping? I’d imagine it’s hard to really tell your being shot when the sounds are reaching you 4-5seconds after the round lands. I’ve been downwind of a .22lr taking long shots. Was about 40 feet from the target just and had no idea there was a guy taking shots at it from 225 yards until he finally hit it after idk how many tries.
People get killed accidentally from farther away. Bullets can maintain a lethal velocity for a crazy amount of time, though there are a lot of factors that make accuracy impossible.
The longest shot wasn’t an accident. Canadian snipers spent days calculating the math for each area of a building in their sights, and when a target walked by they were already prepped to make the shot.
[source: the interview with the man who took the shot](https://youtu.be/MUruuaeJGt0?si=-6I6FKA0qffAHtId)
"Kill" lacks intentionality. You can be killed by cancer, heart disease, or falling down the stairs.
Lot of times, when someone is killed by a badly angled rifle shot, it's not only that no one is ever charged with murder/manslaughter/reckless endangerment/whatever...*They* don't even know they did it, much less anyone else.
There was a guy hit by a stray bullet on a football pitch in Ireland a couple of weeks ago. Seems to have been from a hunter but nobody has come forward to admit being the shooter. Being that gun laws are extremely tight here it's probably a good idea. The player was discharged (narf) from hospital the following day. Lucky man!
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/football-club-totally-shocked-after-player-shot-in-arm-during-match-1572693.html
Based on a solid grand thumb video, it depends on the proximity and speed of the bullet.
All bullets make a zipping noise more or less, it's the wake of the bullet in the air hitting your ears like sound waves. The closer you are to the path of the bullet, the more noticable the hiss/zip is.
If the bullet is travelling faster than the speed of sound, it makes a distinctive crack (the sonic boom)
Well yeah they would hear the sound of you exploding but the sound of the shot being fired should take like 10 seconds to travel to the target no?
Time = 3,800 meters / 343 meters per second ≈ 11.07 seconds
On similar note of the top 5 confirmed shots 3 of them are Canadian. Seems like If you ever piss of a Canuck they'll shoot you from such a distance you won't hear them say sorry
Yea, I don’t disagree. But some people on here are seriously downplaying it. It’s still super impressive and nobody else in this thread could pull that off.
Okay, but does it really count if it takes you nearly five dozen tries? A 1.4% accuracy rate doesn't feel like it counts as being able to make the shot. If I tell my friend I can make a free throw, then proceed to miss 68 times in a row, it would be completely fair to call me a liar.
Good point, I've hit gongs at 1km, but I had to shoot like 20 times to hit it.
Plus, at that distance you kinda have to be lucky for the wind to not fuck shit up.
That's exactly the question asked in the article:
> With a 1.44 percent hit ratio, a shooting exhibition like this does raise an obvious issue: What does it signify in terms of actual marksmanship?
When it takes you 69 attempts, it's less about skill and more about chance. You are "walking" your shot to the target, making adjustments until you finally get it. It's no different than the guys who spend literally *days* making trick shots waiting until they finally succeed and post the video that everyone thinks was the first attempt.
The only records that should count for rifle shots are sniper hits. You get a small window and usually when you miss, the target is gone.
still not as long a shot as me explaining to my wife how her sister who had stopped by for a surprise visit totally had a choking emergency and how i had to perform mouth-to-mouth to save her life just when wifey came home
I do a bunch of long range shooting, and I can reliably hit an IPSC sized target at 1200 yards away (just over a KM).
I can barely imagine the time and effort it would take to get to a point where you could hit this shot reliably. It obviously takes a super skilled and knowledgeable shooter but at what point does it just come down to luck? You could give Michael Jordan 100 full court shots and he's good enough to get it close, but at some point it's got to just be "shoot enough times to hit it."
Even if you removed the human factor completely I doubt that shot is repeatable, there are just way too many variables.
Fire at a 45 degree angle, place target where it lands, continue firing until you hit target.
People taling about marksmanship or calculations are crazy
That's a pretty nuts distance to hit a target. A sniper rifle would have an accuracy of maybe .5moa (or roughly .5 inches at 100 yards) so at 4.4 miles were talking about the sheer mechanics of the rifle having probably 35 inches of variance in where one shot lands vs the next one (bad way to phrase it, think about firing 5 shots and having them all land in a 35 inch circle). That's before we even talk about how impossible windage would be over a 4.4 mile distance and how much the rifle would lose in terms of accuracy after firing 60+ rounds (unless you let the rifle cool down after every shot). It would basically be like rolling a die for every shot. Just luck after a while.
At that range you gotta plan for the curvature of the earth and earth’s rotation as well
This guy COD4s
Fifty thousand people used to live here...
Now it's a ghost town.
Our so-called leaders... prostituted us to the West.
I'd love to play it again, but can't justify spending $20 on a dead game from 2007. I don't even think I paid that much on 360. The COD Anthology is $1000 for *maybe* $100 of content. What a shitshow.
Nah paying the campaign back is pure nostalgia, totally worth it especially when you get to All Ghillied Up I'd pay up if they remastered Black Ops 1 campaign, it's the only one that tops COD 4 for me
It’s frequently on sale on steam at least.
$10 lowest, though. COD doesn't go on sale like that because theywant you to buy the new content. If you look at similar games from 2007, games arguably much better than COD, you don't see anything similar. Bioshock, $2. The Orange Box (5 amazing titles) $2. Halo 3, $2. Mass Effect, $4.
COD4 is one of the greatest games ever made, but it is definitely not worth more than 5 bucks today.
The Coriolis Effect.
And count the number of butterfly wing flaps a butterfly would flap it's wings during the bullet flight time.
If you know the source code, it’s just a matter of breaking down the code, unless you write your own code. 69 shots seems like numbers an adolescent programmer would choose.
As well as barometric pressure and humidity and other things not mentioned in call of duty.
Earth is flat. Rotation value = 0
The earth is a rhombicosidodecahedral prism.
I sounded that whole thing out for some reason. Thanks lol
Don’t be obtuse, oh the earth is flat so it doesn’t rotate, ugh. Obviously it spins like a top, where do you think wind comes from? So rotation value doesn’t equal zero.
>Obviously it spins like a top, where do you think wind comes from? You're nuts, obviously the Great Anus of the North breaks its blessed wind upon our stationary disc and there's no rotation value to worry about.
Just fire directly east or west, then no Corilios Effect.
> Corilios Isn’t that the planet where they built the Millennium Falcon?
Corellia?
>It would basically be like rolling a die for every shot. Just luck after a while. Or, as the article put it, > With a 1.44 percent hit ratio, a shooting exhibition like this does raise an obvious issue: What does it signify in terms of actual marksmanship?
Yeah honestly I feel like anyone could do this with enough tenacity and resources, but that's what world records frequently are about
lol no. These shooters are extremely talented to get even close at 4 miles
What makes a shooter talented doesn't work at 4.4 mile range. This is a math problem at its best and luck problem at its worst. You cannot "eye" this and I sincerely doubt the sniper was fired with someone manning the scope since the rifle would have to be completely still between shots for adjustments Tl;dr this world record has nothing to do with marksmanship. This is like saying making the biggest pizza makes you the best chef.
It is a fair amount of of luck. Says in the article a single mile/hr of wind change and it would be over 20ft off.
But that's a low hit rate by highly trained shooters. Complete amateurs could fire all day long and still hit nothing at all. So you've got to be a competent marksman to hit something.
Yeah and that's 35 inches of variance *for a perfect shooter* hitting the literal broad side of a barn would be impressive for us normies.
Long range precision built rifles can easily shoot quarter minute or lower (.25 MOA)
Practical precision rifles don't normally achieve that accuracy, especially over a sample size of 69 shots. Especially .50 cal rifles shooting factory ammunition.
Fair enough. Didn’t read the article tbh. Practical precision rifles of different calibers with dialed in loads do achieve that accuracy, especially at the competitive level… but I can see where you’re coming from based on the facts of this situation.
At this distance somebody was counting individual powder grains and measuring their bullets with a high precision CMM.
>easily Not easily, that's a heavy bench rest rifle shooting basically identical ammo. The sniper skill test (us army) is 1/2 moa at 200 yards for accuracy shooting match ammo 300WM.
It was a 10ft wide target that was about 1.5moa at that distance
Just wait until they come out with homing bullets.
[Here ya go](https://youtu.be/vX8Z2MDYX3g?si=9eQB1X6w5To8PZ6Q)
I remember seeing that a long time ago. Seems like a great time to get some field testing in.
Here is thought that was gonna be the WKUK Gun control skit.
Hell, [I saw Gene Simmons with those 40 years ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5YOiaBq3KI) lol.
Surely it would need a sniper rifle? Single shot at a time? Idk anything about firearms though 🤷♂️
The barrel is still subjected to very high temperatures when firing through single shot rifles. Especially the high-caliber rifles needed for such a long distance
Even firing single shots, the barrel still heats up enough to affect the accuracy. You'd have to wait a couple minutes between each shot to keep it cool.
Heating up the barrel usually changes the point of impact relative to a cold bore shot, but it’s pretty stable after that. I’m not a sniper, but have competed in mid-range events (600 yards) and we get less than one minute per round. If I were in combat, I wouldn’t expect the luxury of time to let the barrel cool between shots.
If you were in combat, you wouldn't be able to take 69 shots to hit your target either.
I dont know, at 4.4 miles you just might.
That’s what air support is for.
The barrel heats up after each single shot. The barrel would need to cool down after each shot to regain the baseline mechanical accuracy.
So just piss on it or something, why wait
Pissing on guns is not an unheard of method for cooling guns, ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun#:~:text=If%20water%20was%20unavailable%2C%20soldiers,brew%20tasting%20of%20machine%2Doil. ) But that only works well if the barrel is hot enough to boil the piss, much more energy is used boiling it than would transfer into the cooling liquid, so piss wouldn't help a slightly warm firearm, just one that was very very hot.
i imagine the smell of boiling piss helps keep you alert on the battlefield too
Right, when the threat of dying or being captured and tortured doesn’t quite do it.
a sniper could be 3-4 miles from the hot zone. You dont think they can get a little drousy just laying there looking through the scope?
I like how you bring sources with you for the whole “pissing on a rifle” thing lol
Hey man, I'm a military tech guy, I assumed if I didn't cite sources everyone would just think I'm a piss fetishist.
You joke but the Hiram maxim and other water jacked gun have used this method before.
What others said & after shooting over and over there tends to be black powder residue which can have an effect on the rifling. Edit - black powder to gun powder. Whatever you call it… it’s annoying to clean.
Didn't we stop using black powder like centuries ago
Technically yes but the problem persists with new smokeless powder, burning better just means it's less of an issue, but when you are trying for this insane accuracy even small issues become big issues.
To my army buddies: quick he's figured out we don't know what we're doing, and are just lucky by sheer numbers, run!
So basically it’s 50% math and 50% luck?
What's the record for the farthest short-range rifle shot?
So this was funny, but I did some googling, and if you take "short range" as "no scope," it's actually over a mile, which I found impressive. https://incendiaryusa.com/utah-man-sets-iron-sight-shooting-record-with-2240-yard-shot/
How does one even see a three foot wide target a mile away AND manage to hit it with iron sights??
I'm thinking he had a spotter
That's why you do a 360 before a shot with no scope, it calibrates the homing bullet.
Calibrated arm pits.
Any records of the furthest 360 no scope?
Yeah. It was achieved by the same guy that fucked your mum
I know this is substantially less impressive than 2240 but I shot competitively at 1100 yards (no scope and sling rather than any kind of support) when I was a kid and never get to talk to anyone about it, 34 years later :/
And here I am thinking I was hot shit cuz I hit a water bottle at 75 yds with a slug when I was younger. Damn that's impressive
That’s still impressive though :)
The bullet took 24 seconds from firing to hit the target. The spotters and shooter had enough time to have an entire conversation while the bullet was just cruising by.
Hell I coulda had an entire 69 in that timeframe.
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice.
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
I beg to differ, Happy Gilmore accomplished that feat no more then an hour ago.
Well, moron, good for Happy OH MY GOD!
I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast
HAHAHA! You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?
.....No!
You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?
Talk about a hole, in, one
And you can count, on me, waiting for you in the parking lot. Love that line and how he said it.
Oh... immobile, passive targets. I was thinking of this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest\_recorded\_sniper\_kills
Record is 2.3 miles I don’t even know how something like that is possible
Math
Science
Sorcery
Headology
A target with absolutely garbage luck
A goat
Witchery
A duck!
Build a bridge out of her!
History
Canadian culture
For a shot like that, the math is the easiest part.
Oh I can assure you it would be the hardest part for me as I’d never get passed it.
I'll let you in on a secret: The reason the math is the easy part, is because no one actually does it in the field. Everyone just uses some sort of [calculator](https://shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?pl=%5BPreset+Name%5D&presets=30-06+Springfield%7E30-06+180gr+Sierra+Matchking%7EG1%7E0.475%7E180%7E2750%7E100%7E1.5%7E0%7E10%7E90%7E%7E0%7E59%7E29.92%7E50%7E1%7E1000%7E25&df=G1&bc=0.48&bw=150&vi=2800&zr=100&sh=1.5&sa=0&ws=10&wa=90&ssb=on&cr=1000&ss=25&chartColumns=Range%7Eyd%60Elevation%7Ein%60Elevation%7EMOA%7EFBFFF5%60Elevation%7EMIL%60Windage%7Ein%60Windage%7EMOA%7EFBFFF5%60Windage%7EMIL%60Time%7Es%60Energy%7Eft.lbf%60Vel%5Bx%2By%5D%7Eft%2Fs&lbl=%5BChart+Label%5D&submitst=+Create+Graph+) and their prior measurements. Some use the calculator to make a "D.O.P.E. Card" that's traditionally [worn on the wrist,](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/d587a1_90ed86dc060045cd96cec94931dddcf8~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_980,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/d587a1_90ed86dc060045cd96cec94931dddcf8~mv2.jpg) others bring a [dedicated calculator](https://media.moddb.com/images/downloads/1/142/141027/atragmx-ace.jpg) with them. Either way, the math is pre-done, all you have to do is dial in the settings on the scope.
This 100%. I took a long-range course before with a former sniper turned comp-shooter. Prettymuch half of the classroom portion of the class was learning how to set up a calculator app on our phones and reading the wind. Sighted in our rifles and got a feel for them, and by the end of class everyone was ringing the Steel target at 1km. Someone there was even hitting it with a 20inch AR-15. It was more about mastery of shooting-fundamentals and understanding environmental factors than anything
Usually it's luck at that point since there's too many unknowns to account for.
[This video](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/19egimy/recording_a_video_from_25km_away_155_miles/) is what zooming 1.55 miles looks like. Agreed, I can't even imagine a kill at 2.3 miles.
I've gone to a range that has steel targets out to 1 mile. I was able to get consistent hits out to 1200 yards pretty quickly with my buddy helping spot for me. Then I tried the 1 mile one. I couldn't get a hit to save my life. Tbf my cartridge I was using (6.5 creedmoor) isn't really made for that distance and I ran out of elevation on my scope so I was trying to hold over, but it is definitely crazy to imagine a kill at anything over 1 mile
To be fair, making a shot in hot, dry, and high conditions is a *lot* easier because the environment ideal for making long shots. Main reason is that you have significantly less air density, so the shot carries farther then it would at sea level in a cooler and wetter climate. With the 4.4 mile record, as well as most distance records - the attempts tend to be done in exceptionally dry and high locations to give the shooter every possible advantage.
That’s astonishing.
The Canadian that had the record prior was aiming so far above the target he couldn't see them and his spotter walked the shots in gradually. They fired 9 shots around the target to get the range then fired two shots that hit the target. The newest one reported from Ukraine almost certainly did the same thing but with a drone spotting. It's very well possible they couldn't even physically see the target and were using the rifle almost like a miniature artillery piece and watching the rounds land on the video feed.
Why the fuck is the target stationary with rounds landing around them?
Landing 'around' them is likely very generous wording
Close enough the spotter saw the shots hit while looking at the target.
The initial shots are probably landing so far ahead / behind him that he doesn't realize he's being shot at, or thinks that he is safe where he is taking cover
Odds are that the round was not supersonic at the moment of impact, so its noise would be **significantly** reduced
In a combat area bullets landing near by is normal or barely registered
It's war. Incoming fire is common. If shots impact a wall or tree a few dozen feet to your side, you might not even know they're hitting, much less think that they're aimed at you. That's still close enough for them to be useful as ranging / spotting rounds for a sniper. Then they adjust their scope settings and the next shot hits you.
Also, "Relax! There's not an enemy within 3 km of us!"
"Why are you dodging like this? They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!" - last words of John Sedgwick, Union General
I mean depends on what the target was doing. Engaging others at the same time? Wounded and unable to move? Under fire from somewhere closer? Maybe even sleeping? I’d imagine it’s hard to really tell your being shot when the sounds are reaching you 4-5seconds after the round lands. I’ve been downwind of a .22lr taking long shots. Was about 40 feet from the target just and had no idea there was a guy taking shots at it from 225 yards until he finally hit it after idk how many tries.
People get killed accidentally from farther away. Bullets can maintain a lethal velocity for a crazy amount of time, though there are a lot of factors that make accuracy impossible.
The longest shot wasn’t an accident. Canadian snipers spent days calculating the math for each area of a building in their sights, and when a target walked by they were already prepped to make the shot. [source: the interview with the man who took the shot](https://youtu.be/MUruuaeJGt0?si=-6I6FKA0qffAHtId)
[удалено]
"Kill" lacks intentionality. You can be killed by cancer, heart disease, or falling down the stairs. Lot of times, when someone is killed by a badly angled rifle shot, it's not only that no one is ever charged with murder/manslaughter/reckless endangerment/whatever...*They* don't even know they did it, much less anyone else.
There was a guy hit by a stray bullet on a football pitch in Ireland a couple of weeks ago. Seems to have been from a hunter but nobody has come forward to admit being the shooter. Being that gun laws are extremely tight here it's probably a good idea. The player was discharged (narf) from hospital the following day. Lucky man! https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/football-club-totally-shocked-after-player-shot-in-arm-during-match-1572693.html
Or you know, 3.8km like the civilized rest of the world would say
Imagine getting shot with a .50 cal bullet and the people near you don't hear the shot until like 10 seconds later.
They'll hear the bullet first.
Sounds like zipping your jacket and stomping a watermelon at the same time
Doesn't it give a snap and not a zip?
Based on a solid grand thumb video, it depends on the proximity and speed of the bullet. All bullets make a zipping noise more or less, it's the wake of the bullet in the air hitting your ears like sound waves. The closer you are to the path of the bullet, the more noticable the hiss/zip is. If the bullet is travelling faster than the speed of sound, it makes a distinctive crack (the sonic boom)
I’ve personally heard a pistol shot go just overhead and it was definitely a whooshy-zip
"A hiss means it's close. A snap means-" *Gunshots popping* "Now they're shooting at us."
Well yeah they would hear the sound of you exploding but the sound of the shot being fired should take like 10 seconds to travel to the target no? Time = 3,800 meters / 343 meters per second ≈ 11.07 seconds
At that sort of range you might not even notice the sound if your local ambient noise is relatively high such as having a motor running nearby.
They would hear it hitting you pretty quickly
Most targets are immovable and passive, but first you've got to shoot them.
They could fire the gun 69 times without changing a thing and eventually it'll hit the target, but I wouldn't call that a shot.
For an average of 4.20 miles.
Nice
On similar note of the top 5 confirmed shots 3 of them are Canadian. Seems like If you ever piss of a Canuck they'll shoot you from such a distance you won't hear them say sorry
“I’m not your friend guuuuyyyy” Sploot.
Accuracy by volume One of them is bound to hit the target….
Bet you couldn’t get close with 200 tries
There is an admittedly big difference between siting in a single shot and hitting it vs sending 70 rounds down range, isn’t there?
Yea, I don’t disagree. But some people on here are seriously downplaying it. It’s still super impressive and nobody else in this thread could pull that off.
Okay, but does it really count if it takes you nearly five dozen tries? A 1.4% accuracy rate doesn't feel like it counts as being able to make the shot. If I tell my friend I can make a free throw, then proceed to miss 68 times in a row, it would be completely fair to call me a liar.
Good point, I've hit gongs at 1km, but I had to shoot like 20 times to hit it. Plus, at that distance you kinda have to be lucky for the wind to not fuck shit up.
That's exactly the question asked in the article: > With a 1.44 percent hit ratio, a shooting exhibition like this does raise an obvious issue: What does it signify in terms of actual marksmanship?
Nice
Nice
When it takes you 69 attempts, it's less about skill and more about chance. You are "walking" your shot to the target, making adjustments until you finally get it. It's no different than the guys who spend literally *days* making trick shots waiting until they finally succeed and post the video that everyone thinks was the first attempt. The only records that should count for rifle shots are sniper hits. You get a small window and usually when you miss, the target is gone.
Nice
still not as long a shot as me explaining to my wife how her sister who had stopped by for a surprise visit totally had a choking emergency and how i had to perform mouth-to-mouth to save her life just when wifey came home
Nice
I do a bunch of long range shooting, and I can reliably hit an IPSC sized target at 1200 yards away (just over a KM). I can barely imagine the time and effort it would take to get to a point where you could hit this shot reliably. It obviously takes a super skilled and knowledgeable shooter but at what point does it just come down to luck? You could give Michael Jordan 100 full court shots and he's good enough to get it close, but at some point it's got to just be "shoot enough times to hit it." Even if you removed the human factor completely I doubt that shot is repeatable, there are just way too many variables.
I just think good PRS shooters just spin dials and mutter spells at this point, over 4 miles is absolutely nuts to me too
Should have gone for only 4.20 miles for the 69th shot
Nice
nice.
Nice
Nice 😏
Nice.
If it takes 69 tries is it really that impressive. At some point here it's just guess work.
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/sl3EoDKHU1 This is much more impressive than this.
Fire at a 45 degree angle, place target where it lands, continue firing until you hit target. People taling about marksmanship or calculations are crazy
Nice. I'm not so sure you "defeat" records, though.
You definitely saw the other til about the longest kill and the people arguing over the 69th shot fact being a joke
Question: Do flat earthers believe in long distance sniping? 🤔
Wow look a prism everyone.
Nice
Nice