New record - 6,012 yard (3.4 mile) shot made

[NorCalAthlete]

Weaponized math.

youtu.be/K55ElIZeEnY

 

[Dubbington]

No comments on this?

I'm not sure if I'm impressed or not. One of the comments on the video claimed that they simply moved the target to align with the landing of bullet. Probably not the case but plausible.

I'd much prefer to see 2 mile shots with less technology etc.

 

[berth]

I'm not sure if I'm impressed or not. One of the comments on the video claimed that they simply moved the target to align with the landing of bullet. Probably not the case but plausible.

I'd much prefer to see 2 mile shots with less technology etc.

If they were moving the target, then it's even less impressive.

On the face, to me, it's not THAT impressive. The distance seems a bit contrived. 6,012 yard? Why not 6000, or 5000, or some other decimally inclined number that humans like to use.

It's not clear to me how much input the shooter had in the equation. Holding the rifle, what "650 MOA", or some other nonsensical number. Did the shooter even have eyes on target?

Those folks that were launching those rounds looked really casual. I didn't see a lot of patience on the trigger, any real focus on breathing, etc. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, maybe these guys are really really good at it. But, I would think taking such a shot would be more involved for the shooter.

I mean, what is the CEP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable ) of one of those rounds at that range? (That's grouping to us 100 yard shooters) If it's larger than that target, then hitting it is just luck, no matter how good the shooter. I would have been more impressed if they followed up the hit with another one deeper in to the target.

EDIT: 1 MOA is 1" at 100 yards. So 1 MOA is 60" at 6000 yards. This was a 48x32" target, which means the rifle had to shoot 1/2 MOA. Not unrealistic for a quality rifle and ammunition. Unless my math is completely horked.


Didn't see a lot of flags on that range. Measuring wind speed at the source, 3 miles from the target? Not really useful.

Because, in the end, this seems like a demonstration of artillery more-so than marksmanship. I appreciate that it's all ballistics in the end.

I lobbed some 9mm rounds from a every day Glock off to a 100 or 200 yard gong once, and, after a few rounds, I hit it. It was neat, but I didn't feel particularly accomplished doing it.

In the end, good on them. I hope this is some example of the accuracy and consistency of the rifle and ammunition if nothing else. I wasn't there, I didn't do it. It's just that it's quite different from a single 2000 yard sniper shot in a hot desert against something that can duck (though I think it at least one event, they missed with the first shot but it didn't alert the target).

 

[HadesOmega]

At least they are still pulling the trigger with their finger. At those ranges there are more variables to account for. Like the the curvature of the earth and it's rotation. Coriolis effect. They're pretty much just lobbing the bullets at the target like artillery.

 

[Sharxfan]

That is a long way to shoot. So many things have to go into making that shot I mean if you are just an inch off at 100yds that can translate to huge distances at 3 miles. Would be cool if it was legit but with video nowadays you can never be sure what they are doing to make it look good.

 

[berth]

That is a long way to shoot. So many things have to go into making that shot I mean if you are just an inch off at 100yds that can translate to huge distances at 3 miles. Would be cool if it was legit but with video nowadays you can never be sure what they are doing to make it look good.

Oh I think it's legit. Who brags about a shot that 1/2" on the edge of 30" target .

Simply, for me, as long as the shooter had his eye on a reticle and was responsible for lining it up with the target, then it's his shot. No matter the pre-computed ballistics and whatever other was involved in preparing the shot.

If he was holding the rifle, eyeballing the target and squeezing the trigger with is heart beating finger -- it's a good shot.

HOW they got a reticle on the target with a 650ish MOA hold over on it, that I don't know. They'd need an instrument mounted to the side of the barrel somehow.

But I would have liked a followup shot. Hit it once, should be able to hit it twice.

 

[Sharxfan]

That's what I mean. If you move a tiny bit from shot to shot you are missing at that range. I think they hit it that one time and then he shot again and it was short. I wonder if at that range the second shot ran out of juice and that is why it is short. Would be curious to run the ballistics on that round and see what FPS it was doing at that range, it could even have started tumbling and we would never know. Some high speed cameras on the target side would have been interesting to see if the bullet was still stable at that range.

Does anyone even know if he could see the target at that range through the scope or they just measured the inclination of the barrel and the general direction and just let it fly based on that info just like artillery like was mentioned before.