Really long tv shot at sheep
TimR
wasting some of it in front of the tube, watched a few hunts on one of
those outdoor cable channels.
In this one, a guy who'd never fired a rifle ended up drawing a sheep
tag. Using a 7 mm Mag, he took his sheep at 765 yards, ranged with a
laser. The scope took a chunk out of his eyebrow. He was using a
couple of backpacks piled up for a rest, didn't look too steady to
me.
Do you think it's possible? I know I couldn't make that shot (and
therefore wouldn't attempt it.) I know there are people who can, but
a newbie? On a television hunt? I don't want to be too skeptical but
my BS meter is just back from recalibration, and I'm afraid it may
need work again.
Actually, my laser doesn't even work that far. I was cheap and bought
the 400 yard version, reasoning I'd never shoot even that far so an
800 yard one would be overkill.
------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Win an M1 Garand from Fulton Armory while helping the Cause!
Details of the MPFO rifle raffle are at http://myguns.org/
------------------------------------------------------------
IGot2P
> ...
Well, if a 7 mm Mag is zeroed in at 200 yards it will be about 7 inches
low at 300 yards so at 765 yards he had to be aiming clear the hell over
the top of the sheep. Of course maybe he had it zeroed in at 700 yards
but that is very doubtful.
Don
Jim
"TimR" <timot...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:hhra9c$910$1...@news.albasani.net...
# In this one, a guy who'd never fired a rifle ended up drawing a sheep
# tag. Using a 7 mm Mag, he took his sheep at 765 yards, ranged with a
# laser. The scope took a chunk out of his eyebrow.
# Do you think it's possible?
Possible, sure.
I think the scoped eyebrow was a suitable punishment, though.
George
George in Las Vegas
Gunner Asch
wrote:
> ...
Actually..Id believe it more with a newbie shooter than with an amature
shooter, as long as the newbie listened and followed directions and had
someone to adjust his scope.
While its interesting..its not exactly rocket science to hit something
as big as a sheep at long range
Gunner
Ed
Shot a running jack rabbit at about 100 yards with a 22 pistol when I was
young..... using a S&W Model 41. I like to think my marksmanship and
skill was a factor.... maybe improved the odds... but still I would say it
was luck. It was nice to have a witness, though.
Ed in Oregon
book...@yahoo.com
Here in Alaska we were treated recently to a TV documentary of a
caribou-hunting trip of ex-football star Larry Czonka. His guides and
film crew got him within shooting distance of a herd, and he took a
shot at rest with what looked to be a scoped SS medium caliber, but he
either missed or only wounded one at about 150 yards. So then as the
herd ran off and up a hillside, he stood up and sighted in again,
finally took a shot at what must have been 300+ yards, tumbling a bull
down the hill. Guides congratulated him on making a great shot from a
standing position without any support. Questionable whether a
responsible guide would okay such a shot, even assuming it was the
wounded animal. bookburn
Long Ranger
The typical beginner has a bunch of new-technology bells and whistles along
with him. One thing that has been refined a bunch in recent years is the
idea of long-range shooting. There are lots of rangefinders, ballistic
reticles and different high-tech gadgetry and such that make that shot not
only possible, but likely for the beginner. If he had enough coin for a trip
like that, he probably had the latest junk. Maybe even an auto-comp scope
with his own load in it.
Louis Boyd
# In this one, a guy who'd never fired a rifle ended up drawing a sheep
# tag. Using a 7 mm Mag, he took his sheep at 765 yards, ranged with a
# laser. The scope took a chunk out of his eyebrow. He was using a
# couple of backpacks piled up for a rest, didn't look too steady to
# me.
#
# Do you think it's possible? I know I couldn't make that shot (and
# therefore wouldn't attempt it.) I know there are people who can, but
# a newbie? On a television hunt? I don't want to be too skeptical but
# my BS meter is just back from recalibration, and I'm afraid it may
# need work again.
Since it was a "TV" shoot there was probably a knowledgeable shooter
along who set up the rifle. The reason to measure the distance is to
calculate the drop and assist in determining windage. A person who had
never fired a rifle would not have a clue how to do that and would
simply miss. If someone properly set the scope and handed the guy the
rifle then putting the crosshairs on the sheep and pulling the trigger
would not be a difficult shot off of the bags.
A person who has never fired a rifle has no business hunting, certainly
not at that range. The probability of just wounding the animal is
high. The shot is nothing to be proud of. But you see a lot of dumb
stuff on TV. Did they show the guy dressing out the sheep and preparing
the meat for storage or just leave the carcass for the vultures?
clarkm...@gmail.com
the client.
If he thinks the client is shooting 2moa with that rifle, and if the
guide has tested the rifle at ~765 yards, and the animal kill zone is
~ 3 moa at that distance, and if there is no wind, then there is a
good chance of hitting it.
That is allot of "if"s.
Two months ago I was testing some 7mmRemMag rifles at 500 yards.
I know I could do it at 500 yards, but I would not want to, if I
thought I could stalk closer.
TimR
wrote:
# The first thing the guide is going to do is some target shooting with
# the client.
#
# If he thinks the client is shooting 2moa with that rifle, and if the
# guide has tested the rifle at ~765 yards, and the animal kill zone is
# ~ 3 moa at that distance, and if there is no wind, then there is a
# good chance of hitting it.
I would hope that happens. They made a big deal out of "never shot a
rifle before" but I would hope that meant before the hunt, not before
the actual shot at game.
Do you really think a newbie shoots 2 moa? I certainly didn't. More
like 15 moa, first time they handed me a .30/06 at work. Of course
that shrank pretty fast with a little coaching, but still.
3 moa at 765 yards is somewhere around 23 inches. The sheep dropped
in place, a "bang-flop." Perhaps there were a few misses and/or
wounded animals edited out of the tape. They told the shooter how
far, but he didn't change the scope settings; maybe they knew it was
going to be a long shot?
My guess, it may have been really about 200 yards; they told the guy
more to boost his ego and get a bigger tip. But that's just me being
cynical.
Bandit
question. What show was it on so we can all try to find it. It seems
suspect from your description though. But anything is possible.
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
# My guess, it may have been really about 200 yards; they told the guy
# more to boost his ego and get a bigger tip. �But that's just me being
# cynical.
It could have also been bad technique with the rangefinder, getting a
reading against the landscape way beyond/behind the sheep.
Larry Caldwell
says...
# Do you think it's possible? I know I couldn't make that shot (and
# therefore wouldn't attempt it.) I know there are people who can, but
# a newbie? On a television hunt? I don't want to be too skeptical but
# my BS meter is just back from recalibration, and I'm afraid it may
# need work again.
If you believe anything you see on TV, I think you need a whole new BS
meter. All "reality TV" is staged.
D. Staples
# In article <hhra9c$910$1...@news.albasani.net>, timot...@aol.com (TimR)
# says...
#
# # Do you think it's possible? I know I couldn't make that shot (and
# # therefore wouldn't attempt it.) I know there are people who can, but
# # a newbie? On a television hunt? I don't want to be too skeptical but
# # my BS meter is just back from recalibration, and I'm afraid it may
# # need work again.
#
# If you believe anything you see on TV, I think you need a whole new BS
# meter. All "reality TV" is staged.
Particularly if there is a commercial service involved.
Brian Goralczyk
> ...
I can't believe you guys can't just say, he got lucky, good for him.
All I hear are people crying about this or that. It happened, he hit
it, he probably couldn't do it again, good for him. Get on with life.
We all know tv is staged. We all know the odds of that shot by anyone
not trained for it are slim.
clarkm...@gmail.com
> ...
This has to be the video: right yards, and face is bleeding.
http://www.gunwerks.com/Testimonials/Videos/Dustin-Lym---Wyoming-Bighorn-Sheep-at-765-Yards.aspx
TimR
wrote:
> ...
Yes, that was the one.
I had forgotten the shooter was left handed. I now withdraw my
skepticism. <g>
Mike Marlow
"Brian Goralczyk" <bgora...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hi2uno$2b6$1...@news.albasani.net...
# On Jan 5, 11:03 am, "D. Staples" <foreste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# > ...
#
# I can't believe you guys can't just say, he got lucky, good for him.
# All I hear are people crying about this or that. It happened, he hit
# it, he probably couldn't do it again, good for him. Get on with life.
#
# We all know tv is staged. We all know the odds of that shot by anyone
# not trained for it are slim.
#
I'm with ya, but I'm not so sure he couldn't do it again. One thing I've
noticed about this group is that the regulars hype some sort of extra
special skill that is required to simply shoot a gun accurately. It's got
to be all about range time, lots of ammo and some sort of mysticism. Hell,
I've been shooting, loading and hunting for over 40 years and I've never had
to resort to the range time, the perfect load, the perfect gun, and all the
other stuff that the zealots here talk about. In my opinion, it's a lot
easier to shoot accurately than most here want to admit.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
clarkm...@gmail.com
My quest for accuracy began in 1957 by seeing my cousin open his
Christmas presents, find a bow and arrows with suction tips, and by
aiming, knock the star off the top of his parent's Christmas tree.
By 1961, I was practicing in my parent's garage with my Daisy model
25 BB gun, using the peep sight to hit a nail at the distance of a
car length.
In November 1995 I began posting on rec.guns, but I had already been
lurking for a couple years, reading about the 1" 5 shot group at 100
yards.
I would read how everyone got such a group on the internet, but at the
local ranges, it took years before I saw someone get a 1" group. That
guy was at the range every day with his Win70 coyote .223 and bunny
eared rear bag. When he got the group, it was like catching a big
fish... everyone there wanted to know how he did it.
But I was not getting any 1" groups.
In March 2002, I bought (3) Lothar Walther .257" barrel blanks in 2100
[light varmint] taper.
We cut threads, .257 Roberts Ackley Improved chambers on those
barrels.
We bought a Jet 13x40 lathe and started building gunsmithing tooling.
We drilled and tapped, bent bolts, trued the face of the large ring,
trued the face of the bolt, lapped the lugs, and glass bedded VZ24
rifles we got on sale at BIG5 for $70. I got Forster dies and 72 gr
MEF moly coated Berger bullets. I sorted brass by weight. I chamfered
the case mouth. I polished the inside of the case necks. I polished
the case mouths. I put a 40X scope on the rifle. The first group out
of that rifle with formed brass we better than a 1" group. I had
finally done it. With in week, that rifle broke the 1/2" group
barrier.
Over the last 10 years, it seemed to me that people at ranges started
getting better. I would often see someone get a 1" group at a range,
if 20 people were shooting rifles with scopes.
In 2008 I bought Leica CRF 1200Y range finder.
I managed to hit a deer at 510 yards with hold over, but elk at 625
yards I missed.
My years of shooting at 100 yard ranges had not prepared me for long
range hunting.
In 2009 I set up a target on a hill in the badlands, and at 429 yards,
I ranged, I adjusted the elevation on my scope, and I got a
4" 3 shot group with a 7mmRemMag built on a VZ24 action.
I got a 5" 3 shot group with a 270 ultra light built on a pre 64 M70
action.
I backed up to 500 yards and verified that I still had the accuracy I
needed to take a shot.
I filled my 5 tags between 329 and 510 yards by adjusting the scope
elevation, using 7 rounds of ammo.
What does it all mean?
After 52 years of accuracy quest, I am still not up to 765 yard shots
at ruminants.
Maybe next year, I am still building more rifles.
It could happen.
Mike Marlow
Hey Clark - that was a very enjoyable read - thank you.
Bob Holtzman
#
# I'm with ya, but I'm not so sure he couldn't do it again. One thing I've
# special skill that is required to simply shoot a gun accurately. It's got
# to be all about range time, lots of ammo and some sort of mysticism. Hell,
# I've been shooting, loading and hunting for over 40 years and I've never had
# to resort to the range time, the perfect load, the perfect gun, and all the
# other stuff that the zealots here talk about. In my opinion, it's a lot
# easier to shoot accurately than most here want to admit.
"Shooting accurately" is open to interpretation. What's accurate to you
and I are most likely two different things. I used to volunteer to help
at our club's sight in days. In all the time I did that I only saw *one*
individual that came out to sight in that could shoot a 3" group at 200 yd.
*off the bench*.
In addition, I used to put in a lot of time shooting at Ben Avery on the
public range and I can count the number of people I saw shoot a sub MOA
group (which isn't considered a barn burner any more) on the fingers of
one hand.
Sorry, but I'm not convinced.
--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer"
Mike Marlow
"Bob Holtzman" <hol...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hi5plb$mdl$1...@news.albasani.net...
#
# "Shooting accurately" is open to interpretation. What's accurate to you
# and I are most likely two different things. I used to volunteer to help
# at our club's sight in days. In all the time I did that I only saw *one*
# individual that came out to sight in that could shoot a 3" group at 200
# yd.
# *off the bench*.
Ok, that makes a good talking point. I would ask what level of accuracy is
required for the type of gun and target that we viewed in the video - for a
kill shot? I don't disagree with your observations because I cannot
disagree with what you observed. But, kill shots do not require the MOA
standards that precision target shooters strive for.
#
# In addition, I used to put in a lot of time shooting at Ben Avery on the
# public range and I can count the number of people I saw shoot a sub MOA
# group (which isn't considered a barn burner any more) on the fingers of
# one hand.
Ok again, but once again - the video was about a guy shooting a goat - not
about a guy shooting sub MOA on a range. There is a difference.
#
# Sorry, but I'm not convinced.
#
And maybe you will remain un-convinced, but I think the discussion is worth
the time.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
.
Leythos
says...
# I'm with ya, but I'm not so sure he couldn't do it again.
When I was a young kid, laying out in a field with a 22 rifle, shooting
up in the sky at birds, I actually hit one that I was aiming at - almost
40 years later I have never been able to do it again (only tried a few
times).... the magic of that one shot.....
TimR
#
# #
# # Sorry, but I'm not convinced.
# #
#
# And maybe you will remain un-convinced, but I think the discussion is worth
# the time.
#
# --
#
# -Mike-
# mmarlowREM...@windstream.net
#
I think it's worth the discussion, too. Of course I'm prejudiced, I
started it. <grin>
If you saw the video, you saw how unsteady the rest was as he tried to
get comfortable. Crosshairs had to be bouncing all over the place.
I was skeptical about two different things. One is the ability of a
newbie (or an occasional shooter) to hold and squeeze steadily enough
to hit at long range.
But that wasn't my real problem with it. It was the lack of any
discussion of trajectory. If there had been any instructions at all
like "it's 765 yards, hold 20 inches high" or "you need 14 clicks up
on the scope turret" or "use the second mil-dot" then I would have
probably never wondered. There is no way a newbie has a clue about
drop at various range. I expected the pro to instruct him.
I have to qualify this. I've never owned a 7 mm Mag and really don't
know how flat they shoot. I've done a very large amount of shooting
with low powered airguns, and to be wrong on a range estimate more
than a couple yards means a miss high or low. Perhaps I'm too
sensitive.
I have a 25 foot indoor range and deer targets scaled to simulate 100,
200, and 300 yards. They look pretty small! Even with the scope, and
the crosshairs are starting to be a significant chunk of the body. I
just took an offhand shot at a 300 yard paper deer, and gut shot it
badly. No way we'd recover that one in the kind of terrain shown in
that video. 765 is less than half the size, even with a solid rest
I'd have trouble holding on the animal.
David R.Birch
From the video, he didn't seem to be an inexperienced shooter. He
said he had never shot THAT rifle before.
David
Misifus
# From the video, he didn't seem to be an inexperienced shooter. He
# said he had never shot THAT rifle before.
#
#
That was my understanding. Also, that they didn't film a discussion of
trajectory doesn't mean it didn't take place. Although, at that range,
and uphill, it seems like a pretty tough shot to me.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com
Robert Scott
#
# I have a 25 foot indoor range and deer targets scaled to simulate 100,
# 200, and 300 yards. They look pretty small! Even with the scope, and
# the crosshairs are starting to be a significant chunk of the body. I
# just took an offhand shot at a 300 yard paper deer, and gut shot it
# badly. No way we'd recover that one in the kind of terrain shown in
# that video. 765 is less than half the size, even with a solid rest
# I'd have trouble holding on the animal.
Through the magic of television, you never get to see how many they
gut-shoot before getting the "just right" shot for the program.
Shoot your television,
desmobob
Tony W
# Through the magic of television, you never get to see how many they
# gut-shoot before getting the "just right" shot for the program.
#
# Shoot your television,
# desmobob
Odds are they just lied about the distance...
Tony
Mike Marlow
# get comfortable. Crosshairs had to be bouncing all over the place.
#
Yeah - I did see how he had to move around quite a bit to get into a
comfortable position. Bad selection of shooting spots in my opinion. It's
not like they had to worry about the critters seeing them and spooking, if
they moved a few yards to a better spot. But... As far as steady goes,
once he got into a position where he could lay behind the gun, it's quite
reasonable to expect he could keep the gun steady. Those packs are really
all you would need to support the gun. Hell, lots of us have used truck
hoods, tree limbs, and other assorted less than perfect rests before.
# I was skeptical about two different things. One is the ability of a
# newbie (or an occasional shooter) to hold and squeeze steadily enough
# to hit at long range.
That was the one part I was not at all skeptical of. I've shot with a lot
of people who never had an issue with a nice gentle squeeze. New people. A
gentle squeeze is not really something that is a learned skill.
#
# But that wasn't my real problem with it. It was the lack of any
# discussion of trajectory. If there had been any instructions at all
# like "it's 765 yards, hold 20 inches high" or "you need 14 clicks up
# on the scope turret" or "use the second mil-dot" then I would have
# probably never wondered. There is no way a newbie has a clue about
# drop at various range. I expected the pro to instruct him.
#
I do agree. I'm of the mind that the clip was edited heavily or that the
guide had in some way prep'd for the clip. Either by instruction, or
setting the gun up, or something. To be fair - the clip was of them set up
and ready to take the shot - it's not like they tried to portray them
walking into the shot.
# I have to qualify this. I've never owned a 7 mm Mag and really don't
# know how flat they shoot. I've done a very large amount of shooting
# with low powered airguns, and to be wrong on a range estimate more
# than a couple yards means a miss high or low. Perhaps I'm too
# sensitive.
No, you're not wrong. I just suspect there was a lot more setup than what
the clip portrayed.
#
# I have a 25 foot indoor range and deer targets scaled to simulate 100,
# 200, and 300 yards. They look pretty small! Even with the scope, and
# the crosshairs are starting to be a significant chunk of the body. I
# just took an offhand shot at a 300 yard paper deer, and gut shot it
# badly. No way we'd recover that one in the kind of terrain shown in
# that video. 765 is less than half the size, even with a solid rest
# I'd have trouble holding on the animal.
#
Lots different equipment.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
TimR
> ...
I'm no longer curious about the show. I am still curious about the
holdover.
Just for my own education, would someone mind explaining: for what
range would you sight in a 7mm Mag for a sheep hunt? How much then
would the holdover be at 765, and would you do it by estimation or mil-
dot, or would you be clicking away at the turret knobs like the field
target guys do?
Brian Goralczyk
> ...
I will say this much. Using a 7mm Ultra Mag for numbers, the amount
of drop at 750 yards is 124 inches. The moa adjustment is 7.1. I
don't know if this is the bullet they were using, but this is some
idea of how the bullet performs.
Again, there is always that magical aspect of beginners luck. Also, I
find a lot of new shooters are better than people that have some
shooting experience because they don't think of everything else. They
just take the shoot. I am sure he got some coaching, whether we saw
it or not.
I took a 645 yard shot with my 22-250 which had a hold over of about
10 feet. I hit the target dead center. All I needed was the hold
over. I am NOT an ace shooter, but I am pretty good.
I still say, kuddos to him.
TimR
#
# #
# # I have a 25 foot indoor range and deer targets scaled to simulate 100,
# # 200, and 300 yards. �They look pretty small! �Even with the scope, and
# # the crosshairs are starting to be a significant chunk of the body. �I
# # just took an offhand shot at a 300 yard paper deer, and gut shot it
# # badly. �No way we'd recover that one in the kind of terrain shown in
# # that video. �765 is less than half the size, even with a solid rest
# # I'd have trouble holding on the animal.
# #
#
Agreed. The biggest difference might be that I have my scope sighted
in and parallax adjusted for this distance.
I use a word processing program and the Animals font (free download)
to print reduced size. If I calculated correctly, a .4 inch shoulder
height at 25 feet would correspond to a sheep at 765 (wiki says a
sheep is 32 to 40 inches at the shoulder, I used 36.) Lower case j at
61 point font size prints that out. Lower case i prints a whitetail.
If you type the alphabet you have lots of options.
#From a rest I was able to hold in the shoulder area. So maybe this is
not as impossible as I thought. I don't think it's a high probability
shot, it seems to me the chance of hitting it is much greater than
that of a clean kill.
Larry Caldwell
(Mike Marlow) says...
# But, kill shots do not require the MOA
# standards that precision target shooters strive for.
A 765 yard kill requires considerably better than MOA accuracy. At that
range, a bullet is loafing along, has dropped about 8 feet, and is
packing about 800 ft-lbs of energy. A kill shot on an animal the size
of a goat would require placing the bullet within an oval of about 4" x
6", at a distance where the slightest wind would cause the bullet to
miss the animal entirely.
Go set up some pie plates at 765 yards and run a couple boxes of shells
through your rifle, then come back and let us know how you did. If you
take custom loads and a ballistic computer along, you will shoot in the
general area.
Larry Caldwell
says...
# Just for my own education, would someone mind explaining: for what
# range would you sight in a 7mm Mag for a sheep hunt? How much then
# would the holdover be at 765, and would you do it by estimation or mil-
# dot, or would you be clicking away at the turret knobs like the field
# target guys do?
Bullets start accelerating downwards as soon as they leave the muzzle.
After a while they get moving pretty good. Here's a table out to 500
yards that Shooting Times published.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/7mm_rem_mag.html
You can see that the drop really starts to accelerate as distance
increases. The distance downward is given by the equation 1/2A*(T^2).
In the FPS system, A is 32 and T is in seconds. The slower the bullet
goes, the longer it has to drop. I have no idea what the drop at 765
yards would be, but it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 feet
to 8 feet. A ballistic computer with a good figure for the ballistic
coefficient of the bullet, compensated for altitude and temperature,
would get you in the ballpark at that range, but it's a rare scope that
will allow you to just dial in a 15 MOA adjustment.
Long range hunters tend toward heavy bullets that will still drop an
animal at low velocity, and custom built heavy barrel rifles mounted on
tripods with vernier adjustments. They don't actually hold the rifle at
all. The human body is just not steady enough.
Tom S.
# You can see that the drop really starts to accelerate as distance
# increases. The distance downward is given by the equation 1/2A*(T^2).
# In the FPS system, A is 32 and T is in seconds. The slower the bullet
# goes, the longer it has to drop. I have no idea what the drop at 765
# yards would be, but it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 feet
# to 8 feet. A ballistic computer with a good figure for the ballistic
# coefficient of the bullet, compensated for altitude and temperature,
# would get you in the ballpark at that range, but it's a rare scope that
# will allow you to just dial in a 15 MOA adjustment.
#
# Long range hunters tend toward heavy bullets that will still drop an
# animal at low velocity, and custom built heavy barrel rifles mounted on
# tripods with vernier adjustments. They don't actually hold the rifle at
# all. The human body is just not steady enough.
#
A bullet drop as quickly as if you held it out and dropped it - forward
velocity doesn't make any difference other than it'll travel further
before it drops x inches.
clarkm...@gmail.com
wrote:
# In article <hia8i7$7i...@news.albasani.net>, timothy...@aol.com (TimR)
# says...
#
# http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/7mm_rem_mag.html
# ------------------------------------------------------------
At 750 yards, Quickload says my 7mmMag 162 gr SST 3000 fps muzzle has
dropped 153" at 750 yards.
Zero'ed at 200 yards, that would be a +14.86 moa scope adjustment, or
a 117" in hold over.
The furthest I have ever shot animals was 500 yards with ~ 8.5 moa
adjustment or 36" hold over.
I think my limit is the same limit in the chart Larry posted a link
to, 500 yards.
I'll bet there are lots of F class competitors with 18 pound rifle -
bi pod combination that could hit things at 750 yards.
In 2009 I hiked up 1000 vertical feet with no trail.
In 2006 I hike up 3000 vertical feet with no trail.
The rifle I am carrying is 9 pounds with bi pod, scope, and sling.
After enough hiking, if you get a choice between a 500 yard rifle
that weighs 9 pounds or a 750 yard rifle that weighs 18 pounds, you
will probably choose the light rifle. [I know that is a straw man
argument, but it illustrates the variables.]
If I find animals during the day, they run away at 1000 yards.
If I come back before light, I can stalk to within 400 yards.
As it gets light, I shoot both lungs out.
Then I can spend quality time dragging the carcass in daylight.
Gunny_2009
Yeah, I saw that in a demonstration of Physics a long time ago. It makes
sense. They showed that if the BORE is exactly horizontal, a bullet dropped
vertically from right next to the muzzle at the exact instant the fired
bullet leaves the barrel will hit the ground at the same time as the fired
bullet, assuming level ground. This assumes that all other factors are
equal. The air pressure and humidity, updrafts and downdrafts, etc, down
range are the same as directly under the muzzle. I guess if you really
wanted to demonstrate it accurately you would need to do it in a vacuum.
But, this is a specific case that works only with a horizontal bore. In
most hunting cases, the bore isn't exactly horizontal. In fact, I would
reckon that in most cases, the bore is angled upwards slightly to create the
ballistic curve we are all familiar with. This would give the bullet a
longer exposure to flight than one dropped at the muzzle. So you would have
to factor in the time the bullet is rising above horizontal and back down to
the original horizontal plane again. At that point, when it crosses the
horizontal plane then you could drop the bullet and have it hit at the same
time. A slower round will have a more pronounced ballistic curve so that
downrange the trajectory gets steeper and steeper, meaning you have to hold
over more so than with a faster bullet at the same distance. Ballistics is
interesting. I like the ballistics programs that print out a side view of
the flight. It is fun to experiment with bullet weights, coefficients, and
velocities and see just what each does to the final path.
Peter Konrad
wrote:
# If you
# take custom loads and a ballistic computer along, you will shoot in the
# general area.
We-hell, the 'ballistic computer' may take the form of a simple iPhone
with the right app. I hear even US snipers in Afghanistan have started
using it.
Misifus
horizontal and then falling back through the original horizontal plane,
it will have a vertical component of velocity (downward), because it's
falling. Therefore, it will strike the Earth before a bullet dropped as
it passes through the plane.
To me, of far more interest is the datum that, if the projectile is
fired perfectly horizontally and its velocity is greater than 8000 m/s,
the curve of its trajectory just matches the curvature of the earth. So
long as it can maintain that velocity (big "IF") it will never strike
the Earth, it would be in low Earth orbit.
Obviously this could only work on a very smooth planet, small enough
that it held no atmosphere to slow the projectile, but it's a fun concept.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
------------------------------------------------------------
Misifus
# On 10 Jan., 05:16, Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
# wrote:
# # If you
# # take custom loads and a ballistic computer along, you will shoot in the
# # general area.
#
# We-hell, the 'ballistic computer' may take the form of a simple iPhone
# with the right app. I hear even US snipers in Afghanistan have started
# using it.
#
In addition to range, wouldn't such a calculation require knowing the
elevation difference as well? I mean, at that range, every little
factor counts.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
------------------------------------------------------------
Gunny_2009
I'd like to see the chrono that could measure that velocity. LOL.
I recall many years ago reading a Sci-Fi story that had that very concept.
It was either on the Moon or some airless planet and the astronaut explorers
were attracted to a small hole in a little hill of dirt/rock. When they
kneeled down and looked through the small hole they could see another in a
nearby hill. At the last second, the smart astronaut pulled his buddy back
just in time for a VERY fast/VERY low orbit/VERY high mass asteroid that was
orbiting the moon/planet and had burned those holes. Yeah, lots of logic
and physics questions jump up, but it was a fun sci-fi concept. Isaac
Asimov? Maybe.
Martin H. Eastburn
Martin
TimR
. �At the last second, the smart astronaut pulled his buddy back
# just in time for a VERY fast/VERY low orbit/VERY high mass asteroid that was
# orbiting the moon/planet and had burned those holes. �Yeah, lots of logic
# and physics questions jump up, but it was a fun sci-fi concept. �Isaac
# Asimov? �Maybe.
#
I've read that story too, but I can't remember the author either.
Could be Asimov as you suggest, but I'm thinking maybe Pournelle.
Peter Konrad
# In addition to range, wouldn't such a calculation require knowing the
# factor counts.
Elevation is a factor even at much closer ranges, but I should be very
surprised if the app in question didn't have the option of factoring
that in as well, at least in the extended 'military' version. Check it
out:
http://www.knightarmco.com/bulletflight/
RD (The Sandman)
Exactly true.
RD (The Sandman)
# a longer exposure to flight than one dropped at the muzzle.
Yes, but virtually no longer than one dropped from the height of the
trajectory.
Fraser Johnston
<book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hhspa0$du9$1...@news.albasani.net...
#
# Here in Alaska we were treated recently to a TV documentary of a
# caribou-hunting trip of ex-football star Larry Czonka. His guides and
# film crew got him within shooting distance of a herd, and he took a
# shot at rest with what looked to be a scoped SS medium caliber, but he
# either missed or only wounded one at about 150 yards. So then as the
# herd ran off and up a hillside, he stood up and sighted in again,
# finally took a shot at what must have been 300+ yards, tumbling a bull
# down the hill. Guides congratulated him on making a great shot from a
# standing position without any support. Questionable whether a
# responsible guide would okay such a shot, even assuming it was the
# wounded animal. bookburn
I think if you can't make the shot every time at that range you shouldn't pull
the trigger. It's that simple.
Fraser
-------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Win a Fulton Armory AR15 rifle while helping the Cause!
Get your MPFO raffle tickets at http://myguns.org/
-------------------------------------------------------