American Sniper's Failure

[pgardn]

If anybody wants to read about the greatest sniper in history.....check out Carlos Hath .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hath

So I read this and some of the links.

A British sniper killed two Taliban at very close to 2.5 km. Wiki claims this as a record.
That has to be luck going through that much air. But he killed two of them in the same position.
I just can't fathom that. The military must have done some incredible engineering on the projectiles.
I really don't get it. And I wish it said something about if he missed a couple of times but kept the targets in site.

[Silver&Black]

So I read this and some of the links.

A British sniper killed two Taliban at very close to 2.5 km. Wiki claims this as a record.
That has to be luck going through that much air. But he killed two of them in the same position.
I just can't fathom that. The military must have done some incredible engineering on the projectiles.
I really don't get it. And I wish it said something about if he missed a couple of times but kept the targets in site.

The longest confirmed kill was done by a Canadian sniper (Rob Furlong) at 1.5 miles (2.4 km) and I've seen the do entary on that shot. The Canadian sniper was using a Barrett .50 cal. If you know anything about that weapon.....you should know that wind does not affect it nearly as bad as say a 7.62 round or a 5.56 round. Some people (so I've heard) say that the Barrett .50 cal shoots dead straight at 1 mile. With the average rifle (say a M-4 or Winchester .308) the bullet always leaves the barrel and goes up...then falls to where the shooter is aiming. This is not the case with the sniper rifle the Canadian sniper had.

And yeah....he did miss several times before actually hitting the guy. But the thing is.....you cannot hear the gunshot at that distance. So multiple shots is plausible. But, with that being said...it may be fake. No one (with exception of the sniper and the dead guy) knows for sure.

[pgardn]

The longest confirmed kill was done by a Canadian sniper (Rob Furlong) at 1.5 miles (2.4 km) and I've seen the do entary on that shot. The Canadian sniper was using a Barrett .50 cal. If you know anything about that weapon.....you should know that wind does not affect it nearly as bad as say a 7.62 round or a 5.56 round. Some people (so I've heard) say that the Barrett .50 cal shoots dead straight at 1 mile. With the average rifle (say a M-4 or Winchester .308) the bullet always leaves the barrel and goes up...then falls to where the shooter is aiming. This is not the case with the sniper rifle the Canadian sniper had.

And yeah....he did miss several times before actually hitting the guy. But the thing is.....you cannot hear the gunshot at that distance. So multiple shots is plausible. But, with that being said...it may be fake. No one (with exception of the sniper and the dead guy) knows for sure.

Furlong's record was surpassed in November 2009 by British sniper Craig Harrison who shot two Taliban fighters consecutively at a range of 2,475 m (2,707 yd).^[2]

Ya never know what the record really is I guess but...

I think a projectile fired at that velocity heats up changes density and then who knows what. If the air is cold or warmer I guess you can adjust the aim it just seems so difficult. I did not even think about the target not knowing what was going on from that far away, good point.

What metal are they made of, I know they got spin them... Too much.

[Silver&Black]

Furlong's record was surpassed in November 2009 by British sniper Craig Harrison who shot two Taliban fighters consecutively at a range of 2,475 m (2,707 yd).^[2]

Ya never know what the record really is I guess but...

I think a projectile fired at that velocity heats up changes density and then who knows what. If the air is cold or warmer I guess you can adjust the aim it just seems so difficult. I did not even think about the target not knowing what was going on from that far away, good point.

What metal are they made of, I know they got spin them... Too much.

good pgardn. Just read about it. Guess I turned off the do entary too soon. What's so badass about that shot is that it was done with a .338 lupua round. That's ing incredible to shoot that round....at that distance....and actually hit the target.

I want to give all these snipers the credit....but some of it you can just chalk up as "luck".

[spurraider21]

how ing boring would the movie be if it didn't have historical inaccuracies?

[pgardn]

good pgardn. Just read about it. Guess I turned off the do entary too soon. What's so badass about that shot is that it was done with a .338 lupua round. That's ing incredible to shoot that round....at that distance....and actually hit the target.

I want to give all these snipers the credit....but some of it you can just chalk up as "luck".

Oh I'm sure they are very,very good.

Its way complicated. But that Furlong guy shot 3 rounds. The barrel has got to heat up, ya da, yada...
And he was at higher al ude with less air and it was totally new for him. He said he let the rounds heat in the sun for a bit...

I would rather own those optical devices than the gun up in those mountains. The spotter has to be damn good as well. Definitely teamwork.

[CosmicCowboy]

The longest confirmed kill was done by a Canadian sniper (Rob Furlong) at 1.5 miles (2.4 km) and I've seen the do entary on that shot. The Canadian sniper was using a Barrett .50 cal. If you know anything about that weapon.....you should know that wind does not affect it nearly as bad as say a 7.62 round or a 5.56 round. Some people (so I've heard) say that the Barrett .50 cal shoots dead straight at 1 mile. With the average rifle (say a M-4 or Winchester .308) the bullet always leaves the barrel and goes up...then falls to where the shooter is aiming. This is not the case with the sniper rifle the Canadian sniper had.

And yeah....he did miss several times before actually hitting the guy. But the thing is.....you cannot hear the gunshot at that distance. So multiple shots is plausible. But, with that being said...it may be fake. No one (with exception of the sniper and the dead guy) knows for sure.

. .50 cals don't defy gravity so elevation is still adjusted for muzzle velocity, drag coefficient and time in flight. The advantage of .50s is that the round is so heavy it isn't affected by wind as much.

[Silver&Black]

. .50 cals don't defy gravity so elevation is still adjusted for muzzle velocity, drag coefficient and time in flight. The advantage of .50s is that the round is so heavy it isn't affected by wind as much.

Never said it defies gravity..... Read again. I just said it shoots dead straight at one mile (so I've heard). Of course the bullet will drop....these shots are over one mile.

[CosmicCowboy]

Never said it defies gravity..... Read again. I just said it shoots dead straight at one mile (so I've heard). Of course the bullet will drop....these shots are over one mile.

Muzzle velocity of a Barrett .50 is 2799 ft per second. Do the math. That isn't "shoots straight at a mile"

Long distance shooting is math. Adjusting for windage and elevation. The bullet goes up and arches into the target.

[Silver&Black]

Muzzle velocity of a Barrett .50 is 2799 ft per second. Do the math. That isn't "shoots straight at a mile"

Long distance shooting is math. Adjusting for windage and elevation. The bullet goes up and arches into the target.

My whole "shoots straight at a mile" thing comes from what I've heard. I've never actually analyzed a barrett .50 cal flight path over one mile.

What I'm saying is that when a bullet leaves the barrel of most rifles (and this is debatable too....not calling it fact) it rises. And this is not proven....some people argue that the bullet immediately starts to fall as soon as it leaves the barrel. Some people say it rises as much as 7 inches and gravity (and other things of course....losing velocity....air friction...etc.) cause the bullet to fall to where the shooter is aiming. For a m-16 or m-4 300 meters is the standard....if the shooter aims at the head of the target....at some point (some say around halfway) the bullet is actually a couple inches over the targets head.



With the .50 cal....(again...what I've heard) this is not the case. The bullet's rise out of the barrel is not nearly as noticable. Some even say that there is no rise....hence my "shoots dead straight" line.

But...there is no bullet that defies gravity. Gravity will always win.

[sickdsm]

Saw the movie couple times with my boy. We liked it a lot. Did not read the book nor know too much about the accuracies of his life.

Cannot believe how well Bradley Cooper did in that role.


I seem to remember the whirlwind of 9-11 being "somebody has to pay for this" I thought it was not the right move/mindset at the time.

Locally both the the left and right were all about invading someone. I think pretty much most all wars post WWII are either unneccesary or a political pissing match. I didn't think this movie had much to get upset about though.


FWIW I do make it a point to illustrate to my kids about the "bad" guys might be the good guys and the "good" guys might be the bad guys.

It never hurts to teach how to look at things from a different point of view, otherwise you might end up like boutons.



On a side note i chuckled when i saw The Interview on netflix today.

What a horrible movie, least i think it was, i fell asleep halfway through it once, the other time Cards against Humanity stole my interest.

[spurraider21]

i dont understand the political pissing contest people have gotten into over American Sniper... truth be told, i went in expecting it to be a "Murika! Murika!" movie, but it really wasn't

[boutons_deux]

i dont understand ....

because you're too stupid

Smart non-Repugs/rednecks/hicks/bubbas/tea baggers see Kyle (not the movie) as sicko murderer and liar while the Repugs, Fox, and other heads see him as The Perfect American Hero, eg, Repugs, Fox, conservatives are politicizing sicko murderer Kyle as a hero (but , EVERYBODY in the military is a hero to them)

Fox News host bashes Michael Moore: America ‘saved the planet’ with snipers like Chris Kyle

the hosts of Fox & Friends lashed out at former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) after he recently said that there was “a lot of intersection” between the Tea Party and the people who went to see “American Sniper” because they were “very angry.”

“Damn right, we’re angry,” Fox News host Anna Kooiman quipped, adding that filmmaker Michael Moore had asked on Saturday if hiding “on top of a roof” shooting people in the back was what Jesus would do.

“Chris Kyle was protecting a bunch of Marines,”

“We’ve been the world’s policeman, and guess what’s happened over the time we’ve become the world’s policeman. A billion people in other countries have moved into the middle class.”

“We had India on TV earlier. If it wasn’t for Americans dying around the world, the rest of the world would be in abject poverty. We have saved the planet, and if we go away as [the world's] policeman, it’s going to be to pay for everyone.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/fox-news-host-bashes-michael-moore-america-saved-the-planet-with-snipers-like-chris-kyle/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29

yep, 100Ks of Iraqis and Afghans are in abject poverty now .... America's policing killed them, along with WASTING 6000+ American military "policemen"

and the rednecks went wild!

[spurraider21]

because you're too stupid

Smart non-Repugs/rednecks/hicks/bubbas/tea baggers see Kyle (not the movie) as sicko murderer and liar while the Repugs, Fox, and other heads see him as The Perfect American Hero, eg, Repugs, Fox, conservatives are politicizing sicko murderer Kyle as a hero (but , EVERYBODY in the military is a hero to them)

Fox News host bashes Michael Moore: America ‘saved the planet’ with snipers like Chris Kyle

the hosts of Fox & Friends lashed out at former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) after he recently said that there was “a lot of intersection” between the Tea Party and the people who went to see “American Sniper” because they were “very angry.”

“Damn right, we’re angry,” Fox News host Anna Kooiman quipped, adding that filmmaker Michael Moore had asked on Saturday if hiding “on top of a roof” shooting people in the back was what Jesus would do.

“Chris Kyle was protecting a bunch of Marines,”

“We’ve been the world’s policeman, and guess what’s happened over the time we’ve become the world’s policeman. A billion people in other countries have moved into the middle class.”

“We had India on TV earlier. If it wasn’t for Americans dying around the world, the rest of the world would be in abject poverty. We have saved the planet, and if we go away as [the world's] policeman, it’s going to be to pay for everyone.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/fox-news-host-bashes-michael-moore-america-saved-the-planet-with-snipers-like-chris-kyle/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29

yep, 100Ks of Iraqis and Afghans are in abject poverty now .... America's policing killed them, along with WASTING 6000+ American military "policemen"

and the rednecks went wild!

couldn't care less about fox news. i'm talking about the film, not the networks' reception to the film. did you even watch the movie, booboo?

[boutons_deux]

i'm talking about the film

because you're too stupid to understand the "pissing contest" is not just about the film, but also about Kyle the sicko murderer MISCONSTRUED as a HERO by the rightwingnuts, and then about Repugs, the true "savages", invading Iraq for oil.

[DarrinS]

i dont understand the political pissing contest people have gotten into over American Sniper... truth be told, i went in expecting it to be a "Murika! Murika!" movie, but it really wasn't

Yeah, I don't get why this film raises the hackles of some people.

[CosmicCowboy]

My whole "shoots straight at a mile" thing comes from what I've heard. I've never actually analyzed a barrett .50 cal flight path over one mile.

What I'm saying is that when a bullet leaves the barrel of most rifles (and this is debatable too....not calling it fact) it rises. And this is not proven....some people argue that the bullet immediately starts to fall as soon as it leaves the barrel. Some people say it rises as much as 7 inches and gravity (and other things of course....losing velocity....air friction...etc.) cause the bullet to fall to where the shooter is aiming. For a m-16 or m-4 300 meters is the standard....if the shooter aims at the head of the target....at some point (some say around halfway) the bullet is actually a couple inches over the targets head.



With the .50 cal....(again...what I've heard) this is not the case. The bullet's rise out of the barrel is not nearly as noticable. Some even say that there is no rise....hence my "shoots dead straight" line.

But...there is no bullet that defies gravity. Gravity will always win.

Bullets don't RISE coming out of the barrel. Bullets come straight out of the end of the barrel. The further you are shooting the more you elevate the end of the barrel to arch the bullet in and compensate for bullet drop. All bullets are affected by gravity the same. The bullet starts dropping as soon as it exits the barrel. Bullet drop (at a given atmospheric condition) at a given distance varies due to initial velocity of the bullet and the ballistic coefficient of the bullet.. There are no magic bullets that don't drop at a mile. In your example of a .50 BMG the bullet will drop approximately two hundred and ten inches at one mile with 643 grain M33 ball ammo.

[CosmicCowboy]

To simplify this for you, if the bore of the rifle is pointed straight at the bullseye at one mile the bullet will hit approximately 210" below the bullseye.

If you want to hit the bullseye at one mile you aim 210" above the bullseye.

When you see Bradley Cooper adjusting the turrets on his scope he is adjusting the relative elevation of the barrel to the crosshair in the scope to compensate and tip the barrel higher (aim higher) the further away the target is.

[CosmicCowboy]

If you really want to understand it the the Night Force scope he was using in the movie is one click per 1/4 minute of angle. A minute of angle is 1/60th of a degree. at 100 yards one minute of angle is 1". at one mile one minute of angle is 17.6". If he is zeroed at 100 yards and wants to shoot one mile and knows his bullet drops 210" then he knows he needs to adjust his scope up 48 clicks in order to hold his crosshair on his target and achieve a hit (assuming wind is not an issue).

[spurraider21]

because you're too stupid to understand the "pissing contest" is not just about the film, but also about Kyle the sicko murderer MISCONSTRUED as a HERO by the rightwingnuts, and then about Repugs, the true "savages", invading Iraq for oil.

you choose really random words to capitalize

[pgardn]

Bullets don't RISE coming out of the barrel. Bullets come straight out of the end of the barrel. The further you are shooting the more you elevate the end of the barrel to arch the bullet in and compensate for bullet drop. All bullets are affected by gravity the same. The bullet starts dropping as soon as it exits the barrel. Bullet drop (at a given atmospheric condition) at a given distance varies due to initial velocity of the bullet and the ballistic coefficient of the bullet.. There are no magic bullets that don't drop at a mile. In your example of a .50 BMG the bullet will drop approximately two hundred and ten inches at one mile with 643 grain M33 ball ammo.

This is probably true, I'm not a gun guy but they are very interesting.
To say bullets can't rise if shot perfectly horizontally is not.
It is possible in theory make a bullet rise.
Im sure a ballistics engineer could "wing" a projectile, I'm just not sure why they would want to, maybe you know of some efforts? Anyways, air, a fluid, greatly complicates ballistics. Hitting targets on the moon would be much easier. And the range would be phenomenal. One could put a projectile into orbit on the moon with some sort of rail gun. g is only 1.6 m/s/s and no air to deal with (that would burn up projectiles shot from the surface of the Earth in the attempt to put them in orbit).

[CosmicCowboy]

This is probably true, I'm not a gun guy but they are very interesting.
To say bullets can't rise if shot perfectly horizontally is not.
It is possible in theory make a bullet rise.
Im sure a ballistics engineer could "wing" a projectile, I'm just not sure why they would want to, maybe you know of some efforts? Anyways, air, a fluid, greatly complicates ballistics. Hitting targets on the moon would be much easier. And the range would be phenomenal. One could put a projectile into orbit on the moon with some sort of rail gun. g is only 1.6 m/s/s and no air to deal with (that would burn up projectiles shot from the surface of the Earth in the attempt to put them in orbit).

Sorry, but the the laws of basic physics apply. This is not true.

A bullet fired horizontally out of a gun drops at exactly the same rate as the same bullet rolled off the edge of a table.

[pgardn]

Sorry, but the the laws of basic physics apply. This is not true.

A bullet fired horizontally out of a gun drops at exactly the same rate as the same bullet rolled off the edge of a table.

This is ONLY true it there is no air. Or the bullet is made so air has negligible effect. If you can make a bullet that is affected by air, in theory you absolutely could make it rise.


A round projectile given underspin could definitely rise.
Gliders are projectiles by definition and they rise.
Read about Bernoulli. Read about how lift occurs without propulsion from the object rising.

And yes those classic experiments you mentioned do indeed work. Because the effect of air is negligible. They also assume the Earth is flat. Newton did a thought experiment with the concept you just mentioned but took into account the Earth is round and theorized that objects could be put into orbit. He described orbiting as continually falling towards Earth.

[boutons_deux]

"Gliders are projectiles by definition and they rise."

holy ing , gliders aren't axially symmetrical, don't rotate, AND have aerodynamic force of the wings providing lift. How can a spinning bullet rise?

[CosmicCowboy]

This is ONLY true it there is no air. Or the bullet is made so air has negligible effect. If you can make a bullet that is affected by air, in theory you absolutely could make it rise.


A round projectile given underspin could definitely rise.
Gliders are projectiles by definition and they rise.
Read about Bernoulli. Read about how lift occurs without propulsion from the object rising.

And yes those classic experiments you mentioned do indeed work. Because the effect of air is negligible. They also assume the Earth is flat. Newton did a thought experiment with the concept you just mentioned but took into account the Earth is round and theorized that objects could be put into orbit. He described orbiting as continually falling towards Earth.

Wow. I can't believe you are arguing this point. This is very very basic physics.