[Aussie Pete]

I've gotta ask some questions of those here that are into the long range shooting.

My entire experiences relate to a maximum range of 700 yards although I typically shoot out to a target at my range which is approx 600 yards (a bell on a floating arm). I use a Steyr in 223Rem and it has a 6-18x50 scope (in fact my rifle is the one shown in the rifle listings on this site). So, at 600 yards I can easily see the bullet strike but I typically run 16-17 power on the scope to be able to see enough detail (I can't see definitive holes in paper at that range though). This rig allows me to hit the target quite consistently (certainly way better than I could with my 300WM Sako.

So, ayhow, I just read 'Shooter' which is an autobiography by Jack Coughlin 3/4 USMC in the Iraq invasion 2001 (book published 2005 and well worth a read). He uses an M40A1 in 7.62 and says that through a Unertyl 10x scope he can accurately see bullet strikes to within 2 inches at ranges past 900 yards? How's that? Doesn't a sniper rely on his spotter to see such things?

I guess the idea of my questioning is 'Am I missing something here?' I am using higher power at lower ranges yet seeing less?

I wanted to know a bit more about this because my results using the 223 have led me to sell my 300WM and pursue a long range rifle such as a TRG42 or a HS Precision HTR as my next little time filler.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Sorry Mel, this should have probably been placed in the OPs section. Move if required.

 

[Jeffvn]

If I understand your question, the reason he can "see" the bullet strike at ranges beyond 900 yards is that it takes the bullet over one full second to fly that far. If your position is solid and you recover quickly from the recoil, you can have the glass back on the target before the bullet gets to the target. Whether he can actually "see" impact on a non-steel target is a different story. Most solid targets will produce at least a puff of dust or dirt from bullet impact, which can be seen with good glass from that range.

JeffVN

 

[Jeffvn]

I just double checked my math with quickload. A 175 SMK traveling 2650 at the muzzle will take 1.43 seconds to get to 900 yards and 1.66 to get to the 1,000 yard mark in Houston, Texas (elevation 80 feet and humidity at 80%). Flight time results will vary depending upon elevation and humidity.

JeffVN

 

[mele]

Hum, I may need some more clarification...

Is he talking about seeing bullet strike/impact or bullet trace? I personally have never seen trace through the rifles scope (only through a spotting scope). But I have seen bullet impact quite frequently, but only IF and ONLY IF its a very visible impact, like striking sand, or bullet splatter on a bright white steel plate, etc. not bullet holes through paper.

MEL

 

[Aussie Pete]

Okay, sorry to be so vague.

Let's use an example. He says he hit one human target at a range of approx 912 yards (without referring to the book again). Typically he says he can see the bullet hit "two inches under the throat" or words to that effect so we're talking about being able to see an actual bullet impact to within two inches or even one inch at 900+ yards with a ten power scope.

I personally could never see this sort of thing att hose ranges and at that power. But that's just me.

taking this out to those people who shoot 1000 yard targets, how do they know their aim/strike points if they were using a 10x scope?

 

[ekaphoto]

A couple of diffrences here. First he is shooting a 30 cal and you a .223. A .30 cal will hit harder at long range. I'm not saying your rifle is not adaquite. If you are hitting good at 600 yards, then keep the rifle. That combo works for you.

Second, you are hitting a steel target, he is hitting human flesh in a combat zone. Blood splatter etc is easier to see than a puff of dust. Also with adrenlin flowing peoples eye site and perception are diffrent than yours since you are not in combat. It is amazing what people see and can do when they have adrenlin flowing. I have seen people walk around with broken backs and legs. Things that the MD's later were sceptical of. To be honest if I haden't see some of the things my self I wouldn't believe it. To get to the point you are in a compleatly diffrent situation and I am not sure most people could see their long range hits like that, so don't worry about it. Keep your rifle since it is an accurate one and it fits you. If you want to add to your collection......well I can understand that.

 

[mele]

The other thing is, did he say he specifically saw the impact, or did he just say it impacted 2 inches, etc. Remember, there are spotters in a sniper team. The spotter (using much higher powered optics) could very well be the one who called the hit. Of course, they could have also investigated the body later.

MEL

 

[Aussie Pete]

I'm not sure we're on the same track here. But I'll have a think about how to ask this a different way.

In the meantime, anyone else read the book? Maybe that would help. It's well worth a read although I guess the book sponsors (Wiley) got him to expound on the attitude etc to make it a better read.

regards,
AP>

PS:
I'll almost certainly keep the 223 because for almost all use it is perfect. As we get better quality ammo up in the 64++ grain range the performance can only get better (1:9 twist barrel).

PPS:
having been shot three times I think I know what adrenaline feels like..... LOL :wink: It's all a matter of how good looking the nurse is :lol: :wink:

 

[ekaphoto]

PPS:
It's all a matter of how good looking the nurse is :lol: :wink:

That is the adrenlin I am talking about. :lol:

 

[muzzleblast]

Aussie Pete, is it okay if I change your nick to 50 Cent? lol how did you get pegged three times, bro? I'm assuming seperate incidents?

Hmm...Big game hunting wise, I've never been able to actually see bullet impact...then again, as has been pointed out, the bullet gets there so much quicker than at 900 yards.

 

[Scatch Maroo]

Aussie Pete, is it okay if I change your nick to 50 Cent? lol how did you get pegged three times, bro?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Priceless! :lol:

Scatch Maroo

 

[muzzleblast]

Heh, it's late, I'm tired, just had to ask

 

[ekaphoto]

Aussie Pete, is it okay if I change your nick to 50 Cent? lol how did you get pegged three times, bro? I'm assuming seperate incidents?

Hmm...Big game hunting wise, I've never been able to actually see bullet impact...then again, as has been pointed out, the bullet gets there so much quicker than at 900 yards.

Muzz has a point. You know you are allowed to duck behind cover. No one will think less of you for it. :wink:

 

[Aussie Pete]

Actually, it was one incident and unfortunately I was the guy left in the open covering for some other guys (for the record I was a civvie). I guess I was the one 'in the sights' - it's all luck you know. Nothing hurt, just my pride and three scars on my back (yeah, I know - I'll admit to running away towards cover at the time LOL but I wasn't armed or anything)

So, you can call me 50 cent but with the value of the Aussie dollar I would really be '38 cent'. :shock: 8)

 

[Kiwi]

Geez Aussie .... lucky your not a Kiwi .... you'd be down to 32 cents

 

[mele]

Wow... well, glad you are still in one piece!!

In terms of the book. Coincidentally, I just got an email from a guy (who has not visited the forums) who served with this Coughlin (the author of this book) and he says the book is pretty much a bunch of lies and he was just trying to spread the word that the book is not true and the author a wannabe.

You never know who to believe in these cases, but this guy did provide some credibility, so it at least raises my suspicious eyebrow about the book.

MEL

 

[Aussie Pete]

Wow... well, glad you are still in one piece!!

In terms of the book. Coincidentally, I just got an email from a guy (who has not visited the forums) who served with this Coughlin (the author of this book) and he says the book is pretty much a bunch of lies and he was just trying to spread the word that the book is not true and the author a wannabe.

You never know who to believe in these cases, but this guy did provide some credibility, so it at least raises my suspicious eyebrow about the book.

MEL

Well, most of these type of books are exaggerated because that's what makes the story right? Take 'Bravo two Zero' as a classic example. The book entitled 'The Real Bravo two Zero' is a required read after the first book.

I quite liked the book 'Shooter' and it is good entertainment but you can tell it's hyped. I sometimes wonder whether these books should be under 'Non-Fiction' in the stores. I also have my doubts about just how embellished 'Marine Sniper' is.

 

[Aussie Pete]

For those of you that have access here's your chance to get some more detail about Coughlin and the book. Sunday May 29, 2005:

http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp ... chedID=360

 

[ekaphoto]

Wow... well, glad you are still in one piece!!

In terms of the book. Coincidentally, I just got an email from a guy (who has not visited the forums) who served with this Coughlin (the author of this book) and he says the book is pretty much a bunch of lies and he was just trying to spread the word that the book is not true and the author a wannabe.

You never know who to believe in these cases, but this guy did provide some credibility, so it at least raises my suspicious eyebrow about the book.

MEL

Well, most of these type of books are exaggerated because that's what makes the story right? Take 'Bravo two Zero' as a classic example. The book entitled 'The Real Bravo two Zero' is a required read after the first book.

I quite liked the book 'Shooter' and it is good entertainment but you can tell it's hyped. I sometimes wonder whether these books should be under 'Non-Fiction' in the stores. I also have my doubts about just how embellished 'Marine Sniper' is.

I read Bravo two Zero, but never heard of the "real one" I did read "the one that got away" by a guy in the same unit. He was the only one to not get captured or killed. Chris Ryan I think was his name.

Not to bash on anyone, but from what I read sounds like some very poor decisions on the teams part combined with poor intel and the disaster happened. In his other non fiction book McNab mentions that they did desert training several years before the war and learnd that without vehicles in the desert you are screwed, yet in '91 they chose to ruck it in insted of land rovers. Again, not trying to bash since hind site is 20/20, but like all of us they forgot lessons learned by the original SAS in WWII and their own training years before.