New World Record Set for Farthest Long-Range Rifle Shot: 4.4 Miles

Terrible_E said:
Some world records are more impressive than others. Was this truly a feat of remarkable skill or would anybody with enough time and money be able to pull this off. I suspect the latter. A 1km shot with irons gets me more excited. This pales in comparison to the record set by JTF2 in 2017.
Click to expand...

Agree with the JTF2 bit. This target looks huge. Hitting a man sized target is SIGNIFICANTLY harder than just lobbing bullets at a stationary target.
 
Terrible_E said:
It's neat but, hardly news. The fellas turned a rifle into an artillery peice and lobed small shells at a metal sheet until he hit it. What I would like to know is the degradation of MOA by distance. The shot that hits says the math works out to make a it a 1.5 MOA shot. Ok cool I guess but what was the MOA spread overall? If your going to the 'ragged edge' maybe set things up so you get some good data and not just one peice of data.

I bet this rifle could put 3 rounds through one hole at regular distance, so at one point did it stop being minute of a fly's ass. What was the MOA spread for the rifle at that distance? They didn't bother to find out. It's bad science if that was the goal and it's not very impressive overall if that was the goal. Just seems like a bit of a flop.
Click to expand...

1.5MOA at that distance works out to about 11x11 feet hitbox
 
The article helps with context..It is as much an experiment as anything else

Humphries and Austin acknowledge that the hit isn’t a repeatable event, even after several hours spent walking the shot closer to the target. But the fact that they were able to get any shot on to the metal plate is a testament to their equipment and skill.

I think the real benefit of these experiments is the improvement in our long-range shooting skills and collective knowledge at closer ranges, meaning at 3,000 yards and in. We’ve seen an uptick in the ability of shooters in competition to get hits within the framework of these matches, where you have a handful of attempts (usually three to five) under a time constraint to hit steel targets at distances that just a few years back would be considered unimaginable.
 
Last edited:
Longbow said:
The article helps with context..It is as much an experiment as anything else

Humphries and Austin acknowledge that the hit isn’t a repeatable event, even after several hours spent walking the shot closer to the target. But the fact that they were able to get any shot on to the metal plate is a testament to their equipment and skill.

I think the real benefit of these experiments is the improvement in our long-range shooting skills and collective knowledge at closer ranges, meaning at 3,000 yards and in. We’ve seen an uptick in the ability of shooters in competition to get hits within the framework of these matches, where you have a handful of attempts (usually three to five) under a time constraint to hit steel targets at distances that just a few years back would be considered unimaginable.
Click to expand...

Deleted
 
Last edited:
Dynas said:
Agree with the JTF2 bit. This target looks huge. Hitting a man sized target is SIGNIFICANTLY harder than just lobbing bullets at a stationary target.
Click to expand...

With all due respect to the JTF2 pair who clearly demonstrated an impressive level of marksmanship, communication and perhaps most importantly teamwork it would not have been possible without the gear that was developed by some flat faced civilians who decide to see if something was possible.
 
Last edited:
Beeron said:
I am not convinced we learned anything at all.
We have known the physics of ballistics for a long time.
It seems to me it has more to do with just trying it than anything to do with improvements in gear or tactics.
Basically, if your ballistic calculations say that the projectile is capable of carrying X amount of energy at 4.4 miles, then it can be done.

Actually doing it accomplishes very little except to say, yep, physics at 100yards is the same as physics 4.5 miles from here or 10,000 miles from here, or whatever.
Basically, if you can swim in the shallow end, you can swim in the deep end.
Seems to me the hardest part of this is the availability of an 8km shooting range.
Click to expand...

Scientist and Engineers find out all the time that what makes perfect sense in theory and the lab is quite different in the real world with a myriad of external factors, some thought of some not. This is turn often results in innovation. I think the Charlie TARAC is a prime example of someone wanting to do something that in theory could be done but until its invention was darn near impossible.
 
Longbow said:
Scientist and Engineers find out all the time that what makes perfect sense in theory and the lab is quite different in the real world with a myriad of external factors, some thought of some not. This is turn often results in innovation. I think the Charlie TARAC is a prime example of someone wanting to do something that in theory could be done but until its invention was darn near impossible.
Click to expand...

Sure, but it's not like this is the first time someone has stepped out of the lab to test it. They've been studying ballistics in real world scenarios for literally centuries - projectile motion was described by Galileo.

So with that context are they really learning anything? Or are they just ####ing around? I'm sure they as individual shooters are probably learning from the experience, but I'm not so sure they're contributing to human knowledge as a whole...
 
This would be very impressive within the first 5 shots or so...given enough time and ammo, anyone can hit anything assuming the bullet is capable of getting there.
Either way it is pretty cool.
 
Suther said:
Sure, but it's not like this is the first time someone has stepped out of the lab to test it. They've been studying ballistics in real world scenarios for literally centuries - projectile motion was described by Galileo.

So with that context are they really learning anything? Or are they just ####ing around? I'm sure they as individual shooters are probably learning from the experience, but I'm not so sure they're contributing to human knowledge as a whole...
Click to expand...

I take your point. These folks are also selling a product, the ELR experience, so I am sure the press is part of their plan. I have not checked to see if they actively compete in ELR, but part of the problem as told to me by folks I know who do, is that because it is a competition and a costly one at that, everyone is left to discover their own truths. At this point there is no bank of easily accessible knowledge.

I guess my larger point was that progress is incremental and often comes from folks taking a theory or science applying it in the real world finding it doesn't quite work as expected and then innovating to make it happen.
 
Last edited:
Longbow said:
Scientist and Engineers find out all the time that what makes perfect sense in theory and the lab is quite different in the real world with a myriad of external factors, some thought of some not. This is turn often results in innovation. I think the Charlie TARAC is a prime example of someone wanting to do something that in theory could be done but until its invention was darn near impossible.
Click to expand...

Deleted
 
Last edited:
Beeron said:
Ummmm, not reeeaaally.
Although this is a popular misconception used by flat earthers and the like to debunk the authority of the scientific method.
What is realized on occasion is that a known factor was not considered. These are the myriad of external factors you mention. ALL of which are known, just not always predictable.
That's because they lie within the body of understanding known as Physics. Apart for Higgs Boson and maybe Dark matter, we pretty much have physics sorted.
In fact, we have had this particular equation sorted since the first man (or woman) threw a rock at a mastodon. We've just been changing the variables since.
Once the bullet leaves the barrel there are exactly two and only two forces acting on that bullet. Friction and gravity. That's it.

In an experiment like this, we might say the coriolis effect?, nope, got that.
Wind? check, BC? check, MV? check, Altitude? check, BP? check, and so on.....
So the myriad of external factors are either differential wind/pressure calculations or the rate/amount of powder burn since we can be pretty sure the earth doesn't suddenly increase or decrease the speed of it's rotation and bullets don't pass through other dimensions where the laws of physics are turned upside down.

There is only one unknown here and that is how much wind and pressure will affect trajectory over that distance. Minor variations in muzzle velocity will have significant effects over distance but again, these are known but not necessarily predictable quantities.

AND they walked it in, which means they didn't even predict them, they built a tool that shoots a long way and shot it a bunch of times until they eventually hit something they were aiming at.

In my book it means literally nothing.

If, they had built the tool, done the calculations, and then ding!, hit the target at that distance on their first shot we could say WOW! And I would be impressed.

Instead, they dropped an apple off the Empire State Building and it did exactly what an apple dropped out of my hand will do which is hit the ground. Oooooooooooooh!!!
Actually, they dropped a whole bunch and eventually got one to fall into someone's open sunroof.

Total non event
Click to expand...

Nope no arguments with the scientific method. But after 30 ish years of taking some of the most technically advanced systems into the field/real world which were "perfected" and combining them with humans, know that until you accomplish it in the operational world yourself or with your team well!!
 
Back to the bar Beeron ya just need to realize they did it!
How long was the process involving the Moon landing. Ya took a few time outs to get that one done!
 
Lol pointless record,

69 shots?

You're no longer ELR/sniping, whatever you want to call it

You're shoting artillery, welcome to area weapons lmao
 
Longbow said:
With all due respect to the JTF2 pair who clearly demonstrated an impressive level of marksmanship, communication and perhaps most importantly teamwork it would not have been possible without the gear that was developed by some flat faced civilians who decide to see if something was possible.
Click to expand...

The title brags about a new world record not a new scientific advancement. This is a record but it isn't very impressive. If it's so impressive please explain why it is.
 
Terrible_E said:
The title brags about a new world record not a new scientific advancement. This is a record but it isn't very impressive. If it's so impressive please explain why it is.
Click to expand...

Not sure I focused on the world record as what I considered the important part. The author of the article choose to frame it that way. Again my point was how these efforts are often the driving force that spur innovation and improvements in how we do business in the long range shooting world. Sure some of it comes from the military but as observed in my time in the CAF much less than people might think. If you look at the gear they used much of it has been developed as a result of the desire to expand the envelope of what is possible.
 
Longbow said:
Not sure I focused on the world record as what I considered the important part. The author of the article choose to frame it that way. Again my point was how these efforts are often the driving force that spur innovation and improvements in how we do business in the long range shooting world. Sure some of it comes from the military but as observed in my time in the CAF much less than people might think. If you look at the gear they used much of it has been developed as a result of the desire to expand the envelope of what is possible.
Click to expand...

My point is that this isn't very impressive as either a long distance shooting record or a scientific experiment. You seem to think this is important or impressive and I am asking you to explain why.
 
Rippo said:
Back to the bar Beeron ya just need to realize they did it!
How long was the process involving the Moon landing. Ya took a few time outs to get that one done!
Click to expand...

Well, they didn't miss the moon 68 times before landing on it... lol

In fact, if you add up ALL the missions from the Mercury (25), Gemini (19), and Apollo (13) programs you STILL don't get to the 69 shots it took for these guys to hit. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom