7070 yards
- Thread starter JCann
- Start date
I once got a first round hit at 3X that distance, yes, 23,000 yards on a M-113 hull with dumb munitions. (No guidance package). The shell hit it dead center, not just close.
The thinking of the day was bracketing, one short one long, split the difference, but we always went with best guess and adjust from there. I saw some really good first round hits using this, instead of first round miss technology!
The thinking of the day was bracketing, one short one long, split the difference, but we always went with best guess and adjust from there. I saw some really good first round hits using this, instead of first round miss technology!
I'll admit, I don't really understand this type of shooting. Long range is cool, when it's repeatable and consistent. But as said above, just throwing a ton of shots down range until ONE hits...meh.
With a dumb HE round with a PD fuse that’s a tremendous shot. I’m sure it wasn’t a RAP round, their boosters weren’t reliable when I was in. With today’s munitions like the Copperhead it’s no big deal.I once got a first round hit at 3X that distance, yes, 23,000 yards on a M-113 hull with dumb munitions. (No guidance package). The shell hit it dead center, not just close.
The thinking of the day was bracketing, one short one long, split the difference, but we always went with best guess and adjust from there. I saw some really good first round hits using this, instead of first round miss technology!
In a forum for Precision ELR Load Development super long range shooting experts, the best responses are Arty fires on a 113 and "meh, lobbing rounds, meh, I no understand". Ok
So, this is a thing for a niche group of people but it's still a thing. I don't really get into it but I've been around it long enough. If you want to talk to someone about bullets, and loads, but mostly bullets, these are the people you should talk to. They will talk and argue about a frickin bullet for hours on end.
They're using turned copper bullets that most likely have a BC of .750-.8+, a prism, and a sub MOA rifle with probably a fairly tight twist. Keeping that in mind, at that range, 1 MOA is 80.6 Inches (6.7 FEET). 1.5 MOA is 120.9 Inches (10 FEET). 2 MOA is 161.2 Inches (13.4 FEET). That target is probably a 4'x4', doubt it's much larger coz most steel is a 4'x8' but it might be a 5'x5' or 6'x6'.
Now that only a couple shots splashed next to it before the first hit, it's definitely staying within 1.5-2 MOA, even at subsonic which is a far cry from lobbing rounds and hoping for the best. As long as the projectile is gyroscopically stable, it'll pretty much go where you want it which was demonstrated by where the rounds hit, which is repeatable and consistent.
When most people (90%) only shoot a few hundred m/yds, it's difficult to imagine what an MOA is like at one or two thousand m/yds much less 7000yds. Your one-inch square just turned into a 61/2-foot square.
Still, ELR is premised on accuracy. If not, what’s the point? Shooting tens of rounds while hitting everywhere but the target brings up the old adage of horse shoes and grenades. I agree the level of skill and science involved in this endeavor is tremendous. Wind and atmospheric playing a huge part as well as weapon system and load. Getting one shot on target while emptying your ammo can isn’t my game. I’m the type person that wants my probability to be greater than 1%.
Hitting MOA or <2MOA at 7000 yards is still accurate, regardless. Hitting a sub MOA target at 7000yards within a few rounds is accurate in my professional former long range school graduate opinion.
I don’t know how large their target was, maybe 6’x6’. That’s roughly MOA at that range. The only thing that was proven to me was that they shot beyond the practical and repetitive abilities of the weapon system and accepted (hitting the damn target) accuracy. Near misses at that range mean nothing to me other than you’re in the ball park. If that was the purpose, they would have ended the video with several near misses and called it a success. Why didn’t we see one more successful target engagement? What were the parameters of this event that would established it as a success? One hit in ten, 1 in 20, 1 in 30, or was it as long as we have observed splashes within 10 feet of the target (high, low, left, right) all is good?
I was looking at my ballistic app. If I changed my MV to 3000fps shooting a 184gr F-Open Berger Hyb with a published G1 BC of 0.695 at 5,000 yards I would have over 176 mils of drop. That’s 2,934.25 feet. What are the wind conditions 1/2 mile above my line of sight? My time of flight is over 16 seconds. What’s happening with the wind during this time?
I know they had a much better set up than my measly 7WSM but that’s just two problems to overcome. I’m sure this video was a culmination of months and months of testing. But still, it proves the point that a dispersive or guided system would deliver a higher probability of a hit and, after all, that should have been the purpose for the target.
Well an M-113, non communication hull, is approximately .35 MOA at 23,000 yards. It was a single projectile, just like the 7070 guys were firing. It wasn't turned from homogeneous material like they had. It was not a guided round by any stretch of the imagination. The information on range and wind was guessed by a single individual with a pair of 8X binoculars with a mili radian grid in one lense, no Lazer range finder. He also had figure out grid coordinates on a map and judge withing a meter those very coordinates....seems to me that equates to what we are talking about quite well. The round in question hit the target directly, it wasn't just close as in "artillery" which you mention. Matter of fact it wasn't "Artillery" at all, it was Naval gun fire from a 8" Naval rifle..... Saying " artillery" sounds so.... Army?
It’s so the fat guy can spaz on his buddies without getting an ass whoopin.
Seems a lot like my buddies and me chunking rocks of a bridge at turtles fifty years ago…
Yeah, I know the differences between naval “rifle” gunfire and artillery.
Yet that’s kind of my point to this video. It reminds me of artillery indirect fire. I’m sure some of us have seen pictures or maybe a documentary of the Korean War where tanks (M26 Pershing?) are being used for artillery. They are placed on sloped berms so their tubes can be elevated higher to deliver their 90mm rounds further. Much like the video. In Korea they used what they had to get the job done but it wasn’t the best tool for the job. A 105, 155, or 175mm howitzer in this scenario would have afforded greater range and blast radius.
Did anyone notice the angle of the target? It’s that way so it will be perpendicular to the ballistic arch. If not, the target would present a smaller profile for the bullet to impact. The profile is smaller to the shooter.
If this video would have shown consistent hits on target I would be celebrating with high fives, cigars, and bourbon. But it didn’t, it’s small caliber artillery that achieves area accuracy. Fantastic, what’s the point? Nothing was achieved but hitting the dirt more often than the target. Did they mean to hit the target or the ground? Given enough ammo, time and barrels eventually success will be achieved. Just as @KurtM said about the 23,000 yard first round hit, but I would be willing to bet this was the exception not the rule.
Yet that’s kind of my point to this video. It reminds me of artillery indirect fire. I’m sure some of us have seen pictures or maybe a documentary of the Korean War where tanks (M26 Pershing?) are being used for artillery. They are placed on sloped berms so their tubes can be elevated higher to deliver their 90mm rounds further. Much like the video. In Korea they used what they had to get the job done but it wasn’t the best tool for the job. A 105, 155, or 175mm howitzer in this scenario would have afforded greater range and blast radius.
Did anyone notice the angle of the target? It’s that way so it will be perpendicular to the ballistic arch. If not, the target would present a smaller profile for the bullet to impact. The profile is smaller to the shooter.
If this video would have shown consistent hits on target I would be celebrating with high fives, cigars, and bourbon. But it didn’t, it’s small caliber artillery that achieves area accuracy. Fantastic, what’s the point? Nothing was achieved but hitting the dirt more often than the target. Did they mean to hit the target or the ground? Given enough ammo, time and barrels eventually success will be achieved. Just as @KurtM said about the 23,000 yard first round hit, but I would be willing to bet this was the exception not the rule.
Yeah, my response was more geared towards JEVAPA, I kinda figured you knew the difference, and hey I got to gig him with an "Army" reference, so life is good. I agree with everything you are saying about this..... Nut, Squirrel, and yeah it was not the norm at all, but we did get a notable number of first round hits when "guessing" rather than bracketing.....which is first round miss technology
Open sight ~2moa@ 2 miles... .45-70 in 1879....
https://researchpress.uk/firearms/longrange/sandy-hook-1879/
I feel this is similar. Newer ammo, gun, technology, more distance...but....similar process and outcome.
https://researchpress.uk/firearms/longrange/sandy-hook-1879/
I feel this is similar. Newer ammo, gun, technology, more distance...but....similar process and outcome.
That was an interesting read. Many folks don’t understand when shooting ELR a tail wind will cause the round to shoot high and a head wind will cause it to shoot low. This is caused by the angle of bullet on its downward trajectory being more perpendicular to the head/tail wind. I’m sure back in the late 1800’s there was much head scratching going on.
I throughly enjoyed firing SEAD missions out at 29 Palms during a CAX. Having Cobras and fast movers unleashing their ordinance while covering their ingress/egress was impressive to say the least.Yeah, my response was more geared towards JEVAPA, I kinda figured you knew the difference, and hey I got to gig him with an "Army" reference, so life is good. I agree with everything you are saying about this..... Nut, Squirrel, and yeah it was not the norm at all, but we did get a notable number of first round hits when "guessing" rather than bracketing.....which is first round miss technology
