Posted on 04/04/2003 10:18:02 PM PST by pragmatic_asian
A ROYAL Marines sniper told yesterday how he felled an Iraqi gunman in a strong wind from more than half a mile with an astonishing shot in a million.
Crackshot Corporal Matt Hughes, 28, was ordered to take out the Iraqi, who was firing at his pals and holding up an attack.
Matt pulled off the incredible feat of marksmanship by perfectly gauging the wind speed to bend the bullet to its target.
And amazingly a second sniper alongside him hit a second Iraqi at the same moment with another wonder shot.
The 7.62 calibre round from Matt’s L96 sniper rifle was aimed 56ft to the left to allow for the wind, and 35ft high to allow for the distance.
Yet it flew straight to the target, hitting the Iraqi in the chest. He probably died instantly.
Matt, of the Marines’ spearhead brigade patrol troop in Al Faw, said yesterday: “It was a bit like David Beckham taking a free kick.
“I knew I only had one shot and had to get the angle exactly right.”
Matt, from Betws-y-Coed, Wales, and pal Corporal Sam Hughes, 31, of Plymouth, Devon, calculated the bullet’s trajectory by studying movement of dust across the desert.
Matt said: “Sam told me I would have to fire exactly 17 metres to the left of the target for the bullet to bend in the wind and take him out.
“I made adjustments to my sight. The Iraqi stayed in the crosshairs of my sight the whole time and didn’t move. I knew I’d hit him full in the chest and got him.”
Another Marine sniper next to Matt felled the second Iraqi.
Taking out the two Iraqis who had been shooting at Marines meant the Brits could advance to help secure the peninsula.
Great minds think alike, lol.
Well, I may very well have some advantages over you (grin).
Don't blame Sniper Matt for sloppy shooting, ever.
He might get offended.
actually been using it for 3-4 months on/off now, but I switch with another "Mel Gibson" tagline that you might see me use: "political correctness is intellectual terrorism."
Either way, "aim small, miss small" makes a lot of good sense, eh? ;)
Granted, I have never shot anything beyond 100 yards. On the other hand, I know of guys who kill elk at 500 yards with 30-30s. And I am aware that they do make wind-based sighting adjustments at that range. But these are relatively small adjustments--involving inches rather than feet. (If crosswind effects are as wild as the article suggests, then I would think a hunter would not even risk a shot at 500 yards.)
This is why I especially appreciated your post citing your own Marine Corps experience firing at 500 meters in heavy crosswinds. Your testimony essentially confirms the experience of hunters who kill game at 500 yards. You need to make some windage corrections--but nothing approaching 30 or 40 or 50 feet.
Anyway, a few minutes ago, I just sat down and worked through the engineering calculations for the trajectory of the bullet covering 2600 feet (i.e., roughly half a mile, as the article says). I see no way for even a 100-mph crosswind to cause as much deflection of the bullet as the article suggests.
The problem is, the wind would have to have a lateral acceleration effect on the bullet of 112 feet per second per second (i.e., 56 fps in the first half of the bullet's travel time) to produce the deflection suggested in the article. This would be almost four times the effect caused by gravity (32 feet per second per second).
Why is this a problem for the scenario which the article suggests? It's because the terminal velocity of a bullet is very much greater than 100 mph. (The terminal velocity of a human body is about 100 mph, but a bullet is much more dense and much more smooth!) In other words, a 100-mph cross wind would impart a lateral acceleration of far less than 32 feet/sec/sec--and certainly nothing approaching 112 feet/sec/sec!
That means the scenario reported in the article is wrong. The worst case crosswind can't produce the acceleration which the gullible journalist is unwittingly suggesting.
As a matter of fact, I would guess that a very stiff crosswind would yield a lateral acceleration of less than 8 feet/sec/sec and probably even less than 3 feet/sec/sec. So, the sighting compensation for worst-case windage effects would be less than four feet and probably even less than 18 inches.
(Notice that the latter estimate of an 18-inch sighting correction agrees very closely with your Marine Corps experience at 500 meters with heavy crosswinds. If the required correction at 500 meters is, say, 12 inches, then we shouldn't be surprised to have to make a correction of a foot or two at 800 meters--maybe even 56 inches. But not 56 feet.)
So, I tend to agree with Jerry_M. I think the shooter was spinning a yarn for the reporter. (Either that, or he just got feet and inches mixed up! [Hey, this kind of stuff happens all the time with journalists!])
Some of us are kind of proud of our service, even if we didn't shoot in the NRA in high school.
Something not right with this story, I gather Sauron is on to something when he alludes to it being the reporting.
Drop on a 7.62 is 6-8 feet (at most) at 800 yds. Also, if you're aiming 56 feet the the left - or right or high - while placing any shot, something is wrong. With the kinds of variables present to cause one to make a 56 foot adjustment (in any direction), science and physics dictate an almost certain miss. If missing is an option that's fine I suppose.
All that being said with the proper equipment, a 800 meter torso shot is not as difficult as one might think. I don't doubt that the Brits dropped these guys, the reporting seems screwy though.
As to the reporting .....it never is right from a presstitute...............Stay Safe AAA !
Only that he's making the shot in 100MPH winds, which fits the description of "gale" given in another article.
It wasn't the distance that made the shot difficult, it was making it in such high winds.
Actually, 100MPH is just right (per the long-range rifle class I took at Storm Mountain, working up to 900yds).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.