Nice shot!
12 January 2005, 03:50 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice shot!
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn20...256F7D006744CD
I used to shoot targets at 1,000 yds with a 7.62 quite regularly (not people though obviously
) still, not a bad shot for an American! 
I used to shoot targets at 1,000 yds with a 7.62 quite regularly (not people though obviously
) still, not a bad shot for an American!
They'll be knocking one out over that 
12 January 2005, 03:59 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davegtt
I cant believe they are being awarded for something like that... strange if you ask me
hes been credited with it...not got a prize!
and its his job so no different to any other...he's done it very well so his own industry is selling "look, this was good work"
T
12 January 2005, 04:02 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
The yanks do get it right every now and again. Firing a sniper rifle is one of the coolest things I've ever done, but again only at targets. It does seem a bit bizarre when it's for real.
Trending Topics
12 January 2005, 04:08 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The site doesn't seem to be responding now:
I think we just broke the US Marine Corps' web site! 
Edit: no, it's back but running dog-slow!
ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved
While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn20...256F7D006744CD
The following error was encountered:
* Connection Failed
The system returned:
(110) Connection timed out
The remote host or network may be down. Please try the request again.
The requested URL could not be retrieved
While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn20...256F7D006744CD
The following error was encountered:
* Connection Failed
The system returned:
(110) Connection timed out
The remote host or network may be down. Please try the request again.
Edit: no, it's back but running dog-slow!
12 January 2005, 05:40 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ajm
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn20...256F7D006744CD
I used to shoot targets at 1,000 yds with a 7.62 quite regularly (not people though obviously ) still, not a bad shot for an American!
I used to shoot targets at 1,000 yds with a 7.62 quite regularly (not people though obviously
) still, not a bad shot for an American! Simon
12 January 2005, 05:43 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ozzy
Oops. you've taken it out ajm.
You gotta love sniper rifles
-29-05-2002%5Dsniper.jpg)
-24-02-2003%5Dbarret.jpg)
You gotta love sniper rifles
12 January 2005, 07:11 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hants
Posts: 1,489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pah.........x20 scope!
Do the same distance with iron sights and I'll agree him being a good shot!
Probably couldn't hit a cows **** with a banjo without it........
Do the same distance with iron sights and I'll agree him being a good shot!
Probably couldn't hit a cows **** with a banjo without it........
12 January 2005, 07:13 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GC8
My father was a 'sharpshooter' when he was in the army; he used, I believe, to regularly qualify on targets at out to 1700+ yards using a .303 No.4 and later a .308 Winchester (7.62 Nato) conversion No.4.....
Simon
Simon
Funnily enough, I used to shoot the good old 7.62 Enfield no.4 at school. It was amazingly accurate for such a simple piece of engineering!
Never had a chance to shoot the original .303 unfortunately, but a lot of the old timers said they preferred it....
Last edited by ajm; 12 January 2005 at 07:17 PM.
12 January 2005, 07:21 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: At the diesel pump...
Posts: 8,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think thats way out of date, IIRC the record is over 2000 yrds at the mo, set with a Barrett .50 in Afganistan. A sniper hit a target at over 1900 yrds during Gulf war 1.
12 January 2005, 07:23 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The poliotical wing of Chip Sengravy.
Posts: 6,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my grandad reckoned he could shoot the light bulbs out of german sentry boxes at 3000 yds with his bren gun - I didn't believe him when I was 10, even less so now
12 January 2005, 07:34 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ajm
Yeah, that was kind of my point, 1,000 yds is nothing special on a target range, and this is using aperture rear sites!
Funnily enough, I used to shoot the good old 7.62 Enfield no.4 at school. It was amazingly accurate for such a simple piece of engineering!
Never had a chance to shoot the original .303 unfortunately, but a lot of the old timers said they preferred it....
Funnily enough, I used to shoot the good old 7.62 Enfield no.4 at school. It was amazingly accurate for such a simple piece of engineering!
Never had a chance to shoot the original .303 unfortunately, but a lot of the old timers said they preferred it....
12 January 2005, 07:41 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record, the .50 cal rifle (cannon?) is now legal to buy in the US again (according to the 60 Minutes programme). The only restrictions are on armour piercing, explosive and/or incendary rounds (ordinary armour piercing rounds are fine thank goodness). Quite what a sports shooter/hunter would need with a .50 cal is beyond me...
As for the record kill distance, maybe the operative word here is "confirmed"?
As for the record kill distance, maybe the operative word here is "confirmed"?