Canadian sniper makes kill shot at distance of 3.5 KILOMETRES A Canadian sniper has reportedly shot dead an Islamic State terrorist from the astonishing distance of 3,450 metres – more than two miles away. The astonishing feat of marksmanship took place within the last month "in Iraq", according to the Toronto Globe and Mail. A "military source" – almost certainly the Canadian armed …
This is a sniper rifle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_Flak_18/36/37/41
I remember reading a Gun Digest annual article waay back when.
Apparently 88's were being tested at Aberdeen proving ground during the war several of the captured guns were well capable of 1 minute of arc (MOA) shooting at 1000 yards [thats essentially a 10 inch circle] with some of the test guns appearing to (maybe) do a little better, which I suspect may have had more to do with ammo variation etc. Although given the size of the 'oles in the target boards its open to a bit of debate No doubt this was achieved under as perfect still temperature and wind conditions etc.
Since when did dressing up a murder with nerdy details make for good news?
All we we have here is some propaganda about a soldier killing someone in a country that his country isn't at war with puffed out into a tech story by adding some dubious ballistics nerd interest to it.
WTF?
Not just "less of this" but "none of this" please!
"All we we have here is some propaganda about a soldier killing someone in a country that his country isn't at war with"I can assure you that the Islamic extremist that was killed would have had no compunction whatsoever killing you. He and his ilk don't appear to need formal declarations of war before killing non-combatants in London, Paris, Brussels, Sydney...
[Further comment deleted on legal advice]
Murder is the wrongful taking of life. No Country defines the killing of an enemy soldier as murder. If you, my little child, thinks that the taking of any life is murder; the sadly you are going to be unable to come to peace with the world as it really is.. and probably needs to be. I suppose you don't have a problem with rabid dog biting children either... because killing a dog is "murder" too.
So take your misuse of words and find another forum to preach your simplistic view of life on Earth.
You... my good sir are an idiot.
> No Country [sic] defines the killing of an enemy soldier as murder.
That depends very much on the circumstances under which the killing takes place.
For instance: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/sentencing-remarks-lcj-r-v-alexander-blackman-20170328.pdf
And by the way, there is no need to capitalise "country".
Yes, it's killing and hence repungent. (Or at least should be.)
However, it's in a war zone and snipers tend to be among the best (ie least) in terms of collateral damage. The terrorist/enemy combatant is a legitimate target.
Glorifying the killing is wrong. Respect to the sniper is not. You need to be careful not to mix the two up (that applies to all posters...)
DOI: not a gun person, but glad that some are, but also sad that they are needed. It's complicated and we shouldn't pretend it's not.
> All we we have here is some propaganda about a soldier killing someone in a country that his country isn't at war with puffed out into a tech story by adding some dubious ballistics nerd interest to it.
You do make a good point by bringing up the wider context and also by observing that this is not the sort of thing that should be glorified in the interests of "pop culture" like coverage.
The team in question were doing what my limited schooling in international law and knowledge of the surrounding events lead me to believe is a legitimate mission carried out in accordance with the relevant rules and customs. However, you are right that the chain of political events that led to this unfortunate situation as well as the tone and nature of the media coverage of the present operation (at a time when the vast majority of the population in the West do not have first-hand military, let alone combat, experience) is something that can and should be questioned.
He and his ilk don't appear to need formal declarations of war before killing non-combatants in London, Paris, Brussels, Sydney...
Sydney??? WTF, that idiot was a nutter who had mental issues which made him a mental nutter but not a terrorist. He was called one by the police, in part I believe, to cover their fuckups in the "rescue" and by the Govt because they could use that to impose more Terror Laws to "protect" the people.
London had terrorist attacks.
Manchester had terrorist attacks.
Paris had terrorist attacks.
Brussels, Berlin, Nice, Boston, Bali and a plethora of other locations have suffered terrorist attacks but Sydney had a nut job who took hostages and killed one. Do not denigrate these other locations and their citizens who have suffered as a result those cowardly attacks by lumping that Monis idiot in with those other horrific criminals.
THANK YOU to the Canadian sniper and ALL military personal who have helped make the world a safer place after American politicians totally fucked it up by invading Iraq and so help bolster the ISIS mentality and as such, spread.
Having shot a lot as a pimply yoof and not having been bad at it (shot at the cadet cup 4x in Bisley).
I used to be a decent shot at 300 and 600m, moving up to 900m was a massive leap so being able to even get close to an enemy at these ranges is really quite awesome.
A pint to our fine highly skilled Canadian brethren
and I'm being serious. She was shaken and disgusted, that this news is celebrated in the media as some sort of sports record. I mumbled something about human nature and boys and their toys. Looking how its found its way into the IT site, and the number of comments it's generated it is indeed a "juicy" story to be exploited, eh?
What is being appreciated is a group constantly pushing boundaries. Be it the engineers designing the weapons or the people using them. I'd hedge a bet that no one on this forum wants their forces to be deployed into a combat situation, whatever the political reasons for doing so.
We live in a society that regularly depicts and even glorifies rape, assault, murder, organised crime and goodess knows what else in fictional entertainment on TV, computer and cinema screens. In many ways I find that much *more* disturbing than paying attention to the real thing. Of course it may be that nothing of that sort ever gets onto a screen in your home. However if it does, then perhaps...
I can't remember the exact quote, but "For every woman tending a child, there is a soldier with a rifle tending a frontier" was the gist of it.
How civilised is a flush toilet? But someone has to build the sewers and maintain the sewage plants.
A large part of today's problem is that we have a generation who have absolutely not the first clue as to how the world works, who have de facto political power.
They have the ethics and morality and comprehension of 6 year olds at kindergarten, demanding 'safe spaces' from authority figures.
There are no safe spaces in Afghanistan. People are killing each other daily. They would like to kill people in Britain too, and sometimes they succeed.
Yet the siren call of socialism 'if everybody were nice to each other' remains a childish plaint. People are not nice to each other. Basic game theory shows that being a murderous barbarian is actually a successful strategy against 'nice people'.
We have an army, so that nice people can be nice to each other. By killing the ones who are not so nice.
This post has been deleted by its author
I think we have to take the kill as verified, given the clear statement that a second OP saw the whole thing. They won't have *easily* been fooled by a hit from shorter range (if indeed there were any friendlies closer to the target).
And yes, if it was the first shot, that's an absolute phenomenon and I expect the sniper himself to accept he had some amazing luck—but let's be clear, even with an exquisitely built, selected and polished 50 cal round in a supremely well-engineered rifle with pristinely accurate optics and the range lasered to the centimetre, it would still take only a brief thermal out of some intervening wadi, anywhere 'twixt muzzle and target, to make a miss that wouldn't even ruffle the bugger's hair. My guess is that having got the range and windage as perfect as possible, our sniper friend expended at least a handful of rounds before floating one onto our bad boy. I don't detract from his skill in the slightest—hitting a double decker bus at that distance is impressive with anything smaller than a 20mm autocannon—but the intervening variables of air and even gravity are profoundly perturbative at those distances, even with a chunky 50 cal slug. (I'm not familiar with the "Tac-50" but I guess it's fundamentally similar to the Barrett).
By the bye, I'd be very interested to know if that shot is even possible with a smaller round, like the 7.62 we used to have in our slurs. I'm guessing even a bench-viced AI loading 7.62 wouldn't hit a man-sized target at 3.5 klicks out of fifty rounds: ballistic coefficient simply too small?
PS: This is a strange thought, but I just found myself wondering: what perimeter do the Secret Service enforce for the presidential protection detail, when he's exposed outside? Will it increase now?
Anonymous Coward,
I think you have some details mixed up regarding the Canadian mission. I quote:
"The Canadian military said in a statement that members of the nation’s Special Operations Task Force “do not accompany leading combat elements, but enable the Iraqi security forces who are in a tough combat mission. This takes the form of advice in planning their operations and assistance to defeat Daesh through the use of coalition resources.”
Resources, obviously in reference to the use of snipers rather than regular ground troops. This is as opposed to the U.S. involvement with both regular ground troops AND SUPPORT for the Iraqi Army. This indicates several potential concepts of fighting, not the least of which is the range of engagement. House-to-house and street-to-street by the U.S troops is significantly different from sitting in an elevated position lobbing .50 caliber bullets from +2 miles away at an unsuspecting target.
Also, please be aware that it is the U.S arms and ultimately the ammunition which has allowed the Canadian sniper's actions to shine. But it also adds another aspect to the story which is often forgotten or just plain left out. The sniper's spotter is routinely the resource which actually makes the shot a success. It is his assessment of all of the variables (math and meteorology) which contribute to the ability of the shooter to make these shots. He is part of the team which makes all of this possible.
But it should be pointed out again that the sniper's spotter was not the only spotter on call. The stories all state that there were at least two other resources using video equipment for confirmation of the kill. Now, this begs the question of why video confirmation is required of a supposed low level ISIS soldier being killed? Justification of the mission to the commanders of the forces? Or making sure that the attempt stands for the record books? Either one leaves me a little cold with the thoughts of justification. It makes me question why the sniper team was not closer in with the video team since the quality of video requires a closer proximity to the activity? The only sub answer I could conceive is that the command selected, maybe by a suggestion from the sniper, the elevation of the high rise at +2 miles away, in order to increase the potential for a successful shot. All-in-all though, this begins to smell of more RP than an actual required military activity.
Best regards.
Hey, this doesn't have anything to do with the story, but I expect the readers & commentators might be able to give me more information. I read about a WW2 story where a U.S. army group needed to pass through a German town. The town had been abandoned but for multiple snipers. Instead of seeking out the snipers and taking losses, the commander had jeeps with .50 caliber machine guns race up and down the main road firing wildly at the wooden buildings. Once the buildings had been properly shot up, the troops marched through without taking losses. It was an innovative way of dealing with the hidden snipers. Anyway, I read about this somewhere and now can't find the story -- does anyone know the name of the town or the commander who devised the strategy?
in 9.7 second an object in 1g will fall 1/2 g t^2
say 10 seconds and 10 meters per second square for simplicity that's 500 meters/1500 feet to very round approximations.
But I seriously doubt that anyone would be using ammo that was transonic and only just
speed of sound 600mph. distance about 2 miles = 12 secs.
So far numbers stack up, but 50 cal sniper rounds have far higher muzzle velocities..around 850m/s. and are optimised for low drag so flight time to target at 3750 meters is 4.5 seconds.
And suddenly the T squared term is way way less. Only 100 meters drop.
And 100 meters at 3750 meters is a mere 1.52 degrees above line of sight.
Its hard to get precise info on the actual ammunition, but 50 cal sniper rounds are said to be able to remain supersonic up to 1500 meters...
So maybe that 9 second flight time is realistic.
Oner is reminded of the wartime instruction 'never fly straight for more than a secind for every thousand feet you are up' as the flight-time of AA shells was about that., You simply moved away from where they aimed at.
Perhaps that is the answer to long range snipers. a constant drunkards walk should see you randomly off ground zero.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
