1,000 Yard Shooting (M1D Garand Sniper Rifle)

Quote:

---

The following video(s) are excerpts which have been extracted from the "The Screening Room" (click here).

---

1,000 Yard Shooting (1942 91/30 Mosin Nagant & M1D Garand Sniper Rifles)
(Videos by YouTube member Ernest "mag30th")

Ernest "mag30th" kindly gave us permission to post his videos here. They show him engaging an 18" steel plate at 1000 yards with his M1D Garand sniper rifle. Some very nice shooting with some very old milsurps. :super:

Edit: Note, this video has been update after new information from this post (click here) by Mag30th.

1,000 yards 1942 91/30 Russian Mosin-Nagant (P/U) sniper rifle - YouTube

1,000 Yard Shooting ( M1D Garand Sniper Rifle)
(Video by YouTube member Ernest "mag30th")

Posted originally when forums were opened, but I noticed that people are asking questions that material like this may help them with .... ;)

Regards,
Badger

Only one little problem with the M1-D video...it isn't being fired at 1000 yds! I've got an M1-D, I've tried to shoot it at Viale Range at Camp Perry. The scope runs out of elevation at 800 yds give or take.

another thig is the time from shot to taget is too shot of a time laps. I've shot a lot of 500 meter matches and the time it takes to get to the target is way less in the video than it take at 1000yds

did a quick calculation time of flight 2.83 seconds - not corrected for altitude

To begin....it's actually a TOUCH quicker when you're shooting a load designed for the range! Having said that...between the flight time and the reaction-time of the crew in the pits....when you are the one on the mat, particularly on your first shot of the string....it's enough time to check your watch, do some of the crossword in the newspaper, take a sip of coffee, pay some bills, check your watch again, all while going through agonies about just what you did to screw-up the shot! When you finally see the target start to move into the hole....it's like getting a pardon on the gallows!

As far as the scope elevation maxing out. As you guys are probably well aware (preaching to the choir) the Ds were issued several scope types. I don’t know what type of scope the individual was using that had maxed out at 1,000 yards. I am using the Lyman Alaskan M81 (cross hair, not the mil-post), while most Ds used the M82S and the M84s. I am unfamiliar with the 82 and 84s, so I can only speak for the M81 scope.

While most modern scopes, when adjusting the elevation, the crosshairs remain centered, and the optics move. The 81 moves the cross hair visibly and noticeably downward (like the Russian scopes), and when setting it for long distances, the wire nearly reaches the bottom of the field of view.

With that in mind, when mounting this scope, I centered the windage and had the elevation nearly perfectly center, slightly above dead center. With the elevation and windage set dead on, I filed the mount bracket (as the military did with the first Ds) and made the slight adjustments zeroing it out at dead on 300 yards, again, as the military battle settings were. So this rifle, set dead on zeroed (slightly high), is set for 300 yards. When shooting at 1,000 yards, the horizontal wire sets very low, but is not bottomed out as suggested. Although I feel I should point out, I do post a photo, taken through the scope with my camera, looking through the scope at the target. For the photograph, the cross hairs were centered.


Regarding it not being 1,000 yards. Please keep in mind, my attempt here with most all my videos is to profile the antique military rifle, not my personal shooting abilities.
With that in mind, I had a 91.30 video posted, shooting at what I believed at the time was 1,000 yards (supposedly measured by a friend). After posting the video, I checked it manually (after the return sound timing and the shot to impact timing were significantly shorter than what they should have been for a 1,000). I measured it with a friend (by hand with a 100 yard rope) and the 91.30 video that was originally posted as 1,000 yards, actually measured out to only 850. I pulled that video and reposted it with the correction that the target was only 850 yards, not 1,000.

While measuring that, we then walked the same measurement out (this is the high desert, not a formal shooting range) and marked exactly 1,000 yards. Again, hand measured, with a 100 yard rope, x10. Additionally, on the YouTube video, under location, I’ve posted the exact GPS coordinates where I was shooting. It is 1,000 yards, if anyone wishes to dispute the distance I don’t know what to tell them, if they chose to believe it is less than 1,000 so be it.

Mark in Rochester, (who is blocked for spamming my YouTube posts like a borderline stalker) states, did a quick calculation time of flight 2.83 seconds - not corrected for altitude

Mark I don’t know where or how you are doing you math. Compute a 168 grain match round, at 4000 feet altitude, with a temp of 105 degrees. At 2680 FPS bullet flight time to 1000 is 1.57 seconds.

Directly from my DVD, the time stamp works out to 1.5 seconds (roughly). Keep in mind, this is a standard direct to DVD recorder and .07 seconds difference I’m not interested in debating.
Also, per the original DVD recording, the visible impact occurs at exactly frame 1:48.87, and the sound return is caught at 1:51.80, translating to 2.13 seconds to return. The speed of sound, at 105 degrees, is 1,165 FPS, and works out to 2.5 seconds. But my DVD catches it at 2.13 seconds, not 2.5 seconds; this translates to 2492.1 feet, or 830 yards “if based on sound only.”

So, I’ve walked it and measured 1000 yards, per the video-visual timestamp it measures 1000 yards, (possible slightly less), and by sound alone timestamp on a standard DVD recorded (clearly not designed for such use) the sound measures out to the target being roughly 830 yards.

I’m restating this, but my intent here is to demonstrate the rifle. I have numerous military surplus rifles that I am very passionate about; there history, and the soldier who carried them. Let say for the sake of this, that mark goes out and measure it out to be less than 1000 yards, 850, 900, 950…. Oh well. I am making a good faith effort at measuring out a distance in part of demonstrating the rifle. My intent (again) is to profile the rifle, and their capabilities.

And on a final side-note, I will intentionally disregard any and all comments from Mark due to past experiences with him.

Hi Guys ... :)

First, I'd appreciate it if we could keep the focus of the discussion on topic and less personal ... thanks in advance ... :thup:

Second, although off topic (my apologies) for a Garand thread about shooting at 1,000 yards, I think the discussion of flight times and long distance shooting in general is an exciting learning experience for everyone. My wife enjoys long distances with all her No.4(T) Lee-Enfield sniper rifles ....

Milsurp Sniper Rifles at 400 Meters (Range Video) ... click here

Milsurp Sniper Rifles at 500 Meters (Range Video) ... click here

When not shooting her collectible Enfield pieces, she loves to get way out there with her custom built .308....

Here's some fun video from one of our vacations showing her nailing a "first round" hit on a 7" x 21" automatic LaRue target at 1,000 meters. :move eek:

Quote:

---

To view any video, you must have Adobe Flash Player (click here) installed on your computer. Simply click on the film strip thumbnail pic and then on the PLAY button (big right arrow). Use the PAUSE and other buttons at the bottom of the video window to adjust your personal viewing preferences. Place your mouse over the video when it is playing, then "right click" for a "drop down box" to change other viewing preferences. Make sure you turn on your speakers and set the the volume appropriately.

---

Mouse Click on the film strip thumbnail.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...07_Larue-1.jpg

Regards,
Badger

New calculation

Velocity 2680 fps
Bullet weight 168gr
Altitude 4000 ft
temp 104
ball coef .462

time of flight 1.57

More data = better answer:)


calculate here http://www.handloads.com/calc/

Frankly....the 168 SMK is NOT a 1000 yd. ball (it was designed for 300 meters and is a chronic over-achiever making it adequate for 600 yds.). If it was being shot at true 1000 yds with that MV....it was arriving on target sub-sonic, making hitting much with it far more of a random event than current competition standards will let you get away with. That you were shooting a 168 and staying even close to where you were pointing the rifle is an even clearer indication that the range was something less than 1000 yds.

As for the rest of the comments....I have no dog in this fight, but I AM a fairly compitent Long Range Service Rifle shooter, not a collector, and campaigned a modified .30-06 Garand in that venue for a significant number of years (my 17 year-old son is still shooting it in LR-Service Rifle). I know what it takes to shoot a Garand successfully at 1000 yds....I know what works, and more importantly to this discussion, I know what doesn't. A 168 at 2680 fps doesn't...not reliably. BTW, if you were shooting that load at say Camp Perry....your load would be dropping sub-sonic at around 800 yds and your ability to even hold the load on a 6'-square target highly problematic....you're better at 4000', but not completely out of the woods!

John
ORPA National Long Range Service Rifle Teams "Silver", "Purple", and "Green"

Atleast we have a discussion of some depth to shooters--Yea!!

The 168 grain match round does not drop into sub-sonic at 1,000 yards. At 800 yards, the .308 Cal, Hornady #30503 BTHP MM, 168 grain is traveling at 1,565 FPS, and at 1,000 yards it drops to 1,357 FPS. The speed of sound, at 4000 feet elevation, at 105 degrees, is 1165.374 FPS.

Your Hornady 30503 is nothing but a molyed #30501 (I moly my own) I've been shooting 30501's since Hornady came out with the bullet (and the #3050 before that!).....we've met!

As for your numbers. I have a custom LR software package that duplicates my REAL WORLD 1000 yd shooting numbers to the decimal-point. It disagrees with your numbers, and I KNOW mine is right (most commercial ballistic software contain conceptual/computational errors that compound as ranges increase....one of the worst I've used was Oehler's Ballistic Explorer, they are all pretty much invalid/misleading at 1000 yds)! The other "problem" is contained in one term....trans-sonic. As your velocity drops, goofy things begin to happen to things like ballistic coefficients (Sierra tries to give you a "down-and-dirty" version of this by giving you different BC's for different velocities)....they cease to be constants and start dropping as trans-sonic drag increases in the air around the bullet. It plays hell with your velocity numbers if you fail to compensate for it in your software (or shooting, take your pick....it's one of the differences between Long Range shooting and everything else).

I don't expect you to know any of this, and like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, but Long Range shooting is a far more complex technical issue than folks that don't do a lot of it are aware of. You made an interesting video, have gotten criticism you weren't expecting, and now you're aggressively defensive about it. Fair enough! I'll defer to you on any history of the rifle and just about anything else....but I also think that my 20+ years of National-level Long Range competition shooting experience qualifies me to have a valid opinion about that video and your subsequent explanations.

But hey, don't take my word for it....I'm a scientist/engineer by education, profession, and general inclination....I define empiricism! Bring your rifle and your load to Camp Perry and we can ALL see how well it works at an NBS/ISU-Certified 1000 yd range. ORPA's "Bob Wright Memorial" Long Range Match will be held IIRC, June 13-14, and if you come, I'll pay your entry.

BTW, my D has an M84 scope....and it's useless at 1000 yds! Also FWIW....my 1000 yd load consists of a 190 gr SMK kicked-out of the rifle at 2700 fps. THAT'S what it takes to shoot 1000 yds consistently and accurately!

“Empiricism” the theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience. I like that!

Please tell me what your opinion is of my video (or the others I’ve posted related to antique rifles). Is it you opinion that I’ve faked all or something in it, or in your opinion is 1,000 yards with a D impossible in your opinion, or do you feel that I’m shooting at a much shorter distance that 1,000 yards. If so, what distance do you think I’m shooting at.

Secondly, you stated that in your first paragraph that a 168 grain projectile was,” dropping sub-sonic at around 800 yards.” You were incorrect; factually, it is still supersonic well beyond 1,000 yards.

This is the topic you raised. A 168 grain match bullet, fired at 2680 FPS, according to your calculations is traveling WELL BELOW sub-sonic at 1,000 yards. You further state in your first post, that the transition from super-sonic to sub-sonic would, “making hitting much with it far more of a random event than current competition standards will let you get away with.”

My stance is that it IS traveling above the speed of sound at 1,000 yards. You have now changed your stance, now stating that the characteristics of a bullet in-flight are “significantly altered” when it has decelerated down to 1,357 (speed of sound being 1165.374).

Then at the conclusion of this post, you stated that you are shooting a 190 grain at 2700 FPS at 1,000 yards.

With all respect, your 190 grain projectile falls much closer to sub-sonic (if not surpassing the threshold) than the 168 would at 1,000 yards, thus being more affected by what you yourself described being the issue here.
Please advise me of what your software states a 168 and a 190 are traveling at 1,000 yards.

And sincerely, thank you for the offer to pay my admission fee. But if you paid for the flight from So-Cal to Ohio, I would pay my own admission and gladly take you up on it.

Your comment, “I don't expect you to know any of this.” Humm we don’t know each other, I won’t assume anything about you, please don’t assume anything about me either. I’m very impressed with your credentials, but because I’ve chose not to post a resume about myself, this does not mean I’m new to this sport either. Like you, I’ve been into this for over 30 years, so let’s avoid a contest over who has greater credentials and thus one opinion carries more weight than the other opinion. The topic here is the stability of a 168 grain round vs. a 190 at 1,000 yards from a Garand. I’m not trying to compete with anyone about how long they have been around, I’m just saying I’m far from being new at this, nor am I just some guy who bought a rifle and I’m trying to look cool.

I would love to travel to Ohio, but it is far from where I live. There is a 1,000 yard range here near my home (Desert Marksmen Rifle & Pistol Club) I plan on shooting this same Garand there (with my same 168 grain loads) and Il post the video. They have a 36 inch metal plate and it is much easier to hit than my standard 18 inch target. I’ve shot my 91.30 5/5 at that range on the 36 inch plate and hit 5/8 with this Garand. (And yes, my 91.30 is more accurate than my Garand’s) Ill also post a clip doing it with open sights on another Garand, with a USGI barrel. Ill video it next time and post it as a supplemental video on YouTube.

Holy crap!!! I just noticed that the video posted related to this link is the old clip that was later found to have been only 850 yards. It was posted initially as 1,000 yards; I removed it then reshot the video at 1,000 yards.

The video attached to this thread is not the 1,000 Garand video I’ve been referring to.

The correct video I have posted on YouTube is the correct video.
I am so sorry to those I’ve been debating with regarding the distance. Ill report the correct video once I figure out how to do it…. I’m new to newsgroups…

Sorry sorry sorry to all…. Dang it!

Someone tell me how to link this video to this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34RqMoyMZmI

Ill try it, hopefully it works... Dang it, Im sorry about the error..

Hey Mag30th your'e cool. The second video is even better than the first.
I think you only raised the fur on a very small portion of this forum and I'll bet most of us here are more interested in seeing your demontations than worrying about thousants of a second.
Keep posting man.
Steven

And for some of you,yes I know I misspelled demonstrations

Quote:

---

With all respect, your 190 grain projectile falls much closer to sub-sonic (if not surpassing the threshold) than the 168 would at 1,000 yards, thus being more affected by what you yourself described being the issue here.
Please advise me of what your software states a 168 and a 190 are traveling at 1,000 yards.

---

You think? Try these numbers. My LR load has a "come-up" from my 200 yd zero of 25 MOA....what's yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven

Hey Mag30th your'e cool. The second video is even better than the first.
I think you only raised the fur on a very small portion of this forum and I'll bet most of us here are more interested in seeing your demontations than worrying about thousants of a second.
Keep posting man.
Steven

And for some of you,yes I know I misspelled demonstrations

---

Thanks! I love these rifles with a passion. Im not interested in fighting or arguing with anyone. Im only interested in sharing a hobby with others, as can be seen by the videos posted on my site.

Thanks again, Ernest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Kepler

You think? Try these numbers. My LR load has a "come-up" from my 200 yd zero of 25 MOA....what's yours?

---

Sir, you win.
I’m not interested in an argument with anyone. I asked you one question, "Please advise me of what your software states a 168 and a 190 are traveling at 1,000 yards." I asked you this because you and I are both aware that the 190 is closer to the sound threshold than the 168.

You proclaim yourself to be a very experienced LR competitor, and you claimed to be a scientist/engineer, yet you have been very incorrect is several basic physics calculations related to LR shooting. Because I pointed it out to you it seems that you have taken offence.

I am new here, and I’m not interested in fighting with anyone.

I apologize for anything I may have done here that embarrassed you, and any further serious miscalculations you make I promise not to point them out to you or anyone else.

Again, I apologize for whatever I may have caused.
Ernest.

John Kepler, I have an interest in service rifles at 1000 yards. I have a NM type M1 that was built up with a 308 Navy barrel and was wondering what an acceptable load would be to shoot in it to be in the game at 1k?

Mr. Kepler, please do not send me personal messages with the intent on drawing me into what I feel is a unnecessary childish dispute.

This started by you stating that the video I posted on YouTube is not actually 1,000 yards. You further stated that the scope itself couldn’t adjust past 800 yards, that the 168 grain bullet drops below sub-sonic and that a hit was purely by chance. This has evolved this into a contest I do not wish to participate in. I’ve apologized for pointing out your errors with your calculations, I’m done with it.

My 1,000 yard video is posted here. I shot it with my M1-D, and I used 168 grain bullets when I did it, and the distance is 1,000 yards. You state that the 168 drops below sub-sonic and my hits at 1,000 yards are purely coincidence. So be it. Im sorry if you feel it is not possible.

I’ve also posted videos shooting 1,000 yards with a 91.30 and k31 Swiss open sights. If you disagree fine. But as a stated, I’m not interested in playing into whatever game you are into.

I cannot argue with every stranger on the internet. As the old saying goes, who is the bigger fool, the village idiot, or the guy who argues with him? I’m not interested in arguing with you period.

Again, please do not send me any further personal emails.
Thank you.

And a final side-note, the calculations you sent me were set at sea-level.

Try recalculating the 168 at 3200 feet, with a 105 degree temp. I live (and shoot) in the upper end of Mojavie desert, not Ohio. You will notice that the 168 round, under these conditions, only drops to 1,352 FPS at 1,000 yards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mag30th

And a final side-note, the calculations you sent me were set at sea-level.

Try recalculating the 168 at 3200 feet, with a 105 degree temp. I live (and shoot) in the upper end of Mojavie desert, not Ohio. You will notice that the 168 round, under these conditions, only drops to 1,352 FPS at 1,000 yards.

---

My numbers were corrected for your altitude and temperature. What you are seeing is the difference between most software, and one set-up for calculating actual 1000 yd performance.

BTW, speaking of errors...are you STILL trying to say that with the same MV, a 168 is going to be going faster at 1000 yds than a 190?

As for the rest.....sure, we can do it here, like I said, I was just trying to cut you a little slack since you're new, if you want it here, you've got it....but remember.....you asked for it!

Ill acknowledge that the 168 is not faster than the 190 at 1,000 yards, if both were fired at 2700 FPS at the same elevation. My initial calculation was not clearly stated, I based it on my 168 at 3800 ft, and your 190 at sea-level. But as a side-note, clearly you are not firing 190’s at 2700 from a standard USGI Garand, while I am firing a 100% USGI unmodified rifle.

I cannot accept your calculations for the 168 for the following reasons, as far as it being adjusted for my environment (I live at 3200 ft and shoot at roughly 3800 ft). You stated earlier, that the problem with the 168 is that it drops sub-sonic at around 800 yards, and that me hitting the 18 inch metal plate at 1,000, was essentially a random coincidence.

It comes down to this; 1) on one hand your computer software program telling you that my round becomes unstable and making the shots at 1,000 very improbable. 2) Yet on the other hand, all other software states that it does not become unstable (at 3800 ft) and that shots at 1000 yards are not with an unstable bullet.

Here’s the argument broken down ever further. You claim that your software states it can’t be done (more or less) and that results that my video is fake, and I’m shooting nowhere near 1,000 yards, possibly fewer than 800 per your calculations.

You stand by your assessment, even though, I have measured the distance out exactly, I performed the shots on a regular basis, and my real world results don’t match up with what your software is telling you is possible. You stick with your software, Ill stick with what is happening in the real world. It is interesting when someone relies so heavily on what a software program tells them is fact, and what someone else is performing in the real world.

Again, to support my position, I’m also shooting my K31 Swiss, open sights, at 1,000 yards, on a 1,000 yard target. Here is the video.

1,000 yards, open sights, Swiss K31 7.5x55 rifle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plt1PtqbAW4

This round is significantly slower that the 06, yet the 168’s fired from it are still reaching the target super-sonic (1272 FPS per my software) in my high desert environment. Yet, your software program will place it significantly slower, probably under 1000 FPS. Thus (per your calculations) the 168’s from the Swiss should be even less stable. The problem is that I’m shooting more accurately with the Swiss, with open sights at 1,000, than I am with the scoped Garand.

This is why I doubt your stance, and why I feel you are incorrect. You allege that what I do is improbable, and that results in essentially calling me a fraud, and you base this on your computer and your experience shooting at 800 feet elevation. Yet my real world experience shows me that your calculations are incorrect.

You are a “Senior member” here on this post, clearly you have been here awhile, and you have a good standing reputation. Your comments and remarks most people respect. But with that I sense that you are reluctant to let go of something that you are clearly incorrect about, and that is your allegation that my LR shooting is fraudulent.

You stated that I’ve arguing with people since I came here, there is a significant difference between arguing and defending oneself when he is accused of being a fraud.

Please take the time to review my other videos profiling other LR rifles; http://www.youtube.com/user/mag30th

Clearly you cannot come to the conclusion that they are all fraudulent. And please refer me to any videos you have posted.

Hardware ALWAYS trumps software.

If the shot is a true 1000 yard shot, that's kinda the end of the argument, right? It's all about putting rounds on-target whether the round is supersonic, trans-sonic, or sub-sonic.

Although software vendors may use different equations to simulate bullet flight, the true test is the PHYSICAL ACT of getting them on target, regardless of the range.

There is also a difference between hitting a metal plate and keeping them in the x-ring (unless the plate is the size of a 1000 yrd x-ring), which is also beyond the scope of the original post. Plus bipods aren't match legal anyhoo.

Mike Doerner

A bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly either....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mag30th

1,000 yards, open sights, Swiss K31 7.5x55 rifle

---

Here is a higher quality (HD) version of the same video.
(HD) 1,000 yards, open sights, Swiss K31 7.5x55 Schmidt-Rubin 7.5x55 rifle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ-Lcvyrifw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mag30th

Here is a higher quality (HD) version of the same video.
(HD) 1,000 yards, open sights, Swiss K31 7.5x55 Schmidt-Rubin 7.5x55 rifle

---

Mag,

Thank you, nice demo and nice shooting. :super:

The issue has devolved into perceptions/expectations of what constitutes an accurate rifle/load at 1000 yds. Your plate is roughly an NRA LR Target 10-ring. With the Swiss, you were hitting 2 out of 6 for 33%....with the scoped Garand you shot 2 out of 8 for 25%. Last year at Camp Perry, to make the shoot-off in Service Rifle took a 193-14X, or 96.5% with high x-count (and it wasn't enough to win the sausage!). Sure....you can shoot 33% with a load that's dropping sub-sonic....but you almost certainly can't shoot 80% (which will buy you an NRA LR "Marksman" classification....the lowest classification BTW) with it! If 1 outta 3 is your criteria....then you are a steely-eyed hardholder with a perfect rifle/load....if your criteria runs to something a bit more in line with current competition standards, then it isn't. Set the bar low enough, and anything looks good! Frankly, and with nothing pejorative intended, the results on target shown in your video is about what I'd expect out of a LR Novice in benign conditions with a bad load.

PS-In your Swiss...try a 178 gr Hornady A-Max on top of 44.5 gr of Vihtavuori N550...then you'll see what the rifle is REALLY capable of (all the usual loading caveats apply)!

Hi Folks ... :)

I do appreciate everyone trying to maintain as much courtesy, respect and objectivity during this discussion, as it's been informative without getting too edgy or heated. :thup:

I can't speak from the technical science or real world prowess that either Mr. Kepler or Mag30th are discussing, but I can tell you about the 1,000 meter (1,100 yards approx) shot video I posted earlier of my wife shooting her custom built .308 rifle.

After estimating range and setting the MoA on her already zeroed scope for elevation and distance (over 43 MoA up and 5 MoA right) using range tables, she obtained a first round hit at 1,000 meters on a 7" wide x 21" high LaRue target.

The ammunition used in for that shot was standard Federal Match .308 168 gr with a chronographed zeroing performance of 2756 FPS and an SD (standard deviation) of 10.

We noticed that at 1,000 meters shooting at a 4 foot target getting groups of about 11", she was seeing several "key holed" hits in the paper, indicating a tumbling round. At 900 meters there were less of those and at 800 meters we saw none, so I don't know if that helps this discussion.

Her rifle was just one solid block of laminate when Keith Cunningham (Milcun) started the custom fitting process through several visits over a 9 month period . Needless to say, the wait was worth it ....... :D

Barrel make ..... The barrel is a MacLennan Stainless Steel, 1-12 twist, finishing at 27 inches without the break. It is a medium weight barrel and is about .750 diameter at the muzzle.
Stock make ..... The stock is custom and hand made by me from a Rutland laminated block and finished with about 25 coats of Tru Oil then rubbed down and polished.
Bottom metal ..... The detachable mag is by HS Precision and the bipod is a Harris "S" series.
Trigger ..... The trigger is a factory Remington 700. If it feels good I do nothing more then adjust it for travel and to about 2.5 lbs for weight. If it does not feel good then I will disassemble it, hone all mating surfaces and generally clean it up.
Rings and base ..... The base is a picatinny by Nightforce and the rings are Leupold.
Muzzle brake ..... The muzzle brake is by Holland. It is threaded on and needs to be indexed.
Reamer ..... The reamer is made by Pacific Tool and is called a 308 Bisley. It was chosen for its throat length so as to make it compatible with factory match 168 gr ammo.
Weight of rifle ..... With a scope and a fully loaded 10 rd mag the rifle weighs in at about 13 lbs. This weight is based on our Police Sniper version with a synthetic stock. Invidual custom rifles may vary slightly.

Quote:

---

Custom Built by Milcun (Keith Cunningham) .308 Rifle
(Nicknamed "Wildfire")
(c/w Leupold 6.5-20x50mm LR/T M1 Scope with Luminated Reticle)

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...omMillcun1.jpg(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...omMillcun2.jpg


First 5 rounds (scope zero as delivered) at 100 Yards with Federal 168gr Match

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...rst5Rounds.jpg
(Click PIC to Enlarge)


Second 5 rounds (scope up 2 clicks) at 100 Yards with Federal 168gr Match

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...ond5Rounds.jpg
(Click PIC to Enlarge)

---

BTW, that's some GREAT shooting with some very old girls at any distance Mag30th, so thanks for letting us post your videos. I'll have to get that Swiss K31 video in our "Screening Room" as well.

Regards,
Badger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badger

We noticed that at 1,000 meters shooting at a 4 foot target getting groups of about 11", she was seeing several "key holed" hits in the paper, indicating a tumbling round. At 900 meters there were less of those and at 800 meters we saw none, so I don't know if that helps this discussion.

---

WOW!! Beautiful setup there!! I’m slowly drawing my wife into shooting… she will go out occasionally so long as we’re not out very long, I feel she will come around in time…

I’m just curious, what was the elevation of the location where this shooting took place. I’m trying to show that while a 168 may become unstable at altitudes close to sea-level, (at 1,000 yards) they do not destabilize as quickly at higher elevations. All my long range shooting is above 3,500 feet elevation, and the wood that is mounted behind the metal plate has not shown any key holing effects.
Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Kepler

the results on target shown in your video is about what I'd expect out of a LR Novice in benign conditions with a bad load.

---

What is your issue, my goodness?!?! Personal attack after personal attack, gezz, let it go...

I’m not beating my chest looking for some type of "internet recognition" as it seems you are. Again, please stop the ongoing belittling remarks.

I’ve stated repeatedly, I collect antique military rifles, the purpose behind the 90 videos I have posted on YouTube, is to profile the rifles. This is not a contest between you and me and our shooting abilities. But, since you continually push the issue, I would love to go head to head with you with open sights, using the same rifle and the same loads.

I continually attempt to draw you back to topic yet you post remarks like the one above. Again, the issue here is and has always been, am I shooting at 1,000 yards or have I created a fraudulent video. You no longer seem interested in discussing whether or not my videos are legit. You have gone from initially stating that it couldn’t be done, to now stating that the results are what you would expect for a novice shooter.

I really hope that you do not carry yourself in this manner in person with other shooters; it’s much easier when someone is 1000 miles away over the internet I suppose. Again, give it a rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Kepler

if your criteria runs to something a bit more in line with current competition standards, then it isn't. Set the bar low enough, and anything looks good!

---

The video you are criticizing, I’m shooting an original, 1950’s rifle, with the original USGI 1952 barrel. Again, I’m demonstrating the rifle, “IT IS A PROFILE ABOUT THE RIFLE.”

I’m not trying to prove to the world what an awesome guy I am, nor am I attempting to make myself the worlds 2nd best shooter (clearly, reading the comment you have posted about yourself, you are the world’s greatest LR shooter).

If you are not interested in discussing whether or not the distances are factual or not, please, again, move on. I’m not into the internet insult back and forth stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Kepler

if you were shooting that load at say Camp Perry....your load would be dropping sub-sonic at around 800 yds and your ability to even hold the load on a 6'-square target highly problematic

---

Doesn’t the Camp Perry 1000 yard match utilize the 173 grain M72 on occasion? And wouldn’t it be subject to the same types of ballistic problems your are addressing here in you comment? If so, why would they use it?

[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mag30th

What is you issue, my goodness?!?! Personal attack after personal attack, gezz, let it go...

---

Sir, it wasn't a "personal attack", it was simply an observation and competent evaluation based on shooting and coaching Long Range for a lot of years. That you don't like the evaluation doesn't make it any less valid.

Quote:

---

But, since you continually push the issue, I would love to go head to head with you with open sights, using the same rifle and the same loads.

---

That would be like arguing with an idiot...they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience! In case you missed it....your loads SUCK! I quit being dumb enough to shoot 168's at 1000 yds 20 years ago...a pity you aren't wise enough to do like-wise. BTW, THAT'S what a "personal attack" from me looks like!

But hey, even with your idiotic set-up, sure, but you wouldn't be all that happy at the end of the day! BTW, I don't shoot off a bench, I don't shoot with any kind of artificial support, and I don't shoot with a scope....no one in Long Range Service Rifle does.

Quote:

---

I continually attempt to draw you back to topic yet you post remarks like the one above. Again, the issue here is and has always been, am I shooting at 1,000 yards or have I created a fraudulent video.

---

A fraudulent video....I really can't say, but I do have doubts. A video displaying considerable ineptitude attempting to masquerade as competence...absolutely! My 17 year-old son, a real Long Range shooter himself, found your video of 6 misses out of 8 shots hysterical...he didn't shoot that bad his very first time at 1000 yds with a Garand, and was still embarrassed by it...worked his *** off to make sure he never shot that bad again.....and you made a video of your train-wreck and posted it on YouTube like you actually did something important! Remember....you wanted this here!

I was told by others that this kind of obfuscatory ranting was something you have a bit of a "name" for over on YouTube...a pity you decided to bring it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mag30th

Doesn’t the Camp Perry 1000 yard match utilize the 173 grain M72 on occasion?

---

Not in the last 30 years and change which is as far back as I go...probably not before then! M72 was never any comp-shooter's favorite load! M118LR does fairly well out of M14's...but that's a 175 SMK VLD load.

Quote:

---

And wouldn’t it be subject to the same types of ballistic problems your are addressing here in you comment?

---

Yep! Which is why no one shot it!

Quote:

---

If so, why would they use it?

---

Simple...they don't. In fact about the only .30 cals you'll see shooting ANY Long Range are Service Rifles, and most of them are AR's shooting .223 (betcha didn't see THAT one coming!)!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mag30th

WOW!! Beautiful setup there!! I’m slowly drawing my wife into shooting… she will go out occasionally so long as we’re not out very long, I feel she will come around in time…

I’m just curious, what was the elevation of the location where this shooting took place. I’m trying to show that while a 168 may become unstable at altitudes close to sea-level, (at 1,000 yards) they do not destabilize as quickly at higher elevations. All my long range shooting is above 3,500 feet elevation, and the wood that is mounted behind the metal plate has not shown any key holing effects.
Thanks!

---

Thanks... be careful what you wish for, as she shoots better than I do. :lol:

44.8303°N 78.6899°W
315 meters
1033.5 feet

Milcun Marksmanship Complex

Regards,
Badger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Kepler

The issue has devolved into perceptions/expectations of what constitutes an accurate rifle/load at 1000 yds. Your plate is roughly an NRA LR Target 10-ring. With the Swiss, you were hitting 2 out of 6 for 33%....with the scoped Garand you shot 2 out of 8 for 25%. Last year at Camp Perry, to make the shoot-off in Service Rifle took a 193-14X, or 96.5% with high x-count (and it wasn't enough to win the sausage!). Sure....you can shoot 33% with a load that's dropping sub-sonic....but you almost certainly can't shoot 80% (which will buy you an NRA LR "Marksman" classification....the lowest classification BTW) with it! If 1 outta 3 is your criteria....then you are a steely-eyed hardholder with a perfect rifle/load....if your criteria runs to something a bit more in line with current competition standards, then it isn't. Set the bar low enough, and anything looks good! Frankly, and with nothing pejorative intended, the results on target shown in your video is about what I'd expect out of a LR Novice in benign conditions with a bad load.

PS-In your Swiss...try a 178 gr Hornady A-Max on top of 44.5 gr of Vihtavuori N550...then you'll see what the rifle is REALLY capable of (all the usual loading caveats apply)!

---

We are plinking at a steel plate here, right? The X-Ring argument is overkill for this discussion, because there is no 9-ring, 8-ring, etc to see where the remaining rounds went, if they've keyholed, etc. Also, we're not shooting match positions here are we? This is not a timed event.

I would think the load you've stated is not very shoulder friendly, and misses the point of plinking with whatever loads he had on hand at the time.

Besides, if you have a load that you KNOW goes out to 1000 yards, how can you brag about hitting a target at 1000 yards with a less than optimal load?:D

Mike Doerner

Hi John .. :)

Please .... enough .... :surrender:

You've made your point that in your opinion Mag30th is an amateur and doesn't possess either the scientific background or experience you, or apparently now your son possess, in order to be taken seriously.

By innuendo, you've also borderline accused him of being a fraud .... :(

Again, please, you've made your point and I think the readers here are mature enough to draw their own conclusions based upon the content.

Personally, I don't know why anyone would go to all the trouble to want to fake and create complicated videos about shooting these distances, considering his point as stated was not about how good he is, but rather simply a demonstration of a very old piece of firearm history.

I would hate to have to delete posts and lock this thread, so please let's everyone discuss the issue, not making it personal.

Thanks for any consideration... :thup:

Regards,
Badger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badger

The ammunition used in for that shot was standard Federal Match .308 168 gr with a chronographed zeroing performance of 2756 FPS and an SD (standard deviation) of 10.

We noticed that at 1,000 meters shooting at a 4 foot target getting groups of about 11", she was seeing several "key holed" hits in the paper, indicating a tumbling round. At 900 meters there were less of those and at 800 meters we saw none, so I don't know if that helps this discussion.

---

A follow up .... :)

I forgot to mention that she had a few boxes of Federal Match .308 155gr which is no longer manufactured or sold.

Using the same rifle, range and wind conditions, she fired lots of that ammunition at the same 4 foot target at 1,000 meters (1,100 yards approx) and her groups were consistently less than 12".

However, perhaps more germane to this discussion was the fact NONE of the 50+ rounds of 155gr she fired "key holed" like the 168gr Federal ammo did. All were clean well defined holes and apparently remained stable right to the target. :thup:

BTW, just for clarity of authenticity, the instructors sitting in the chair and heard in the backgrpound are Keith Cunnigham and Linda Miller (click here), who coach and take the Canadian team to Bisley. ;)

Regards,
Badger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mag30th

And a final side-note, the calculations you sent me were set at sea-level.

Try recalculating the 168 at 3200 feet, with a 105 degree temp. I live (and shoot) in the upper end of Mojavie desert, not Ohio. You will notice that the 168 round, under these conditions, only drops to 1,352 FPS at 1,000 yards.

---

Hi Mag,

Love those videos. I ran your numbers through Hornady's ballistic calculator using THEIR ballistic data for the round with your velocity. The results are very close to what you've previously posted. Hornady's Humidity is higher then you see in the desert which is working against the calculated final velocity. Even with that factor working against the final answer you're still supersonic. (Your muzzle velocity is probably a tad higher since you probably chrono'd the speed at some distance down range from the muzzle.) So your actual velocity will be slightly higher then reported here.

Hornady's basaltic calculator using your previously posted data.

1316 FPS @ 1000 yards

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...53417108-1.jpg

Here is the speed of sound calculations based on your 105F

1165.374 FPS

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...41933081-1.jpg

1316 > 1165.374 Therefore your still supersonic.

As far as I'm concerned your round is still super sonic at 1000 yards, the video was great and nice shooting. :thup:

Here is a snippet from NASA's website. Based on the velocity give by hornady for your load at 1000 yards and your altitude.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...74245962-1.jpg

So your round is going Mach 1.194

Quote:

---

su⋅per⋅son⋅ic
 
–adjective
1. greater than the speed of sound waves through air.
2. capable of achieving such speed: a supersonic plane.

---

-- Let me propose a real simple video test the next time you shoot at 1000 yards.. Put a camera next to the target (make it a paper target so the impact sound doesn't mask what we're looking for) and record the audio. If the round makes that tell tale "crack" as it passes the camera its supersonic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

-- Let me propose a real simple video test the next time you shoot at 1000 yards.. Put a camera next to the target (make it a paper target so the impact sound doesn't mask what we're looking for) and record the audio. If the round makes that tell tale "crack" as it passes the camera its supersonic.

---

Thank you! Outstanding idea, I will try to make it out there in the next few weeks and do exactly as you have stated with the recording device. That clearly would reflect one way or the other.
Thanks again,
Ernest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Kepler

[ I was told by others that this kind of obfuscatory ranting was something you have a bit of a "name" for over on YouTube...a pity you decided to bring it here.

---

Yes and no, I’ve been involved in several heated political discussions where I have made comments that I have later regretted, not that I regretted the subject, but I have regretted the childish manner that I acted. And on occasion during these debates, I have been drawn into the personal attack game, also of which I’ve regretted.

But these have been political in nature and topics and/or related to the JFK assassination. I am a proud conservative, anti-statist, and I feel there was not a Govt conspiracy in the JFK assassination. These stances I’ve taken in numerous, sometimes regrettable, debates-disputes.

Regarding any ranting on any subject matter regarding my rifle collection videos?? Off the top of my head I cannot recall anything that would fall under that category, with the exception of AKA 1884... Outside of that silly event, there is nothing.

You know someone that claims I was abusive towards them??? Only AKA 1884, if it were anyone else, then you and you informant are mistaking me for someone else.

Okay Mag, let it go. MODERATOR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badger

Thanks... be careful what you wish for, as she shoots better than I do. :lol:

44.8303°N 78.6899°W
315 meters
1033.5 feet

Milcun Marksmanship Complex

Regards,
Badger

---

I mentioned that Im "easing" my wife into this... here is a short clip of her shooting our M1D. (She likes the bi-pod on it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTiLXFEjF7c She is nowhere near what your wife is doing, but she is gradually having more fun with it...Eighteen years of marrage, she has come this far anyways... :beerchug:

Mag30th, excellent videos. It is nice to see what the old warhorses can still do in original configuration.

I think that a lot of the current crop of service rifle and cowboy shooters modify the heck out of them and lose thier appreciation of what these fine old firearms were originally designed for.

Don't let the critics get you down and keep posting those great videos.

Picked up M1D from CMP. Acquired MRT Cheek Pad, M84 scope & T-37 Flash Supressor. Sighting in at NRA range in Va-150' indoor and encountered large changes in vertical point of impact with sn change in settings. Scratching head and finally found brass inprints on top tine of T-37. The bullets are impacting the T-37. Can remove but would like to resolve and use-fit is snug. Can't be the first to encounter-all help appreciated/Cheers/Jake in Va

Jake1, you may have more success if you start a new thread of your own.

Just go to the top of the forum above the stickies and hit the small "New Topic" button on the LH side. That way your concerns aren't lost when people re-read through some of these older posts above! We're easily distracted...

HTH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badger

A follow up .... :)

I forgot to mention that she had a few boxes of Federal Match .308 155gr which is no longer manufactured or sold.

Using the same rifle, range and wind conditions, she fired lots of that ammunition at the same 4 foot target at 1,000 meters (1,100 yards approx) and her groups were consistently less than 12".

However, perhaps more germane to this discussion was the fact NONE of the 50+ rounds of 155gr she fired "key holed" like the 168gr Federal ammo did. All were clean well defined holes and apparently remained stable right to the target. :thup:


Regards,
Badger

---

Conventional wisdom is that the 168 grain Sierra Matchking is not a good choice for 1000 yards.

If that is the case, why does the 155 grain SMK apparently work well for Palma shooting out to 1000 yds?

I do not have the numbers, but the 168 appears to have more bearing surface and surely has a better ballistic coefficient.

Regards

Jim

Sir I salute you, this is most impressive. I recently took out My Mosin Nagant with refurbished optics. I Was determined to break the 750 yard mark, needless to say I was not able to. Even with 175 grain the closest I was able to get to the mark was 720. So I would say in my opinion this settles for me why the M1 was the most feared rifle in the field in WW2. I guess now I need to save up and get me a really nice M1.