1,000 Yard Shooting (M1D Garand Sniper Rifle)

[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.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[John Kepler]

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!

[Mag30th]

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


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.

[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

[Ramboueille]

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.

[JustPassingThrough]

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



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

1165.374 FPS



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.

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



So your round is going Mach 1.194

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.

[Mag30th]

-- 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.