1,000 Yard Shooting (M1D Garand Sniper Rifle)

[Homer03]

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

[Mag30th]

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.

[John Kepler]

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!

[Mag30th]

“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.

[Mag30th]

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.



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

[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

[John Kepler]

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?

[Mag30th]

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.

[Mag30th]

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.

[Michael C]

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?