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.
Last edited by Mag30th; 04-10-2009 at 12:22 AM.
Reason: typo
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.
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!
Last edited by John Kepler; 04-10-2009 at 06:02 AM.
Edited by moderator to integrate Mag30th's video in-line with post.
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.
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.
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)!
Last edited by John Kepler; 04-10-2009 at 11:37 AM.
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.
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 .......
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.
Custom Built by Milcun (Keith Cunningham) .308 Rifle
(Nicknamed "Wildfire")
(c/w Leupold 6.5-20x50mm LR/T M1 Scope with Luminated Reticle)
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
First 5 rounds (scope zero as delivered) at 100 Yards with Federal 168gr Match
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Second 5 rounds (scope up 2 clicks) at 100 Yards with Federal 168gr Match
(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.
-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.
Register To Reply
Originally Posted by Mag30th
