Sniper kills Qaeda-from 1½ mi. away

[Robb]

...I'm not a shooter, but I thought this would be of interest.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/sniper_kills_qaeda_from_mi_away_sTm0xFUmJNal3HgWlmEgRL">Sniper kills Qaeda-from 1½ mi. away

It was silent but deadly.

A British sniper set a world sharpshooting record by taking out two Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan from more than a mile and a half away -- a distance so great, experts say the terrorists wouldn't have even heard the shots.

Craig Harrison killed the two insurgents from an astounding distance of 8,120 feet -- or 1.54 miles -- in Helmand Province last November firing an Accuracy International L11583 long-range rifle.

"The first round hit a machine-gunner in the stomach and killed him outright," said Harrison, a corporal of horse in the British Army's Household Cavalry, the equivalent of a sergeant in the American military. "The second insurgent grabbed the weapon and turned as my second shot hit him in the side. He went down, too," Harrison told the Sunday Times of London.

The shots -- measured via GPS -- surpassed the previous record held by Canadian Army Cpl. Rob Furlong, who killed an al Qaeda gunman from 7,972 feet in 2002.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/sniper_kills_qaeda_from_mi_away_sTm0xFUmJNal3HgWlmEgRL#ixzz0mpVI8xu4

[Orrex]

1. Holy shit!

:wow:

7,972 is no slouch, either!

[MUAD_DIB]

12. The wind must have been perfect for that kind of hit.

'Conditions were perfect, no wind, mild weather, clear visibility. I rested the bipod of my weapon on a compound wall and aimed for the gunner firing the machinegun.'

I wonder how much relative temp played in the feat.

[Yeahyeah]

2. The Jonas Brothers better watch out! Hawhawhaw!

[Orrex]

7. That's the second time I've seen (basically) that same joke in about 15 seconds.

What did I miss? :wtf:

[Yeahyeah]

8. This thing- Obama Jokes About Killing Jonas Brothers With Predator Drones

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x461430

[Orrex]

13. Ah--thanks!

When I don't get a joke, I prefer it to be simply because I don't understand it. But when I lack the background info, I feel like the bus has sailed without me!

[av8rdave]

3. I'm not a fan of killing, but....

If it's a confirmed Al Queda kill, good on the shooter!!!

[tekisui]

4. A most impressive shot. They may have not even heard the shots, but

was it 'Qaeda' or Taliban, or just NY Post sloppiness?

[DURHAM D]

5. I bet Leroy Jethro Gibbs can do that too. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. NCIS (both versions) are absolutely idiotic but somehow seem to capture large # viewers every week

Today I saw in a small town near a USN base in Kern County, NCIS did bust a medical pot place. I should also note that I am not the only one wondering where they got the authority for that?
http://www.ridgecrestca.com/news/x1042476083/Local-NCIS-investigation-leads-to-5-arrests if anyone is interested

[The Magistrate]

6. The Rifle, Sir, Ought To Get A Bit Of The Credit, Too

It must have been one of these revived anti-tank rifle equipments current nowadays, but which do the English use?

[leeloo]

10. I want one for christmas and i promise i won't shoot my eye out..

[The Magistrate]

20. Thank You, Ma'am

Surprised it is only 9mm; was expecting twelve and a half or even fourteen. There must be quite a neck to the cartridge, and tungsten or depleted uranium for the bullet.

[benEzra]

41. The caliber is .338 Lapua Magnum

The caliber is .338 Lapua Magnum, and it has quite a following in long-range target shooting circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum

It has better long-range trajectory than .50 BMG (albeit with less energy), but out of a considerably smaller and lighter rifle. I think the projectiles the Brits are using are ordinary lead core match grade stuff, but I may be wrong.

[The Magistrate]

54. Thank You, Sir: Very Interesting

Characteristics are fairly similar to the smaller caliber equipments of the thirties, the PzB 38/39 and the Wz 35. These had somewhat higher muzzle velocities than is given for commecial loads of this modern rifle, but doubtless the military cartridges have greater power.

[MUAD_DIB]

15. It is actually a new model.

From the article...

http://www.sniperinfo.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2954

The L115A3 rifle - based on a weapon used by the British Olympic shooting team - was introduced onto the battlefield two years ago as part of an £11million upgrade by the Ministry of Defence.

It fires a heavier bullet to much longer ranges and has a state-of-the-art telescopic sight with enhanced magnifying power to identify the enemy even through the heat haze of Afghanistan.

[wtmusic]

9. If they had positively identified the "insurgents" from 1-1/2 miles away

I'd be impressed.

Maybe the "machine gunner" was a cameraman. Something like that's been in the news recently, hasn't it?

Sounds more like brown-man target practice to me.

[cowman]

19. Uh

they do have whats called binoculars these days. wonderful things those binoculars, they let you see far far away, so I have zero doubt that those 2 POS's where AQ and not a "cameraman".

[wtmusic]

23. Oh really.

That must have been you up in that chopper dropping 30mm rounds on those photographers-er, insurgents with cameras-er, AK-47s - those POSs in the Apache had no doubt either.

Funny how easy it is to be brave from 1-1/2 miles away. To say nothing of 10,000 miles away.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Fighting a war is not about bravery, its tactics, logistics, technology etc

If you are face to face with the bad guys, normally you screwed up badly. (BTDT and the scars still show)

[wtmusic]

28. Ah, the bad guys.

They've developed a scope for identifying bad guys?

Something tells me you'd want a higher standard of certainty if that scope was trained on your brother, for example.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. I tend to call people out to kill me the bad guys

And have had no problem with certainty in real time or later.

[wtmusic]

31. I'm relieved that you've had no problem.

Arrogance and bluster hardly impress, though. Sorry.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Then you self esteem must be in the toilet...since all you have done is bluster on this thread

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Considering that the dead guys were killed while they were shooting a machine gun...

...then I would consider that extremely strong evidence that they were AQ or Taliban.

[wtmusic]

45. The Post article lists them as all three

"AQ"? or "Qaeda"? "Taliban"? Or just "insurgents"? You seem equally confused (believe it or not there's a difference).

From a reality perspective, the Taliban doesn't sit in one place shooting a machine gun - it's hit and run. And in case you hadn't noticed, "peacekeeping" troops frequently arm their enemies with machine guns when they need some target practice.

This stinks to high heaven.

[HALO141]

47. Shooting an automatic rifle does not a

"machine gunner" make. It just makes you a foot soldier. The targets have been described by more than one source machine gunners which generally refers to a crew-served weapon. Various articles also report that the targets were already engaging (iow. "firing on") friendly forces so the question of their allegiance and the nature of the threat they posed seems pretty well settled. Beyond that, it doesn't matter WHICH terrorist organization, if any, they belonged to. If you're shooting at the "good guys" that makes you a "bad guy."

If you're of the opinion that everyone in uniform is, by definition, a liar and a murderer then that's fine, whatever, but at least be honest about it and say so.

[Euromutt]

36. Those Apache jocks weren't entirely wrong, actually

They may have misidentified the camera bags slung over shoulders as AKs, but the error was facilitated by the fact that several people in the group they were with were carrying AKs. You can actually see them in the video footage, if you don't allow yourself to be distracted by the notes and arrows saying "look here now, don't look there" (that's not a literal quote). What I find funny (funny peculiar, that is) is how nobody's in a major hurry to explain what the two dead photographers in Baghdad were doing hanging out with a bunch of guys carrying rifles who were taking up what looked suspiciously like an ambush position.

And one thing those Apache jocks and Corporal Harrison have in common is that they were interdicting (what very much appeared to be) insurgents about to open fire on an approaching friendly ground unit. Yeah, trying to stop the guys on your side from getting killed is obviously an act of utter cowardice.

[wtmusic]

44. "What very much appeared to be" doesn't cut it.

I'm constantly amazed by the ignorance displayed around here regarding what is a war crime, and what isn't.

"Actively engaged in hostilities". Not "carrying an camera that might have been an AK", not even "carrying an AK", not "hanging around with guys who look mean and all insurgent-y".

Geneva was the result of some bad guys cutting corners, then the corners got bigger, and bigger. They're there for a good reason, and the US is signatory. The burden is on the attacker, and we fucked up - it's our fault. You can gloss over it, they can gloss over it, but the guys in the chopper are war criminals and should be prosecuted as such.

[Euromutt]

68. *You're* constantly amazed?

I'm an infantry sergeant in the Royal Netherlands Army inactive reserves (and will remain so until I turn 45, though it would take a direct and acute military threat to the territory of a NATO member state for me to be called to active duty), which means I got a fair bit of instruction in the laws of land warfare (and the Netherlands has ratified more treaties than the United States has). And I worked for Office of The Prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for close to four years. So overall, I think that lends my opinions on what does or does not form a war crime some validity.

When you're facing an enemy who does not adhere to the rule that "combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack" (Art. 44, Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949), "very much appears to be" becomes the best you can strive for. The laws of warfare do not oblige you to fight with one hand tied behind your back as a result of the enemy not doing so. When a bunch of guys with weapons gather at a corner of a street, at a point that a friendly vehicle patrol is about to pass, that's about as certain as you can be short of letting them spring the ambush and risking getting some of your own guys killed. That's not how it works.

"The burden is on the attacker"? Please do point out where it says that in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or the Additional Protocols. As far as I'm aware, the burden is on both sides. E.g. if your side sets up a defensive position in an unevacuated residential neighborhood, it's not the enemy's fault if civilians get killed in the shelling. Similarly, if you have a couple of non-combatants mixed in with the belligerents, apparently of their own volition, you're under no obligation to hold your fire.

At most, I'd say the cock-up was in firing on the van. The occupants of the van may very well have been intending to "mess up the crime scene" (so to speak) by removing weapons and possible live captives, but at the time the Apache gunner fired, that had not yet been established; they'd only grabbed the one wounded guy, possibly intending to get him to medical help. It also does illustrate a problem with the ROE, in that the higher echelon giving the permission to engage is entirely reliant in making its judgment on what the lower echelon requesting permission is reporting. If the report is incorrect, the judgment is going to be based on faulty information, in which case you might as well dispense with that intermediate step.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. In war, killing the enemy with no danger to yourself is a prized skill.

The idea is to kill them without getting killed. That some keyboard commando wants to question your bravery is of no concern.

[wtmusic]

46. You have to identify the enemy first

or you're just like the 9/11 attackers.

[benEzra]

49. If the guy in question is shooting at your friends with a machinegun,

that's a clue.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. Easy. Crewing machine gun at friendly forces = enemy. N/T

[Pavulon]

65. Alive is the important thing.

and unlike 105 or a 500lb bomb no innocent bystanders were made dead in this incident.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Then be impressed

Spotting optics are actually a bit better than the scopes being used (less size/weight restrictions)

[Euromutt]

34. The people the Taliban were shooting at were significantly closer

According to the newspaper articles in the link, Harrison's troop (a platoon, in British cavalry terms) was providing cover for an Afghan national army foot patrol; first the Afghans got shot at, whereupon the British troop commander's Jackal 2 4x4 (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/coyote/) tried to close but got bogged down in a field. The two Taliban were setting up a machine gun (a PKM http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg07-e.htm) to engage the troop commander's Jackal when Harrison shot them (and then put a bullet into the machine gun for good measure).

[benEzra]

61. Ummm, he was aiming at them through a top-grade 25-power telescope.

which made the targets roughly the same angular size as seeing somebody from 108 yards with the unaided eye.

Can you tell the difference between a machine gun team with a deployed machinegun, and a cameraman, at 108 yards? Anyone who can't needs their eyes checked.

There's also the issue that the sniper and his spotter weren't the only British troops in the area, and the Brits have been using these newfangled things called "radios" for a few decades now.

[X_Digger]

11. At those distances, you have to account for the rotation of the earth!

Wow.

[Orrex]

14. I saw a show about snipers on The History Channel

They had one amazing segment about a sniper and his spotter. I don't recall the distance of the shot, but they showed an animation of what the trajectory would look like. He had to aim higher than the target to account for the seven inches (IIRC) of drop over the full distance.

Amazing stuff.

[MUAD_DIB]

16. MOA or Minute of arc or ArcMinute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_arc

The arcminute is commonly found in the firearms industry and literature, particularly that concerning the accuracy of rifles, though the industry tends to refer to it as minute of angle. It is popular because 1 MOA subtends approximately one inch at 100 yards, a traditional distance on target ranges. A shooter can easily readjust their rifle scope by measuring the distance in inches the bullet hole is from the desired impact point, and adjusting the scope that many MOA in the same direction. Most target scopes designed for long distances are adjustable in quarter (¼) or eighth (⅛) MOA "clicks". One eighth MOA is equal to approximately an eighth of an inch at 100 yards or one inch at 800 yards.


The top and side controls on the rifle scope take into account wind and distance from target. He may have had to aim higher, but it wouldn't be a blind shot.

[Orrex]

17. Spare me your witchcraft, you charlatan!

Actually, they talked about some of that, though in more basic, general terms. And they made a point of showing the sniper adjusting the scope to account for it.

Still impressed the hell out of me!

[paulsby]

18. on sports science, they actually proved that snipers were "tuned: enough

to be able to depress the trigger BETWEEN finger pulse every time. it was astounding

sports science is a great show. (actually it was either sports science or a similar show on natgeo. not 100% sure it was sports science)

[DissedByBush]

21. If it's the one I saw

That was only 1,000 yards.

And bullet drop was WAY over seven inches. I can't remember exactly from that show, but:

If you had an average .308 (2,700fps, 180gr) zeroed or clicked in at 1,000 yards, the bullet will rise about thirteen feet before coming down again to the target.

This shot should have taken about four seconds to get there, I remember Furlong's was just under four.

Since about half the trip is up, half down, we count two seconds. A bullet dropped for two seconds would fall ... back to physics class ...

About 20 yards.

20 yards over 2,700 yards, still a pretty flat trajectory.

[Orrex]

22. I dispute none of that.

Still impressed the hell out of me.

[Flyboy_451]

55. Some info on .338 Lapua...

Keep in mind that all of this information is derived, and verified out to about 1200 yards with my rifle. Results will vary slightly with another rifle.

Using a Barnes 250gr "xs" bullet at a velocity of 2900fps, and zeroed at 600 yards, I would have to add 204.82 MOA (thats 5997.9 inches) of elevation adjustment to bring the point of aim to point of impact of the bullet at 2700 yards.

Time of flight for the bullet would be 6.97 seconds. Velocity at the target would be about 725 fps and the energy would be about 290ft/lbs. While the shot is certainly possible (it would require a better marksman than myself), it is well beyond the realistic effective range of the cartridge. The biggest reason for this is that the bullet will go subsonic at about 1500 yards. This transition from super- to sub- sonic flight commonly induces an instability to the bullet and disrupts the trajectory. Shots at ranges like this are truly a demonstration of absolute mastery of the rifle.

Not only is the shooter in possession of exceptional skills, a bit of luck probably helped a little.

JW

[pipoman]

39. If it is the one I saw

Canadian Army Cpl. Rob Furlong (sort of an appropriate name) was one of the shooters. The show I saw was about recreation of some of the excessively long shots during these wars. It was impressive for sure from a technical standpoint as someone who has shot rifles recreationally for years.

Edit: This is the one I saw...'Sniper: Inside the Crosshairs'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1411248/

[ORDagnabbit]

24. yay the celebration of death! awesome go corporate team america!! n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. You did realize this was a UK sniper team and the story was first reported in UK papers

[ORDagnabbit]

33. yep...and its us americans on this board celebrating it from a NY post storyline. n/t

[shadowrider]

38. I'm having trouble following your reasoning

Are you saying these guys shouldn't have been shot, and the subsequent high-5's shouldn't be given, even though THEY were shooting to kill British forces? Or are you saying they should have been shot, we just shouldn't be happy about it.

I for one would buy that guy multiple beers for taking out the bad guys.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

42. No No No... he's mocking "corporate team America" because some limey shot a terraist 1.5mi away.

duh... :crazy:

[ORDagnabbit]

62. I saw this on the simpsons last night... basically to say "nay" I have to say "I hate america"

not gonna do it...wouldnt be prudent...

go on about your business and continue to celebrate death and how "cool" it is. I'm pretty sure, Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha and every other spiritual leader would be right beside you chanting "kill!, kill!, kill!"


how bout we should never have invaded in the first place, its a horrible fuck up and every death at this point is completely needless and the same goes for Iraq.

[GreenStormCloud]

67. Definately Mohammad would. He was a warrior and killed many. N/T

[shedevil69taz]

72. And even before we went to Afghanistan or Iraq

we had millions of followers of the Islamic faith that Mohammed founded that hate everything we stand for so much they would have gladly shot every single person in the United States if they could, including the women and children.

I still don't think we should have invaded two different soverign nations though.

Just yesterday I asked the guy who cuts my hair (who is a native Iraqi and speak pretty good english though won't say how he learned it) what he thought of Americans before the invasion and what he does now and this is what the told me:

"Before the invasion and even up until early in 2005 I hated all of you with all my heart, but now after conversing with many soldiers I can say that if the people who enter the military in your country represent you culture as a whole, that my hatred in the past is a great shame on me."

[pipoman]

40. There is a very, very long history of warfare

and these record shots are a part of that history. Yay, suppression of undesirable history!

[onehandle]

43. I read this awesome story about this sniper shot in the early sixties. I think it was in Dallas.

Only in this room would this be the subject of fascination, celebration and technical admiration.

[benEzra]

48. If you can't tell the difference

between a soldier shooting an opposing soldier actively trying to kill people with a machinegun, and a nutjob shooting pregnant women and other innocent bystanders for fun, then I can't help you.

I don't rejoice in the insurgents' deaths, but I respect the British soldier who made the shot, AND I appreciate the lives he undoubtedly saved by taking out the machine gun nest.

[onehandle]

56. Oh, sure I can tell the difference. And good for the soldier doing his job.

It's the combination of fascination, celebration and technical admiration that I frequently see only here that seems... odd.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Dallas, not Austin. He is talking about the JFK shot.

It was a trivially easy set of shots.

[benEzra]

60. Ah. I didn't make the connection...

because premeditated murder via point-blank potshots between 35 and 88 yards is so different from the topic of the OP, and I forgot that the University of Texas murders happened in Austin, not Dallas. Thanks for setting me straight.

[PavePusher]

50. You have achieved M.C.F.

Massive Conflation Fail.

Bu-bye.

[HALO141]

51. Seriously,

What the hell is your problem?

[proteus_lives]

53. You're funny.

Nohandle and his desperate attempts to connect the dots to "guns are bad, people who like guns are bad. People shouldn't have so many rights."

:rofl:

[east texas lib]

76. Yes indeed.

One of America's most revered presidents (who would be run out of town on a rail in todays Democratic Party as a "conservative" because of his political positions) was shot by a wanna-be leftist martyr. Oh, the irony. But it was a hell of a shot, as you say.;-)

[Glassunion]

52. Wow! I'm impressed... But...

Rob Furlong's shot, just 50 yards shorter was at a moving target. 4+ seconds of bullet travel.

Again, I'm still very impressed.

[Callisto32]

59. Those accuracy international rifles....man, have you SEEN those things?

[oneshooter]

63. You don't need a ultra-mag, wiz bang rifle to shoot long range!

Just know your rifle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4WpYj3CATg

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Callisto32]

69. I know you don't NEED one. I like to shoot .22LR at 300 meters.

Doesn't mean I can't appreciate a nice rifle.

Savage's new platform for the .338 is pretty nice too.

[Walk away]

64. When I was in college a friend of mine became a Marine...

He used to brag that he could shoot the dick off an ant at some outlandish distance. Unfortunately he committed suicide by gun while still in the service. He left a wife and a baby boy to carry on.

This OP just reminded me of him.

[-..__...]

66. When I was 19, I did a guy in Laos from a thousand yards out...

It was a rifle shot in high wind. Maybe eight or even ten guys in the world could have made that shot. It's the only thing I was ever good at.


:smoke:

[Euromutt]

70. Hey, Riggs!

Do you really like my wife's cooking?

[Travis Coates]

71. Really?

No

Given he had a horrible flinch in the smiley face scene, I want to know how he pulled off a thousand yard shot in high wind

[Ter]

73. How long does it take for a bullet to travel 8,120 feet?

More than a second or no?

[Glassunion]

74. It would depend on the ammunition and the firearm.

But generally speaking, just over 4 seconds.

[Euromutt]

75. According to the British papers, in this specific instance...

...over three seconds. Given that Afghanistan in its entirety is at high elevation, the air might be thin enough to reduce friction on the bullet enough that it travels appreciably faster than it would in most of the United States, or the UK.