Longest range recorded kill

Hehe, that's true, but I tought we were talking about 1,000 meter shots here? In which case match grade ammunition would be pretty important.

In Stalingrad ranges rarely exceeded 200 meters.

 

But lack of match grade ammunition wouldn't preclude a 1000M shot. Snipers are really only taking one shot and are not terribly concerned with grouping; all they need to do is hit a 4 1/2 square foot target. Not too difficult of a task.

 

Grouping is pretty important as it kinda determines the accuracy of the weapon; that is, if your rifle can't group tight, then it probably wont hit first time either.

 

You're right it does matter; but, a sniper takes their shot with a "Cold, Fouled Barrel" and they take one shot, all that shot has to do, to create a casualty, is hit a 4 square foot target. Grouping proves the accuracy at lesser distances and it gives you a base line to extrapolate results by applying variables.

It has been my experience that 'match' grade ammunition only provides about 1/4-1/2 MOA difference over 'service' or 'target' grade ammunition at distances greater than 500M. What that means is that a 1" group with match is about a 11/2" group with service grade at about 900M a 2" group with match is acceptable wich means you could produce a 3"-3 1/2" group with standard.

Now if we take that one step further and introduce "Wolf" ammunition, wich is very similar to what would have been used by the Soviets during WW2; reloaded laqured steel case, I was still able to put together a 6" group at 900M.

All of this shooting was done with a glass bedded M-21 w/ an ARTII scope at 6700' elevation with low humidity in temperatures ranging from -5f to 105f in rain, sleat, snow and heat.

The toughest thing that I had to overcome, when shooting at distance, was waiting for the bullet to stike and thinking I missed.

 

Formerjughead is right, match ammo is better but not by a large margin. If you were going for a 1000m head shot the difference would be critical, but no one is going to try that shot unless they have no other option. I will also state that, in the real world, if you talk to snipers, first round hits at 1000 meters plus are unusual maybe 40% or so for a really good shooter. It's usually the second round that closes the deal. Now if you're an exceptional shooter like Carlos Hathcock, and through training and experience, instinctively know the right dope to use, your percentages for first round hits improve. To quote one current sniper I recently spoke with about this thread, "It's not like at the rifle range where you get practice rounds to perfect your round strike. You have to guesstimate the environmental factors and dial in that solution. I take my first shot and my spotter will call left hip, I aim right shoulder, round strikes dead center and they're done." Since most WWII shooters didn't work with a spotter, this is where Proeliator's better clarity and crispness would come in, the shooter could better observe his own round strike. The sniper I spoke with, also stated that on a 1000m shot, windage is the most important factor, this is where the tool for windage adjustment would be a large negative factor for the German scopes.
I see the wider FOV as an advantage in target acquisition, but not necessarily as big a factor in closing the deal. The sniper I spoke with also stated that if he had to make this 1000m shot, of the three rifles being considered he'd prefer the '03 Springfield because of the quality and accuracy of the rifle and the flatter trajectory of the .30-06 round.
Apparently, in his opinion 800 meters is the optimal range for taking a shot in open terrain. You're close enough that you have a close to 100% probability of a first shot kill while maintaining the ability to remain concealed/unobserved and sufficient ability to egress if spotted. I have another friend that was an instructor at the sniper school at Quantico, and actually had an 800 meter head shot kill, against an enemy sniper when we were in Beruit. I've tried to contact him but he's been out of pocket the last several days. I remember when he got selected to go to sniper school, they would send him to the range every day with a glass-bedded M14 and ammo cans of 7.62mm ball ammunition and all he did was shoot. They did this so he would refine his marksmanship skills and learn to get the job done with good equipment. Once he could outshoot this rifle/ammo combination he was good to move on. As Jaeger put it so well,

When he got to Quantico, got his M40, superior optics and hand loaded ammo it allowed him to apply his acquired skills with surgical precision.

 

Then why haven't you given the references?

HOw can you tell?

This raises a number of questions and observations.
1) Were the Soviet scopes sealed?
2) Nitrogen is not an inert gas.
3) If you have a scope that is sealed during the winter in a cold climate it is very unlikely that it will fog up if you move it from a warm to a cold environment. Even if it's not winter if the air where it's made has a relativly low amount of humidity it probably won't fog up.
4) Did the Soviets purge their scopes at all? or take any measures to control the humidity in the areas where they were sealed?

 

lwd,

First of there are nitrogen based inert gasses made specifically for purging scopes (Nitrogen in itself is almost completely inert), and these are naturally the ones we are talking about here. Argon is completely inert in itself. So let's not start nitpicking on this area.

As for how I can tell that they weren't purged at any point; for one they aren't properly sealed for it, using beeswax as a sealant. Next it is mentioned nowhere that they were purged, in no book and by no expert. And finally every expert I know on these scopes says that they weren't. Those are my sources, and they all agree, the Soviet scopes were not purged.

 

Why are you unable to name/source these 'experts'?

You have not provided a source. You are claiming to have sources but are unwilling (or unable) to give specific information where we can check your claims.
You said you have evidence so why the reluctance to post it?
Why no names?
Are all the 'experts' you know publicity shy?

I think what you are in fact saying you have never seen a source confirming the Soviet sights were purged. This is not quite the same as evidence they were never purged.

I do not know if they were and it is increasingly obvious you are no wiser on the matter.

 

Which would those be?

Not really. Indeed in nature it's almost always found in multi atom molecules.

What are you talking about? I'm certainly not aware of any "nitrogen based inert gasses".

Well Argon is one of the Inert gasses. It would be nitpicking to mention that it's possible to create compounds with at least some of the inert gases but this wasn't what I was talking about. Again Nitrogen is not an inert gas that's a fact and not a nit.

Beeswax doesn't work as a sealant? It's been used in that function for centuries. Certainly there are better ones now but was this adequate to the purpose? If it was then they were "properly sealed".

So you've read all the books and talked to all the experts? If not your statement may or may not be true and it certainly presumes more thank you can demonstrate.

But what are we to make of this? Some unknown number of unknown "experts" say something. This amounts to little more than hearsay as it leaves no independent method of investigating your data sources.

And as such your statement while potentially true is very weakly supported.

 

lwd,

Why are we discussing wether Nitrogen is inert or not? All it is, is pointless nitpicking, esp. when considering that Nitrogen is considered largely inert by most. What matters is that it is used for purging telescopic sights, along with Argon, to keep the scopes from fogging up.

Anyway here's what I could find on inert gasses based on nitrogen:

"In marine applications, inert gas refers to gases with a low content of oxygen that are used to fill void spaces in and around tanks for explosion protection. There are two types of inert gas which are either based on nitrogen or on flue gas."

"Nitrogen-based inert gas is produced on board chemical tankers and product carrieres (smaller vessels) with compressors and a nitrogen-specific membrane."

And:
1. NEPS Nitrogen Purge System: Theory & Characteristics
2. Universal Industrial Gases, Inc...Nitrogen N2 Properties, Uses, Applications - Gas and Liquid

 

I am not unable to name these people m kenny, I am however curious as to why I should, seeing as it won't prove helpful to you in anyway as none of them have written any books. Their expertise is based on collecting these scopes and knowing all there is to know about their history through serious research.

Btw, I was told to say that if you want proof of the PU not having been purged then all you need to do is read the scope's manual. Purging is mentioned nowhere, not even when describing how to disassemble and reassemble the scope in the field.

 

Good question. I will address it after dealing with your other points/questions/comments.

Not IMO.

Is it? I just did a quick google of definitons of "inert gas" not bothering with reapeat sites or ones that defaulted to noble gases we have:
inert gas - definition of inert gas by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Three defintions from different sources listed. One conatins a primary and secondary defintion. Only the latter would include nitrogen and it's listed as "loosly". The others list it as the nobel gases.
inert gas: Information from Answers.com
Nobel gas.
Definition of inert_gas - Chemistry Dictionary
might include nitrogen some of the time.
What does inert gas mean? definition, meaning and pronunciation (Free English Language Dictionary)
nobel gas.
Inert gas - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
nobel gas.
Inert gas - Definition
Another one with weak support for your definiton here it is:

From what I recall both my highschool and college chemistry classes used the nobel gas defintion as well. So it's far from clear that it is "largely considered inert by most".

Indeed that is an important point in this conversation. But you were the one that kept making the point that purging with "inert" gasses was important. The question is just how important is it. The whole purpose is to remove moisture from inside the scope is it not? If that's the case how important is it that it's done by argon or nitrogen purging or in some other way. How likely is it that an unpurged scope will fog up especially if it is sealed? I note that when I've brought these points up you've ignored them.

As to why I brought this up. A large part of your argument seems to be based on your own personal expertise. Errors in fact and statments claiming more than the facts will support bring this into question. The reliance on clubs without names and unnameable experts as well as the lack of other references even though you've implied they exist is also troubling.

 

You never said it was a secret society!
You do not have to write a book to be an expert. Normaly 'experts' tend to know one another and anyone who knows his subject will at the very least be known to the community. If you named them then we could at least get some idea of their understanding.
A few posts back you impuned the reputation of Vic Thomas

Rifles Of The Red Star

and said :

This implied he was 'hiding' away from them. Vic Thomas posts openly on a number of forums and is easily contactable. Your claim was baseless and entirely without substance. Contrast his openess with the complete refusal of you or your experts to even give their names.
All this is just quibbling. The fact is you have consistently failed to give checkable sources for your claims. When challenged you come out with all sorts of excuses as to why you are unable to oblige
You rely on accounts from other sites. You re-post photos from other forums. You claim ownership of rifles and scopes but fail to produce a single photo taken by yourself or of you. You should at least have a digital camera/cameraphone so a photo is hardly beyond you and you can obscure your face.

You said earlier:

Can you please list these sources and if a book give us the page number where it specificaly states your claim.

That does not involve naming names and should be a simple task.
Will you do it?
A list of sniping volumes copied from Abebooks is not what I am after.

I take it the word 'every' is an indication you have multiple sources confirming it rather than a single document.

 

For Vintovka and anyone who is interested. After showing your Mosins here´s a pic of my LE with an German WW2 scope on it for the reason that the original ones are extremely expensive.
View attachment 12413

 

Not to change the subject, but....
does anyone know how far away a battleship might have been and still record a direct hit on someone or something (like a tank etc.)?

 

Well on other ships battleships got direct hits at over 25,000 yards. There has been some arguments that Mass may have hit Jean Bart at ~30,000 yards. Splinter damage has been recieved at even grater ranges (Nowaki may have taken splinter damage at over 35,000 yards). The battleships at Normandy fired inland to some considerbable distance but I don't know what they hit or what the ranges were. Some of the shoots in Vietnam were also pretty long range I believe but I don't have any details. Here's a link to an older write up on the topic or at least part of it:
Longest Gunfire Hit on an Enemy Warship
This page USS New Jersey (BB-62) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
mentions New Jersey hitting vehicles north of Nha Ky in Vietnam. Looking at the map at Google Maps Nha Ky appears to be ~20 miles from the sea.
This page mentions quite a few fire support missions in Vietnam and has some nice pictures but no details on range: ALPHA COMPANY 4 / 3 11TH LIGHT INFANTRY BRIGADE

 

You weren't specific so I would check the range of the Tomahawk strikes by the Missouri and Wisonsin during Desert Storm.

 

M kenny, you are truly something else. But you've crossed the line once too many towards me now though, and thus you will simply be ignored hence forth.

For anyone wanting to know though, I am a "member" of a small unofficial collectors club, or more specifically a bunch of very good friends who are in touch and all get together once in a while to see each others hardware, sometimes swapping items and exhanging information on places to go, and just having a jolly good time really.

The Russian optics expert's name is Claus, and he knows what he's talking about when it comes to vintage rifles and scopes in general. Recently he even found a Karabiner 98k for me, I still need to go pick it up though - free of charge! It's good to have friends! He has been collecting historic rifles & scopes since he was a young adult, so he knows everything there is to know about the history of the these weapons. And his words on the issue are that the Russians never purged any of their scopes during the war.

Furthermore I have failed to find any evidence of purging through handling actual examples of original WW2 Russian scopes, or mention of it in any book or manual. Not even the PU or PEM scope's manual mentions anything about purging, which would be a first amongst assembly manuals for purged scopes. Odd? Not really.

m kenny however wants me to post examples of books specifically saying that the PU & PEM scopes weren't purged, problem is that finding proof of something that never happened or existed is pretty hard.

 

I can't believe you're still going on about this?

Look here: Universal Industrial Gases, Inc...Nitrogen N2 Properties, Uses, Applications - Gas and Liquid

National Industrial Gas, Inc.
"Nitrogen gas is slightly lighter than air and slightly soluble in water. It is commonly thought of and used as an inert gas; but it is not truly inert. It forms nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide with oxygen, ammonia with hydrogen, and nitrogen sulfide with sulfur. Nitrogen compounds are formed naturally through biological activity. Compounds are also formed at high temperature or at moderate temperature with the aid of catalysts. At high temperatures, nitrogen will combine with active metals, such as lithium, magnesium and titanium to form nitrides. Nitrogen is necessary for various biological processes, and is used as a fertilizer, usually in the form of ammonia or ammonia-based compounds. Compounds formed with halogens and certain organic compounds can be explosive."

Are we done yet, or do you wanna go on about how Nitrogen is not truly inert and therefore me indirectly refering to it as inert makes me a liar? Or what is it your trying to do here?

I said purging a scope was important, I never said that it HAD to be with an inert gas, eventhough you only tend do it with inert gasses (for quite obvious reasons) - or nearly inert in regards to Nitrogen, if your prefer that statement.

I haven't ignored your questions lwd. The point of purging a scope is obviously done to remove any moisture inside of it, but equally important to ensure that none should ever build itself up inside the scope.

Look lwd, the important thing here is that I know people who in turn, I would wager, knows everything there is to know about the equipment that is the subject of debate in this thread. I have also contributed with my own knowledge on the subject, which has been built on having read about, heard about and physically handled a good deal of these equipment pieces. You choose to doubt it, no problem, your choice, it is only a healthy trait to be skeptical. I am however interested in knowing what it is that I have written about these equipment pieces that you personnaly feel sounds improbable in your opinion?

 

You produced a ~0.6 MOA 5 shot grouping at 900 meters shooting a .311 cal, 147 gr flat based spitzer with an average G1 ballistic coefficient of .398 and average MV of 860 m/s? (Also take into account average deviation in MV for Soviet wartime ammunition)

That's not just good shooting, it's kinda lucky; even with match grade ammunition that would be some darn good shooting. 0.66 MOA at 900 meters shooting ammunition equivalent in quality to wartime mass produced Soviet ammunition is quite amazing.

I will add that Wolf ammunition is of better quality than WW2 Soviet ammunition though, so that makes your grouping more plausible as apposed to had it been with the Russian wartime ammunition. Still an amazing grouping with light Wolf ammunition though...