On May 7, 7:29=A0am, "Doug Brown" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Stuart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > You guys are justifiably proud your snipers.
>
> > We have one or too of our own :-)
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273679/Gone-28-seconds-Rapid...
>
> A tip of the hat to the corporal - great work, and an interesting article
> too.
Very interesting. Something's funny with the numbers, though. Twenty-
eight seconds total, nine rounds to kill the first, each with a time
in flight of 2.6 seconds plus four others killed (no mention of the
number of rounds used on the other four). That's a minimum of 13
rounds fired in 28 seconds. That means more than one bullet in flight
at a time. The magazine holds five rounds, indicating at *least* two
reloads in the 28 seconds.
In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > We peaceful Canucks have a few of our own too -
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Furlong
>
> Sad end to his career in the military, too many politicians in the chain of
> command.
Especially here in Canada. Our politicians are a disgrace. The next
election, I may actually be too ashamed of the bastards to vote for any
of them.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:47:35 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote the following:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Doug Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> > We peaceful Canucks have a few of our own too -
> >>
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Furlong
> >>
> >> Sad end to his career in the military, too many politicians in the chain
> >> of
> >> command.
> >
> >Especially here in Canada. Our politicians are a disgrace. The next
> >election, I may actually be too ashamed of the bastards to vote for any
> >of them.
>
> OMG, have we infected you?
Nah, it started with our first commie prime minister, Pierre Trudeau,
back in the late 60s and has been on a steady decline ever since.
And it's at all levels, from municipal up to federal.
As the Aussies say "All bastards are bastards, but some bastards are
BASTARDS."
"Stuart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You guys are justifiably proud your snipers.
>
> We have one or too of our own :-)
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273679/Gone-28-seconds-Rapid-sniper-takes-Taliban-soldiers-protect-British-patrol.html
>
I read about that rifle he uses. It shoots further than many of the siniper
rifles the US military uses and is much lighter than a .50 caliber. A
combination of an excellent rifle and a well trained sniper did its job..
Well done.
On 2010-05-07 14:46:51 -0400, "Kerry Montgomery" <[email protected]> said:
> DGDevin,
> Well, the army page specifies a muzzle velocity of 936 m/s, which IS
> equal to 2093 mph. I agree with keithw86 that it's extremely unlikely
> to fire 13 rounds and reload twice in 28 seconds.
> Kerry
But you must have forgotten the single-bullet theory!
In article <080520101128319027%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> Nah, it started with our first commie prime minister, Pierre Trudeau,
> back in the late 60s and has been on a steady decline ever since.
> And it's at all levels, from municipal up to federal.
> As the Aussies say "All bastards are bastards, but some bastards are
> BASTARDS."
And politicians are even worse!
On May 7, 9:08=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 8 May 2010 01:03:04 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Edward A. =
Falk)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]=
.com>,
> >[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Very interesting. =A0Something's funny with the numbers, though. =A0Twe=
nty-
> >>eight seconds total, nine rounds to kill the first, ...
>
> >I think they're counting time from when the first target was hit
> >rather then from when the first shot was fired.
>
> So, the first eight shots don't count (except when they're counted)? =A0T=
hat's
> not the way it's written. =A0Five shots (one magazine) in 28 seconds make=
s more
> sense, though why would he reload after eight shots? =A0The story is stil=
l fishy
> but it does make (some) more sense your way.
The writer is not the shooter.
On Sat, 8 May 2010 01:03:04 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Edward A. Falk)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Very interesting. Something's funny with the numbers, though. Twenty-
>>eight seconds total, nine rounds to kill the first, ...
>
>I think they're counting time from when the first target was hit
>rather then from when the first shot was fired.
So, the first eight shots don't count (except when they're counted)? That's
not the way it's written. Five shots (one magazine) in 28 seconds makes more
sense, though why would he reload after eight shots? The story is still fishy
but it does make (some) more sense your way.
On May 13, 1:36=A0pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 7, 9:08=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 8 May 2010 01:03:04 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Edward A=
. Falk)
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <[email protected]=
ps.com>,
> > >[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>Very interesting. =A0Something's funny with the numbers, though. =A0T=
wenty-
> > >>eight seconds total, nine rounds to kill the first, ...
>
> > >I think they're counting time from when the first target was hit
> > >rather then from when the first shot was fired.
>
> > So, the first eight shots don't count (except when they're counted)? =
=A0That's
> > not the way it's written. =A0Five shots (one magazine) in 28 seconds ma=
kes more
> > sense, though why would he reload after eight shots? =A0The story is st=
ill fishy
> > but it does make (some) more sense your way.
>
> The writer is not the shooter.
Duh! What an asinine statement.
"Seismo R. Malm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2010-05-07, Lee Michaels <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> "Stuart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> You guys are justifiably proud your snipers.
>>>
>>> We have one or too of our own :-)
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273679/Gone-28-seconds-Rapid-sniper-takes-Taliban-soldiers-protect-British-patrol.html
>>>
>> I read about that rifle he uses. It shoots further than many of the
>> siniper
>> rifles the US military uses and is much lighter than a .50 caliber.
>> A
>> combination of an excellent rifle and a well trained sniper did its
>> job..
>> Well done.
>>
>>
>>
>
> For you US folks the caliber is .338 Lapua Magnum.
>
> Here is another sniper:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4
>
> Trivia from Finland,
>
> seismo malm
Seismo:
Not trivial whatsoever. Simo Häyhä removed over 500 confirmed
Russian foe using iron sights on a bolt-action rifle in a conflict
where your people faced odds perhaps as steep as 100 to 1. "Motti",
"Sisu" and "Hakkaa päälle!" are among the words recalled from reading
on the Winter War along with a particular exchange between a Soviet
commander and an underling who managed to escape a
motti with some of his force: "Why did you stop sending out
patrols!?!" "Because they never came back."
Another reference worth citation is:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WMwXlFmkQPQJ:www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/white-death-simo-hayh/20951+http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/white-death-simo-hayh/20951&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
For those interested in a clear treatment of the conflict "A Frozen
Hell" is one way to start.
And--out of curiousity--is there any existing attitude residual to
Sweden's unwillingness to help with materiel in that period?
By the way, that's an Earth-shaking name.
Regards,
Edward Hennessey
Stuart wrote:
> You guys are justifiably proud your snipers.
>
> We have one or too of our own :-)
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273679/Gone-28-seconds-Rapid-
sniper-takes-Taliban-soldiers-protect-British-patrol.html
So you do. That action appears to have saved a number of lives of your
fellow countrymen -- that is definitely heroic action.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"Kerry Montgomery" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> The Daily Mail isn't exactly a paragon of journalistic excellence. Given
>> that the story also claims the muzzle velocity of this weapon is 2093 mph
>> we are probably safe in taking the other numbers with a grain of salt.
>>
>> http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1459.aspx
>>
> DGDevin,
> Well, the army page specifies a muzzle velocity of 936 m/s, which IS equal
> to 2093 mph. I agree with keithw86 that it's extremely unlikely to fire 13
> rounds and reload twice in 28 seconds.
> Kerry
This is how I messed up one side of that bookcase, a brainfart is all it
takes and once the sawdust flies it's too late to recalc....
936 meters per second = 3,071 feet per second = oh crap.
Supposedly it was possible to do 15-30 aimed shots a minute with a
Lee-Enfield depending on training and experience--the record going to a
British Army Sgt. named Snoxall who put 38 shots into a 12" bull in one
minute from 300 yards .
Interesting to read about that cartridge, looks like it's becoming the NATO
standard for sniping and is on its way to maybe being the U.S. sniper round
as well.
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Heh! More than one or two - you have a whole history of extraordinary
> marksmanship going back to the days of the longbow. :)
>
> The corporal had a steady hand and a good eye - and under pressure used
> them well to protect his mates.
>
> May they all return home safe and well.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
We peaceful Canucks have a few of our own too -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Furlong
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Very interesting. Something's funny with the numbers, though. Twenty-
> eight seconds total, nine rounds to kill the first, each with a time
> in flight of 2.6 seconds plus four others killed (no mention of the
> number of rounds used on the other four). That's a minimum of 13
> rounds fired in 28 seconds. That means more than one bullet in flight
> at a time. The magazine holds five rounds, indicating at *least* two
> reloads in the 28 seconds.
The Daily Mail isn't exactly a paragon of journalistic excellence. Given
that the story also claims the muzzle velocity of this weapon is 2093 mph we
are probably safe in taking the other numbers with a grain of salt.
http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1459.aspx
"Stuart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You guys are justifiably proud your snipers.
>
> We have one or too of our own :-)
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273679/Gone-28-seconds-Rapid-sniper-takes-Taliban-soldiers-protect-British-patrol.html
>
A tip of the hat to the corporal - great work, and an interesting article
too.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Very interesting. Something's funny with the numbers, though. Twenty-
>> eight seconds total, nine rounds to kill the first, each with a time
>> in flight of 2.6 seconds plus four others killed (no mention of the
>> number of rounds used on the other four). That's a minimum of 13
>> rounds fired in 28 seconds. That means more than one bullet in flight
>> at a time. The magazine holds five rounds, indicating at *least* two
>> reloads in the 28 seconds.
>
> The Daily Mail isn't exactly a paragon of journalistic excellence. Given
> that the story also claims the muzzle velocity of this weapon is 2093 mph
> we are probably safe in taking the other numbers with a grain of salt.
>
> http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1459.aspx
>
DGDevin,
Well, the army page specifies a muzzle velocity of 936 m/s, which IS equal
to 2093 mph. I agree with keithw86 that it's extremely unlikely to fire 13
rounds and reload twice in 28 seconds.
Kerry
On May 7, 4:16=A0am, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
> You guys are justifiably proud your snipers.
>
> We have one or too of our own :-)
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273679/Gone-28-seconds-Rapid...
That's great! Anybody that wants to kill our troops needs to die. I'm
not really concerned about the nit picking numbers thing. It's just
good to know we got one up up on them bastards.
RP
"Doug Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We peaceful Canucks have a few of our own too -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Furlong
Sad end to his career in the military, too many politicians in the chain of
command.
On Fri, 7 May 2010 16:17:58 -0700 (PDT), RP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 7, 4:16 am, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You guys are justifiably proud your snipers.
>>
>> We have one or too of our own :-)
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273679/Gone-28-seconds-Rapid...
>
>That's great! Anybody that wants to kill our troops needs to die. I'm
>not really concerned about the nit picking numbers thing. It's just
>good to know we got one up up on them bastards.
When the numbers don't add up, how do you believe the rest of the information?
On Fri, 7 May 2010 11:46:51 -0700, "Kerry Montgomery" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Very interesting. Something's funny with the numbers, though. Twenty-
>>> eight seconds total, nine rounds to kill the first, each with a time
>>> in flight of 2.6 seconds plus four others killed (no mention of the
>>> number of rounds used on the other four). That's a minimum of 13
>>> rounds fired in 28 seconds. That means more than one bullet in flight
>>> at a time. The magazine holds five rounds, indicating at *least* two
>>> reloads in the 28 seconds.
>>
>> The Daily Mail isn't exactly a paragon of journalistic excellence. Given
>> that the story also claims the muzzle velocity of this weapon is 2093 mph
>> we are probably safe in taking the other numbers with a grain of salt.
>>
>> http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1459.aspx
>>
>DGDevin,
>Well, the army page specifies a muzzle velocity of 936 m/s, which IS equal
>to 2093 mph. I agree with keithw86 that it's extremely unlikely to fire 13
>rounds and reload twice in 28 seconds.
The other issue I had was the multiple bullets in flight. Why would he shoot
the second without knowing if the first hit? Why did he do that on the first
perp (9 rounds), then not on the next four. If he did fire multiples on the
next four, add more to the number of rounds fired (and reloads).
I don't have an issue with the feat (good job!), just the reporting stinks,
IMO.
On 5/7/2010 3:16 AM, Stuart wrote:
> You guys are justifiably proud your snipers.
>
> We have one or two of our own :-)
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273679/Gone-28-seconds-Rapid-sniper-takes-Taliban-soldiers-protect-British-patrol.html
Heh! More than one or two - you have a whole history of extraordinary
marksmanship going back to the days of the longbow. :)
The corporal had a steady hand and a good eye - and under pressure used
them well to protect his mates.
May they all return home safe and well.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Very interesting. Something's funny with the numbers, though. Twenty-
>eight seconds total, nine rounds to kill the first, ...
I think they're counting time from when the first target was hit
rather then from when the first shot was fired.
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:47:35 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote the following:
>In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Doug Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > We peaceful Canucks have a few of our own too -
>>
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Furlong
>>
>> Sad end to his career in the military, too many politicians in the chain of
>> command.
>
>Especially here in Canada. Our politicians are a disgrace. The next
>election, I may actually be too ashamed of the bastards to vote for any
>of them.
OMG, have we infected you?
LJ, who's not looking forward to sending in his ballot in the May 18
Primary.
--
Live forever or die in the attempt.
-- Joseph Heller, Catch 22
On 2010-05-07, Lee Michaels <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> "Stuart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> You guys are justifiably proud your snipers.
>>
>> We have one or too of our own :-)
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273679/Gone-28-seconds-Rapid-sniper-takes-Taliban-soldiers-protect-British-patrol.html
>>
> I read about that rifle he uses. It shoots further than many of the siniper
> rifles the US military uses and is much lighter than a .50 caliber. A
> combination of an excellent rifle and a well trained sniper did its job..
> Well done.
>
>
>
For you US folks the caliber is .338 Lapua Magnum.
Here is another sniper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4
Trivia from Finland,
seismo malm