RE: Subject
Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
take out the pirates.
Having taken a few shots from a pitching boat, makes sense.
Somebody said:
> It was either the best shots on earth, or we have not heard the
> whole story of the Pirate shots.
Makes sense.
Anybody have any straight skinny?
Lew
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>
> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
>
> And that's with me on a rest and what I'm shooting at standing still.
>
> Remember what that old boy said, "A pistol is a weapon used to fight
> your way back to your rifle."
>
A long weapon is much easier to aim and hit a target than a pistol. That
said, there are some folk who are just deadly accurate with a 1911. I am
not one of them. But my little sister (six years younger) is. And she is
much smaller than me too!
Remember that guy in Vietnam who was a crack pistol shot.? He crashed in a
helicopter and held off a whole bunch of the enemy with just his 1911.
Almost got the medal of honor for it too. He fired and the others reloaded
his magazines for him. Obviously not a typical shot. I believe he was a
nationally ranked champion.
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:57:15 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Remember that guy in Vietnam who was a crack pistol shot.? He crashed in
>>a
>>helicopter and held off a whole bunch of the enemy with just his 1911.
>>Almost got the medal of honor for it too. He fired and the others
>>reloaded
>>his magazines for him. Obviously not a typical shot. I believe he was a
>>nationally ranked champion.
>>
> I never heard that story - but I'd like to.
>
==========================
It has been awhile since I read about it. I will try to track it down.
From my sometimes foggy memory, here is a few details.
It seemed that he had some kind of tricked out .45. Since he was a target
shooter, that made sense. And since it fit a standard holster, he could
carry it. He had some extra boxes of ammo with him at the time. The chopper
crashed, There were no other weapons on board that were functional. So he
started shooting his .45. And since he was such a crack shot, his shooting
was deadly accurate.
I think that they tried to take the chopper for almost an hour before
retreating due to heavy losses. They were later rescued. He did all the
shooting. The others reloaded his magazines. Here is an example of
somebody who spent countless hours punching holes in paper and had the
necessary skills to save himself in a real life encounter with those skills.
Maybe the folks at rec.guns will remember some more details.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:76723bb6-eef1-4997-a229-5cc36a5c65f8@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 19, 5:12 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a target
> >>pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized sniper
> >>rifles my shaven behind.
>
> > Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>
> > I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
>
> I was very careful to write "target pistol".
True. And the 1911s we were stuck with in the Marines were far better
up close where you could whap someone on the head with the thing, or
throw it like a rock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever developed, or
even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the broad
side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and not the
gun.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "MikeWhy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"Sergey Kubushin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> It is no big deal to put all the bullets into a quarter sized circle at
>>>> 100
>>>> yards distance. That is when using a commodity rifle like e.g. widely
>>>> available PSL-54C and cheap surplus ammo. I wouldn't even start about
>>>> distance 4 times shorter...
>>>
>>>With an accurized weapon and hand loads maybe, and then only with the help
>>>of a bench rest. Sub-MOA is difficult to achieve even at that short range.
>>>Your target size equates to 21 seconds of arc.
>>
>> If you're talking about the "short range" being the 25 yards at which the
>> pirates were shot, and the "target size" being a human head, you need to
>> check
>> your math -- it's 21 *minutes* of arc.
>
>No, I was talking about the March Hare and his bowtie. WTF? Do you not read?
Obviously I read it; how else would I have become aware that what you wrote
was ambiguous?
>The response was to the simplicity of hitting a quarter at 100 yds, a 3/4"
>round target at 3600 inches.
BTW, you *still* need to check your math.
On Apr 20, 9:11=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:76723bb6-eef1-4997-a229-5cc36a5c65f8@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 5:12 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a target
> > >>pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized snipe=
r
> > >>rifles my shaven behind.
>
> > > Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>
> > > I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
>
> > I was very careful to write "target pistol".
>
> True. And the 1911s we were stuck with in the Marines were far better
> up close where you could whap someone on the head with the thing, or
> throw it like a rock.
>
>
>
> While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever developed, o=
r
> even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the bro=
ad
> side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and not th=
e
> gun.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
You never got one straight out of the box, still in cosmoline, to make
a statement like that. After 20-25 hours of work, they're fine. Before
that, they quality as semi-assembled and semi-accurate.
On Apr 28, 8:30=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:cf0d2bf9-7c85-4366-a17f-7275fedd2038@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 20, 10:07 pm, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Charlie Self wrote:
> > > On Apr 20, 9:11 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:[email protected]=
m...
> > >> On Apr 19, 5:12 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>>news:[email protected]...
> > >>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
> > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>> At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a
> > >>>>> target
> > >>>>> pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized
> > >>>>> sniper
> > >>>>> rifles my shaven behind.
> > >>>> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
> > >>>> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
> > >>> I was very careful to write "target pistol".
> > >> True. And the 1911s we were stuck with in the Marines were far bette=
r
> > >> up close where you could whap someone on the head with the thing, or
> > >> throw it like a rock.
>
> > >> While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever develop=
ed,
> > >> or
> > >> even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting th=
e
> > >> broad
> > >> side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and n=
ot
> > >> the
> > >> gun.
>
> > >> --
>
> > >> -Mike-
> > >> [email protected]
>
> > > You never got one straight out of the box, still in cosmoline, to mak=
e
> > > a statement like that. After 20-25 hours of work, they're fine. Befor=
e
> > > that, they quality as semi-assembled and semi-accurate.
>
> > I never saw a DI or Plt Sgt that would let you have a weapon that was
> > anything other than pristine. Even after shooting it was field stripped
> > and CLEANED. When you got a new one the first thing before cleaning it
> > you CLEANED it.
>
> > Dave
>
> Oh, really? I must have been hallucinating, then.
>
> *************************************************************************=
**
>
> Well hell - that explains it all...
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
Anyone who thought 51 years ago that a Drill Instructor or armorer was
going to clean up a weapon for a Marine boot WAS hallucinating.
Whether or not that works that way now, I don't know. Anyone who
called a Drill Instructor a DI 51 years ago would find a boot stuck up
his ass, so what the hell. I know that Jack Webb started that
changeover a year or two after I got out of Parris Island. These days,
I'd almost be willing to accept Marines wearing pants instead of
trousers.
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote
> Here's something that I found:
>
> Here's an incident that few have ever heard of, but probably in
> respect to accuracy during combat, equals that of the fabled snipers
> cited.
>
> A chopper returning from a Navy SEAL Team mission over North Vietnam
> was hit, killing the pilot and a crew member, and wounding the
> co-pilot. Going into autorotation, the co-pilot managed to set the
> chopper down in a clearing where it was met by several rounds of enemy
> fire. With the M60s damaged beyond utility during the initial RPG hit
> and crash landing, and the only M16 thrown clear on the way down, the
> only firearms left were M1911s.
>
> The remaining crew member, Petty Officer Robert J. Thomas, was
> carrying a match-tuned M1911A1 and several boxes of ammo. As the enemy
> small arms fire increased, the co-pilot and Petty Officer Thomas
> observed that the VC were coming out of the jungle and approaching the
> downed chopper, firing as they came. The crew member took out his
> Government Model and took careful aim at each attacking Viet Cong.
>
> About 30 minutes later it was all over. Between reloading magazines
> and radioing for an evacuation, the co-pilot was pretty busy, but a
> rescue chopper finally arrived on the scene.
>
> As the rescue crew landed, they noticed a sizable number of dead VC
> surrounding the crash site. As the downed helo's remaining crew were
> exfiltrated, they counted the dead VC, 37 in all. Their distances from
> the downed helo were from three yards to about 150 yards, and all had
> been shot by Petty Officer Thomas with his M1911 .45 ACP who had fired
> an estimated 80 rounds in total.
>
> Petty Officer Thomas, a member of the USN Rifle and Pistol Team, was
> recommended for the Congressional Medal of Honor, but by the time the
> recommendation made its way up the ladder, the recognition was reduced
> to the Navy Cross. (Not to denigrate that award. my Dad had one from
> Korea. but to show the politics of medals.)
>
> This incident has been cited as the only known of example of top-level
> combat marksmanship since Sergeant Alvin York's celebrated escapades
> in the battle of Meuse River-Argonne Forest during World War I.
>
> http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=40887
>
> Hell of a story.
>
===========================
Good work Tom. I wasn't able to find the story. Your search skills must be
better than mine.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever developed, or
> even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the broad
> side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and not the
> gun.
That's probably why this was the .45 I was issued:
http://thunderbirdarmory.webs.com/Grease%20Gun.bmp
It helps if you're /inside/ the barn. :-)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
"notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2009-04-20, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> shot with a pistol takes more than the amount of training given to the
>> average soldier.
>
> Yep. The good pistol shots are averaging 50K rounds per year. That's
> about
> 500 rnds per weekend, every weekend.
>
> nb
Well - the good match shooters would probably go through that number of
rounds, but it does not take anywhere near that to become a good shot with a
pistol - 1911 or not.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Apr 17, 5:13=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
> take out the pirates.
>
> Having taken a few shots from a pitching boat, makes sense.
>
> Somebody said:
>
> > It was either the best shots on earth, or we have not heard the
> > whole story of the Pirate shots.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> Anybody have any straight skinny?
>
> Lew
You'd need gyro stabilized pirates too then?
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:57:15 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>>
>> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
>>
>> And that's with me on a rest and what I'm shooting at standing still.
>>
>> Remember what that old boy said, "A pistol is a weapon used to fight
>> your way back to your rifle."
>>
>A long weapon is much easier to aim and hit a target than a pistol. That
>said, there are some folk who are just deadly accurate with a 1911. I am
>not one of them. But my little sister (six years younger) is. And she is
>much smaller than me too!
>
>Remember that guy in Vietnam who was a crack pistol shot.? He crashed in a
>helicopter and held off a whole bunch of the enemy with just his 1911.
>Almost got the medal of honor for it too. He fired and the others reloaded
>his magazines for him. Obviously not a typical shot. I believe he was a
>nationally ranked champion.
>
>
I never heard that story - but I'd like to.
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Apr 20, 9:11 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:76723bb6-eef1-4997-a229-5cc36a5c65f8@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 19, 5:12 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a target
>>>>> pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized sniper
>>>>> rifles my shaven behind.
>>>> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>>>> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
>>> I was very careful to write "target pistol".
>> True. And the 1911s we were stuck with in the Marines were far better
>> up close where you could whap someone on the head with the thing, or
>> throw it like a rock.
>>
>>
>>
>> While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever developed, or
>> even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the broad
>> side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and not the
>> gun.
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Mike-
>> [email protected]
>
> You never got one straight out of the box, still in cosmoline, to make
> a statement like that. After 20-25 hours of work, they're fine. Before
> that, they quality as semi-assembled and semi-accurate.
I never saw a DI or Plt Sgt that would let you have a weapon that was
anything other than pristine. Even after shooting it was field stripped
and CLEANED. When you got a new one the first thing before cleaning it
you CLEANED it.
Dave
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:45792441-be2a-4483-88f1-6f5866c5e979@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 8:30 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:cf0d2bf9-7c85-4366-a17f-7275fedd2038@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 20, 10:07 pm, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Charlie Self wrote:
> > > On Apr 20, 9:11 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:76723bb6-eef1-4997-a229-5cc36a5c65f8@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On Apr 19, 5:12 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>>news:[email protected]...
> > >>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
> > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>> At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a
> > >>>>> target
> > >>>>> pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized
> > >>>>> sniper
> > >>>>> rifles my shaven behind.
> > >>>> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
> > >>>> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
> > >>> I was very careful to write "target pistol".
> > >> True. And the 1911s we were stuck with in the Marines were far better
> > >> up close where you could whap someone on the head with the thing, or
> > >> throw it like a rock.
>
> > >> While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever
> > >> developed,
> > >> or
> > >> even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the
> > >> broad
> > >> side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and
> > >> not
> > >> the
> > >> gun.
>
> > >> --
>
> > >> -Mike-
> > >> [email protected]
>
> > > You never got one straight out of the box, still in cosmoline, to make
> > > a statement like that. After 20-25 hours of work, they're fine. Before
> > > that, they quality as semi-assembled and semi-accurate.
>
> > I never saw a DI or Plt Sgt that would let you have a weapon that was
> > anything other than pristine. Even after shooting it was field stripped
> > and CLEANED. When you got a new one the first thing before cleaning it
> > you CLEANED it.
>
> > Dave
>
> Oh, really? I must have been hallucinating, then.
>
> ***************************************************************************
>
> Well hell - that explains it all...
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
Anyone who thought 51 years ago that a Drill Instructor or armorer was
going to clean up a weapon for a Marine boot WAS hallucinating.
Whether or not that works that way now, I don't know. Anyone who
called a Drill Instructor a DI 51 years ago would find a boot stuck up
his ass, so what the hell. I know that Jack Webb started that
changeover a year or two after I got out of Parris Island. These days,
I'd almost be willing to accept Marines wearing pants instead of
trousers.
=======
I'm very sure that's not what he meant, and it definitely isn't what he
wrote. I'd try to translate, but it reads fine and doesn't need
clarification.
On Apr 19, 5:12=A0pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a target
> >>pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized sniper
> >>rifles my shaven behind.
>
> > Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>
> > I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
>
> I was very careful to write "target pistol".
True. And the 1911s we were stuck with in the Marines were far better
up close where you could whap someone on the head with the thing, or
throw it like a rock.
-MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
> notbob wrote:
>>> Ok, let me get this straight.
>>> You call a 500ft. Navy Destroyer with a 9000 ton displacement a boat?
>>
>> I can see this is pointless. Toodles.
>>
>> nb
>
> I take it by your juvenile reply, that you either didn't read any of the
> accounts of the event or sobered up and realized you were spewing BS. :-)
Agreed.
When the arguments get tough, the bullshitters retreat......
Sergey Kubushin <[email protected]> writes:
> Yes, there are some challenges because of relative boats movement but it is
> also not rocket science. Especially when those boats are tied with a rope...
Someone said they used gyros on the rifles for stabilization.
notbob <[email protected]> writes:
> On 2009-04-19, Maxwell Lol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I know nothing, but your credibility is very low....
>
> How can one argue such bizarre logic?
Simple. I can detect bullshit and boasting, and lack of real information.
I can also detect ah hominem attacks.
notbob <[email protected]> writes:
> On 2009-04-19, HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> One-tenmillionth of a second is a "fraction of a millionth" of a second.
>
> So is one hundredth or 5 hundred and forty seven thousandths of a millionth.
> Which is it?
The upper limit is obviously a millionth, anfd this value is less.
So in other words, it's equivalent to saying "in less than a millionth
of a second" which is a measurable number. And that ls all thatr matters.
>> Anyway, you don't have to stay up the rest of the night. Just find a
>
> You find 'em. I got better things to do.
That's a cop-out. I know nothing, but your credibility is very low
when you argue like this.
On Apr 17, 11:18=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> You guy who are wearing the tin foil hats might want to catch this
> week's 20/20 on ABC.
> They had a military sniper show just how easy that shot is for them....
> ten times in a row.
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
http://military.discovery.com/technology/weapons/snipers/snipers-09.html
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:339f57d8-3996-4502-a3e8-49b10f4bb222@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever developed, or
> even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the
> broad
> side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and not the
> gun.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
You never got one straight out of the box, still in cosmoline, to make
a statement like that. After 20-25 hours of work, they're fine. Before
that, they quality as semi-assembled and semi-accurate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'd have to ask what kind of work you did to make it accurate. I can see
making it feed better, but I'm really wondering what you did to improve
accuracy.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Apr 17, 7:55=A0pm, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:13:01 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >RE: Subject
>
> >Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
> >take out the pirates.
>
> >Having taken a few shots from a pitching boat, makes sense.
>
> >Somebody said:
>
> >> It was either the best shots on earth, or we have not heard the
> >> whole story of the Pirate shots.
>
> >Makes sense.
>
> >Anybody have any straight skinny?
>
> >Lew
>
> Not only from a pitching ship but into a pitching boat.
> Gyro-stabilization could help on the shooting end but wouldn't do
> anything to stabilize the target end. I think target acquiring, active
> guidance small arms ammunition is in pretty short supply. So even if
> we do hear the "whole story", my bet is it's still going to be an
> example of some damn fine shooting.
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS
> USA
Agreed. These days, we seem to need to attribute human expertise,
gained by many, many, many hours of practice, to machinery and
electronics. Tain't necessarily so. In fact, it isn't often so, IMO.
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:31:39 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2009-04-19, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Amen to that.
>>
>> But, if your hundred year old rifle is a 1903-A3, you have a
>> significantly better chance than a guy with your average M16.
>
>Swedish Mauser, 6.5x55, 1898. I have no experience with current AR/M/16s,
>but the same lessons apply. It's the shooter. ;)
>
>nb
Sweet weapon.
The Swedes used them generalyl until the late seventies and the sniper
version was still being used in Bosnia.
Wouldn't mind having one of those M/41B's.
Yeeha!
I believe you gat a neener there.
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "MikeWhy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Sergey Kubushin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> It is no big deal to put all the bullets into a quarter sized circle at
>>> 100
>>> yards distance. That is when using a commodity rifle like e.g. widely
>>> available PSL-54C and cheap surplus ammo. I wouldn't even start about
>>> distance 4 times shorter...
>>
>>With an accurized weapon and hand loads maybe, and then only with the help
>>of a bench rest. Sub-MOA is difficult to achieve even at that short range.
>>Your target size equates to 21 seconds of arc.
>
> If you're talking about the "short range" being the 25 yards at which the
> pirates were shot, and the "target size" being a human head, you need to
> check
> your math -- it's 21 *minutes* of arc.
No, I was talking about the March Hare and his bowtie. WTF? Do you not read?
The response was to the simplicity of hitting a quarter at 100 yds, a 3/4"
round target at 3600 inches.
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-04-18, HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As for sniping, you might enjoy the following excerpt from a Lee
>> Childs book:
>
> Pure writer's crap.
>
Um, probably not. This same story was posted on a guns newsgroup.
Respondents agreed the only area where there might have been a problem was
in the beginning when Childs said "The powder in the cartridge exploded in a
fraction of a millionth of a second..."
Some experts said that was an exaggeration and others said, depending on the
powder load, it was just barely possible.
If you have experience or information tending to refute the physics in the
story, please feel free to share. Otherwise, just enjoy the story.
I was damned impressed when I heard the story. Being perched on a
stabilized gun mount makes sense. Otherwise I chalked it up to the SEALS
identifying a potential situation, i.e. a sniper shot from one boat to
another, and have practiced the hell out of it. The report I thought was
funny was that the sea states started getting heavy and the pirates didn't
seem to be too comfortable, so the USN offered to tow them to calmer waters
which they accepted. SUCKERS, thanks for making the shot a little easier.
Damn fine work by some of America's best.
SteveP.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> RE: Subject
>
> Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
> take out the pirates.
>
> Having taken a few shots from a pitching boat, makes sense.
>
> Somebody said:
>
>> It was either the best shots on earth, or we have not heard the whole
>> story of the Pirate shots.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> Anybody have any straight skinny?
>
> Lew
>
>
"Sergey Kubushin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It is no big deal to put all the bullets into a quarter sized circle at
> 100
> yards distance. That is when using a commodity rifle like e.g. widely
> available PSL-54C and cheap surplus ammo. I wouldn't even start about
> distance 4 times shorter...
With an accurized weapon and hand loads maybe, and then only with the help
of a bench rest. Sub-MOA is difficult to achieve even at that short range.
Your target size equates to 21 seconds of arc.
"MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:12:07 -0500, "MikeWhy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a target
>>>>>pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized sniper
>>>>>rifles my shaven behind.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
>>>
>>>I was very careful to write "target pistol".
>>>
>>
>> Well, I'm shooting a tuned up Series 80 with a pull of right around
>> 3.8 lbs and it shoots nice and straight when I clamp it up.
>>
>> Some folks might consider it to be a target pistol.
It must be just me. Seems the whole world has gone dense between the ears
the past couple of days. Beats me how you think I meant shooting a custom
offhand in a 25m event. By all means, though, bring what you got. Any other
time, maybe, I would chat you up about the Colt, but for right now, just put
it back in its case so the sun doesn't shine on it.
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a target
>>pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized sniper
>>rifles my shaven behind.
>>
>
>
> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>
> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
I was very careful to write "target pistol".
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> RE: Subject
>
> Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
> take out the pirates.
>
> Having taken a few shots from a pitching boat, makes sense.
>
> Somebody said:
>
>> It was either the best shots on earth, or we have not heard the whole
>> story of the Pirate shots.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> Anybody have any straight skinny?
>
> Lew
Well that makes sense. I was talking with my son and pointing out that the
ship was moving AND the target was moving. Reminds me of my physics class
in college and working the formula to determine when to shoot the big guns
on the destroyers.
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote
>
>> While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever developed,
>> or even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the
>> broad
>> side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and not
>> the gun.
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Mike-
>> [email protected]
>
> />You never got one straight out of the box, still in cosmoline, to make
> />a statement like that. After 20-25 hours of work, they're fine. Before
> />that, they quality as semi-assembled and semi-accurate.
>
Kind of like buying cheap tools? After lots of fussing and tuning, you
get really good results.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-04-17, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
>> take out the pirates.
>
> I suspect stabalized optics, old news in Japanese cameras. Rifled bullets
> are gyro-stabized by definition.
>
> nb
Think modern camera.
j4
On Apr 17, 8:08=A0pm, "Highland Pairos" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I was damned impressed when I heard the story. =A0Being perched on a
> stabilized gun mount makes sense. =A0Otherwise I chalked it up to the SEA=
LS
> identifying a potential situation, i.e. a sniper shot from one boat to
> another, and have practiced the hell out of it. =A0The report I thought w=
as
> funny was that the sea states started getting heavy and the pirates didn'=
t
> seem to be too comfortable, so the USN offered to tow them to calmer wate=
rs
> which they accepted. =A0SUCKERS, thanks for making the shot a little easi=
er.
>
> Damn fine work by some of America's best.
>
> SteveP.
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > RE: Subject
>
> > Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
> > take out the pirates.
>
> > Having taken a few shots from a pitching boat, makes sense.
>
> > Somebody said:
>
> >> It was either the best shots on earth, or we have not heard the whole
> >> story of the Pirate shots.
>
> > Makes sense.
>
> > Anybody have any straight skinny?
>
> > Lew
That tow rope, kept taut, would help stabilize the ratshit's boat,
making a better target.
On Apr 18, 12:27=A0pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, "MikeWhy"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>"Sergey Kubushin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> It is no big deal to put all the bullets into a quarter sized circle =
at
> >>> 100
> >>> yards distance. That is when using a commodity rifle like e.g. widely
> >>> available PSL-54C and cheap surplus ammo. I wouldn't even start about
> >>> distance 4 times shorter...
>
> >>With an accurized weapon and hand loads maybe, and then only with the h=
elp
> >>of a bench rest. Sub-MOA is difficult to achieve even at that short ran=
ge.
> >>Your target size equates to 21 seconds of arc.
>
> > If you're talking about the "short range" being the 25 yards at which t=
he
> > pirates were shot, and the "target size" being a human head, you need t=
o
> > check
> > your math -- it's 21 *minutes* of arc.
>
> No, I was talking about the March Hare and his bowtie. WTF? Do you not re=
ad?
> The response was to the simplicity of hitting a quarter at 100 yds, a 3/4=
"
> round target at 3600 inches.
Don't feed The Miller Troll. He thrives on this sort of shit. He lies
in the bushes until somebody misplaces a comma, and he pounces. He
appears to have no other life.
On Apr 17, 7:55=A0pm, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:13:01 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >RE: Subject
>
> >Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
> >take out the pirates.
>
> >Having taken a few shots from a pitching boat, makes sense.
>
> >Somebody said:
>
> >> It was either the best shots on earth, or we have not heard the
> >> whole story of the Pirate shots.
>
> >Makes sense.
>
> >Anybody have any straight skinny?
>
> >Lew
>
> Not only from a pitching ship but into a pitching boat.
> Gyro-stabilization could help on the shooting end but wouldn't do
> anything to stabilize the target end. I think target acquiring, active
> guidance small arms ammunition is in pretty short supply. So even if
> we do hear the "whole story", my bet is it's still going to be an
> example of some damn fine shooting.
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS
> USA
Zzzactly. At a couple thousand feet per second, a target doesn't move
very far at that short a distance. Besides, guys like that shoot with
their balls, no technology required. When the moment is right, with a
bit of a lead, send that little nugget on its way. It gets there
really quick. So you might be off by 1/4".
On Apr 21, 4:41=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:339f57d8-3996-4502-a3e8-49b10f4bb222@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever developed,=
or
> > even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the
> > broad
> > side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and not =
the
> > gun.
>
> > --
>
> > -Mike-
> > [email protected]
>
> You never got one straight out of the box, still in cosmoline, to make
> a statement like that. After 20-25 hours of work, they're fine. Before
> that, they quality as semi-assembled and semi-accurate.
>
>
>
> I'd have to ask what kind of work you did to make it accurate. =A0I can s=
ee
> making it feed better, but I'm really wondering what you did to improve
> accuracy.
>
I didn't do shit. It was an issue weapon that I got to use for maybe
two weeks. If you have to ask...how about lightening the trigger pull,
while also making sure the trigger pull was more consistent?
Certainly the feed can be improved, generally by using a non-G.I.
magazine. Add adjustable sights, usually a high viz combat style.
Various combat grips improve holding. Front strap checkering, or other
form of grip adding at that point. Add target barrel bushings and a
target grade barrel.
There are plenty more. If you want a good treatise, pick up The
Combat .45 Automatic by Bill Wilson, publishing by Wilson's Gun Shop
in 1984.
On Apr 30, 8:53=A0am, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2009-04-29, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>...I managed to wangle a 1911 as a sidearm in VN, seeing as how we
> >>flew around with virtually no armor I figured a good place for a large
> >>hunk of metal would be between my legs. =A0I even shot it a few
> >>times...once at a 55 gallon drum not 25 feet away; =A0the round clanked
> >>out and missed by 5 feet...I *swear* on my expert rating with a .38
> >>that I was aiming true (come on, it was a 55 gallon drum!). =A0Which le=
d
> >>me to believe that that particular hunk of steel was one Sgt York had
> >>contact with...
>
> The military issue .45 auto was designed to do two things. =A0One, delive=
r a
> lethal pill to the enemy's body. =A0Two, do it every single time the trig=
ger
> is pulled. =A0Failure on either point is almost always a case of operator
> error. =A0In short, ya' gotta be smarter than the tool.
>
> nb
Design and execution are often quite far apart.
Even a simple tool knows that.
notbob wrote:
>>>
>>> Pure writer's crap.
>>>
>>
>> Um, probably not. This same story was posted on a guns newsgroup.
>> Respondents agreed the only area where there might have been a
>> problem was in the beginning when Childs said "The powder in the
>> cartridge exploded in a fraction of a millionth of a second..."
>>
>> Some experts said that was an exaggeration and others said,
>> depending on the powder load, it was just barely possible.
>
> It was schlock writing in the first degree. BAD poetic license and
> over the top exageration for the video game crowd. Exactly what is a
> "fraction of a millionth"? Nothing you can pin down, just like the
> rest of the article. Hand polished bullets? Air catching on fire?
> What horse crap.
>
>> If you have experience or information tending to refute the physics
>> in the story, please feel free to share.....
>
> I'd be up the rest of the night.
>
I agree that the writing was not the best. The author could have spent more
time on the smells wafting along on the gentle breeze he mentioned and, like
any good romance novel, he could have told us more about what each of the
actors was wearing and what each protagonist thought about the clothing of
the others.
But as to your questions:
One-tenmillionth of a second is a "fraction of a millionth" of a second.
Sniper bullets ARE hand polished (and hand-loaded and micked to tolerances
of less than 1/1000ths of an inch). I don't know about the "air on fire"
business, but I suppose super-heated air can do odd things.
Anyway, you don't have to stay up the rest of the night. Just find a
reference or two that snipers use production-grade bullets, that .50 caliber
bullets don't begin detonation in less than a millionth of a second, or that
there are no flames exiting the barrel.
------
The velocity of solid explosives can exceed 390,000 fps. Assuming 2" of
powder in a .50cal cartridge, all the powder could burn in
2 / 12 /390,000 = 4 ten-millionths of a second (note this is less than "a
millionth of a second).
That seems to be close to the minimum burn time.
On Apr 19, 11:35=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maxwell Lol wrote:
> > notbob <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> On 2009-04-19, HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> One-tenmillionth of a second is a "fraction of a millionth" of a
> >>> second.
>
> >> So is one hundredth or 5 hundred and forty seven thousandths of a
> >> millionth. Which is it?
>
> > The upper limit is obviously a millionth, anfd this value is less.
>
> > So in other words, it's equivalent to saying "in less than a millionth
> > of a second" which is a measurable number. And that ls all thatr
> > matters.
> >>> Anyway, you don't have to stay up the rest of the night. Just find a
>
> >> You find 'em. =A0I got better things to do.
>
> > That's a cop-out. I know nothing, but your credibility is very low
> > when you argue like this.
>
> The thing is that there are discussions that merit putting in some resear=
ch
> effort and there are some that do not.
Jeez, what a lot of swamp gas over something so similr. If you read
the books about Carlos Hathcock, you'll run across the tale of him
setting a scope on a big .50 MG, using it single shot, and snipping at
ranges that would give a ghost the creeps...or make more ghosts.
As time passed, weapons improved, but, jeez. hand-polished bullets
when you're up to your ass in jungle, wading through streams,
crawling in mud, sweating fear bullets, using your clothing as a
toilet to keep from having to move, staring down poisonous
snakes...nah. Same for all the millionth of a second shit. Gunpowder
burns, slow or fast, it burns, but not that fast. I enjoy Childs'
books, but it's time to bring in that "willing suspsension of
disbelief" when you KNOW he's full of crap. He's another writer who
either has never been in a fight, or hasn't since childhood. I laughed
my ass of with Dan Brown's tales of fights in his best seller, but it
was bad enough I couldn't finish the book. Childs isn't that bad, but
for a Brit, he doesn't do too badly with U.S. weapons--most of the
time.
The story of Hathcock working a counter-sniper tactic hunting down a
VN sniper and finally nailing him--with a bullet right through the
optics of the enemy sniper's scope as he was aiming at Hathcock--is a
classic, and well illustrates the lack of the likelihood of perfect
weapons and ammunition, but the abilities of a single man on a
mission, with a lot of experience and a lot of expertise.
On Apr 20, 10:07=A0pm, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 9:11 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:76723bb6-eef1-4997-a229-5cc36a5c65f8@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >> On Apr 19, 5:12 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a targ=
et
> >>>>> pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized sni=
per
> >>>>> rifles my shaven behind.
> >>>> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
> >>>> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
> >>> I was very careful to write "target pistol".
> >> True. And the 1911s we were stuck with in the Marines were far better
> >> up close where you could whap someone on the head with the thing, or
> >> throw it like a rock.
>
> >> While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever developed=
, or
> >> even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the =
broad
> >> side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and not=
the
> >> gun.
>
> >> --
>
> >> -Mike-
> >> [email protected]
>
> > You never got one straight out of the box, still in cosmoline, to make
> > a statement like that. After 20-25 hours of work, they're fine. Before
> > that, they quality as semi-assembled and semi-accurate.
>
> I never saw a DI or Plt Sgt that would let you have a weapon that was
> anything other than pristine. Even after shooting it was field stripped
> and CLEANED. When you got a new one the first thing before cleaning it
> you CLEANED it.
>
> Dave
Oh, really? I must have been hallucinating, then.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Apr 21, 4:41 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:339f57d8-3996-4502-a3e8-49b10f4bb222@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever developed,
> > or
> > even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the
> > broad
> > side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and not
> > the
> > gun.
>
> > --
>
> > -Mike-
> > [email protected]
>
> You never got one straight out of the box, still in cosmoline, to make
> a statement like that. After 20-25 hours of work, they're fine. Before
> that, they quality as semi-assembled and semi-accurate.
>
>
>
> I'd have to ask what kind of work you did to make it accurate. I can see
> making it feed better, but I'm really wondering what you did to improve
> accuracy.
>
I didn't do shit. It was an issue weapon that I got to use for maybe
two weeks. If you have to ask...how about lightening the trigger pull,
while also making sure the trigger pull was more consistent?
Certainly the feed can be improved, generally by using a non-G.I.
magazine. Add adjustable sights, usually a high viz combat style.
Various combat grips improve holding. Front strap checkering, or other
form of grip adding at that point. Add target barrel bushings and a
target grade barrel.
There are plenty more. If you want a good treatise, pick up The
Combat .45 Automatic by Bill Wilson, publishing by Wilson's Gun Shop
in 1984.
*********************************************************************************
Those are certainly improvements that can be made to a service issue 1911,
but I'll stand by my original statement - having shot plenty of rounds
through guns like these.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Apr 17, 6:30=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > RE: Subject
>
> > Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
> > take out the pirates.
>
> > Having taken a few shots from a pitching boat, makes sense.
>
> > Somebody said:
>
> >> It was either the best shots on earth, or we have not heard the whole
> >> story of the Pirate shots.
>
> > Makes sense.
>
> > Anybody have any straight skinny?
>
> > Lew
>
> Well that makes sense. =A0I was talking with my son and pointing out that=
the
> ship was moving AND the target was moving. =A0Reminds me of my physics cl=
ass
> in college and working the formula to determine when to shoot the big gun=
s
> on the destroyers.
How about those bullshiatters at CNN, eh?
Read the last paragraph of this CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/18/pirates.foiled/index.html
"Last week at assault by pirates on a U.S.-flagged ship, the Maersk
Alabama ended when U.S. Navy sharshoopers [sic] stormed the vessel and
shot and killed three of the pirates who were holding the ship's
captain captive."
Although technically not a lie, it is also nowhere near what really
happened. Those CNN bastards do that kinda stuff ALL the time.
Here's something that I found:
Here's an incident that few have ever heard of, but probably in
respect to accuracy during combat, equals that of the fabled snipers
cited.
A chopper returning from a Navy SEAL Team mission over North Vietnam
was hit, killing the pilot and a crew member, and wounding the
co-pilot. Going into autorotation, the co-pilot managed to set the
chopper down in a clearing where it was met by several rounds of enemy
fire. With the M60s damaged beyond utility during the initial RPG hit
and crash landing, and the only M16 thrown clear on the way down, the
only firearms left were M1911s.
The remaining crew member, Petty Officer Robert J. Thomas, was
carrying a match-tuned M1911A1 and several boxes of ammo. As the enemy
small arms fire increased, the co-pilot and Petty Officer Thomas
observed that the VC were coming out of the jungle and approaching the
downed chopper, firing as they came. The crew member took out his
Government Model and took careful aim at each attacking Viet Cong.
About 30 minutes later it was all over. Between reloading magazines
and radioing for an evacuation, the co-pilot was pretty busy, but a
rescue chopper finally arrived on the scene.
As the rescue crew landed, they noticed a sizable number of dead VC
surrounding the crash site. As the downed helo's remaining crew were
exfiltrated, they counted the dead VC, 37 in all. Their distances from
the downed helo were from three yards to about 150 yards, and all had
been shot by Petty Officer Thomas with his M1911 .45 ACP who had fired
an estimated 80 rounds in total.
Petty Officer Thomas, a member of the USN Rifle and Pistol Team, was
recommended for the Congressional Medal of Honor, but by the time the
recommendation made its way up the ladder, the recognition was reduced
to the Navy Cross. (Not to denigrate that award
my Dad had one from
Korea
but to show the politics of medals.)
This incident has been cited as the only known of example of top-level
combat marksmanship since Sergeant Alvin York's celebrated escapades
in the battle of Meuse River-Argonne Forest during World War I.
http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=40887
Hell of a story.
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:05:27 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:57:15 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>> <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Remember that guy in Vietnam who was a crack pistol shot.? He crashed in
>>>a
>>>helicopter and held off a whole bunch of the enemy with just his 1911.
>>>Almost got the medal of honor for it too. He fired and the others
>>>reloaded
>>>his magazines for him. Obviously not a typical shot. I believe he was a
>>>nationally ranked champion.
>>>
>> I never heard that story - but I'd like to.
>>
>==========================
>
>It has been awhile since I read about it. I will try to track it down.
>From my sometimes foggy memory, here is a few details.
>
>It seemed that he had some kind of tricked out .45. Since he was a target
>shooter, that made sense. And since it fit a standard holster, he could
>carry it. He had some extra boxes of ammo with him at the time. The chopper
>crashed, There were no other weapons on board that were functional. So he
>started shooting his .45. And since he was such a crack shot, his shooting
>was deadly accurate.
>
>I think that they tried to take the chopper for almost an hour before
>retreating due to heavy losses. They were later rescued. He did all the
>shooting. The others reloaded his magazines. Here is an example of
>somebody who spent countless hours punching holes in paper and had the
>necessary skills to save himself in a real life encounter with those skills.
>
>Maybe the folks at rec.guns will remember some more details.
>
>
>
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cf0d2bf9-7c85-4366-a17f-7275fedd2038@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 20, 10:07 pm, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 9:11 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:76723bb6-eef1-4997-a229-5cc36a5c65f8@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Apr 19, 5:12 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a
> >>>>> target
> >>>>> pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized
> >>>>> sniper
> >>>>> rifles my shaven behind.
> >>>> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
> >>>> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
> >>> I was very careful to write "target pistol".
> >> True. And the 1911s we were stuck with in the Marines were far better
> >> up close where you could whap someone on the head with the thing, or
> >> throw it like a rock.
>
> >> While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever developed,
> >> or
> >> even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the
> >> broad
> >> side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and not
> >> the
> >> gun.
>
> >> --
>
> >> -Mike-
> >> [email protected]
>
> > You never got one straight out of the box, still in cosmoline, to make
> > a statement like that. After 20-25 hours of work, they're fine. Before
> > that, they quality as semi-assembled and semi-accurate.
>
> I never saw a DI or Plt Sgt that would let you have a weapon that was
> anything other than pristine. Even after shooting it was field stripped
> and CLEANED. When you got a new one the first thing before cleaning it
> you CLEANED it.
>
> Dave
Oh, really? I must have been hallucinating, then.
***************************************************************************
Well hell - that explains it all...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:20:15 -0700, Charlie Groh <[email protected]>
wrote:
>...I managed to wangle a 1911 as a sidearm in VN, seeing as how we
>flew around with virtually no armor I figured a good place for a large
>hunk of metal would be between my legs. I even shot it a few
>times...once at a 55 gallon drum not 25 feet away; the round clanked
>out and missed by 5 feet...I *swear* on my expert rating with a .38
>that I was aiming true (come on, it was a 55 gallon drum!). Which led
>me to believe that that particular hunk of steel was one Sgt York had
>contact with...
>
>cg
I was issued one in Nam and carried it for a month, until the time came to use
it.. YUK..
I've heard good things about "sporterized" 45's, but the one the gave me was a
POS..
Used it one time.. At a backlit target about 10 or 12 yards away, laying prone
with the 45 on a sandbag..
Emptied the sucker and when the "target" was recovered the next morning, I'd
only hit it 3 times..
Went to the airbase the next time we were in base camp and bought a .38 and
never regretted the change.. YMWV
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
> take out the pirates.
>
> Having taken a few shots from a pitching boat, makes sense.
>
> Somebody said:
>
>> It was either the best shots on earth, or we have not heard the
>> whole story of the Pirate shots.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> Anybody have any straight skinny?
Come on, it is not an impossible shot even with a handgun, less for a sniper
rifle. As a matter of fact 25 yards is not even a distance for a sniper
rifle--regular scope is parallax compensated for 50 yards and beyond...
It is no big deal to put all the bullets into a quarter sized circle at 100
yards distance. That is when using a commodity rifle like e.g. widely
available PSL-54C and cheap surplus ammo. I wouldn't even start about
distance 4 times shorter...
Yes, there are some challenges because of relative boats movement but it is
also not rocket science. Especially when those boats are tied with a rope...
And absolutely no need to even think about wind at that distance. And it
only takes 1/30th of a second for a bullet to travel that distance so there
is no black magic of feeling where to aim if a target is moving...
---
******************************************************************
* KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. *
* Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. *
******************************************************************
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:57:15 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>>
>> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
>>
>> And that's with me on a rest and what I'm shooting at standing still.
>>
>> Remember what that old boy said, "A pistol is a weapon used to fight
>> your way back to your rifle."
>>
>A long weapon is much easier to aim and hit a target than a pistol. That
>said, there are some folk who are just deadly accurate with a 1911. I am
>not one of them. But my little sister (six years younger) is. And she is
>much smaller than me too!
>
>Remember that guy in Vietnam who was a crack pistol shot.? He crashed in a
>helicopter and held off a whole bunch of the enemy with just his 1911.
>Almost got the medal of honor for it too. He fired and the others reloaded
>his magazines for him. Obviously not a typical shot. I believe he was a
>nationally ranked champion.
>
>
What I admired about the shooting was that three guys shot at
essentially the same time and all took out the targets.
I don't know what tech stuff they used but that's like three guys
shooting buzzer shots at the final game and having them all go in.
Oh, and by the way, a guy's life was on the line.
I have enough of a hard time shooting at paper with an MOA CZ451 on a
windless day at fifty yards. I get a sight picture that looks like
I'm on a moving boat but I'm standing still - and so is the paper.
My hat's off to those boys.
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
You guy who are wearing the tin foil hats might want to catch this
week's 20/20 on ABC.
They had a military sniper show just how easy that shot is for them....
ten times in a row.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
jo4hn wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>> On 2009-04-17, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles
>>> to take out the pirates.
>>
>> I suspect stabalized optics, old news in Japanese cameras. Rifled
>> bullets are gyro-stabized by definition.
>>
>> nb
> Think modern camera.
Stabilized optics don't do you any good in aiming a weapon because it has to
be pointed the same place that the optics are pointed. For such
stablization to be useful the whole gun has to be stabilized. Stablization
of the bullet does not help in aiming.
Maxwell Lol wrote:
> Sergey Kubushin <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Yes, there are some challenges because of relative boats movement
>> but it is also not rocket science. Especially when those boats are
>> tied with a rope...
>
> Someone said they used gyros on the rifles for stabilization.
That was a reporter who likely got something or other garbled. Or maybe it
wasn't snipers at all, maybe they tagged them with a Phalanx--don't know if
it can fire single rounds or not but the latest ones do have surface attack
capability as well as antiair.
The Navy does have stabilized mounts for weapons down to 7.62mm or smaller
but they aren't sniper rifles.
No doubt the military has all kinds of exotic sighting systems, but even
on the high seas, a 30 yard shot from a sniper grade M14 shouldn't be
beyond the capabilites of the marksman who were helicoptered to
the Navy ship.
--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
Larry W wrote:
> No doubt the military has all kinds of exotic sighting systems, but even
> on the high seas, a 30 yard shot from a sniper grade M14 shouldn't be
> beyond the capabilites of the marksman who were helicoptered to
> the Navy ship.
>
Correct.
Last night 20/20 showed how routine the shots were for a trained sniper.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7367613
Unfortunately it's not until the last ten seconds of this clip.
Take off the tin foil hats. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
HeyBub wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>> On 2009-04-18, HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> As for sniping, you might enjoy the following excerpt from a Lee
>>> Childs book:
>>
>> Pure writer's crap.
>>
>
> Um, probably not. This same story was posted on a guns newsgroup.
> Respondents agreed the only area where there might have been a
> problem was in the beginning when Childs said "The powder in the
> cartridge exploded in a fraction of a millionth of a second..."
>
> Some experts said that was an exaggeration and others said, depending
> on the powder load, it was just barely possible.
>
> If you have experience or information tending to refute the physics
> in the story, please feel free to share. Otherwise, just enjoy the
> story.
When a story makes me go "whoa, what a load of crap" then I have trouble
enjoying it.
As for the comparison with Clancy, the difference there is that Clancy was
accurate enough that the professional society for US Naval officers saw
merit in his work.
HeyBub wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Pure writer's crap.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Um, probably not. This same story was posted on a guns newsgroup.
>>> Respondents agreed the only area where there might have been a
>>> problem was in the beginning when Childs said "The powder in the
>>> cartridge exploded in a fraction of a millionth of a second..."
>>>
>>> Some experts said that was an exaggeration and others said,
>>> depending on the powder load, it was just barely possible.
>>
>> It was schlock writing in the first degree. BAD poetic license and
>> over the top exageration for the video game crowd. Exactly what is a
>> "fraction of a millionth"? Nothing you can pin down, just like the
>> rest of the article. Hand polished bullets? Air catching on fire?
>> What horse crap.
>>
>>> If you have experience or information tending to refute the physics
>>> in the story, please feel free to share.....
>>
>> I'd be up the rest of the night.
>>
>
> I agree that the writing was not the best. The author could have
> spent more time on the smells wafting along on the gentle breeze he
> mentioned and, like any good romance novel, he could have told us
> more about what each of the actors was wearing and what each
> protagonist thought about the clothing of the others.
>
> But as to your questions:
>
> One-tenmillionth of a second is a "fraction of a millionth" of a
> second. Sniper bullets ARE hand polished (and hand-loaded and micked
> to tolerances of less than 1/1000ths of an inch). I don't know about
> the "air on fire" business, but I suppose super-heated air can do odd
> things.
> Anyway, you don't have to stay up the rest of the night. Just find a
> reference or two that snipers use production-grade bullets, that .50
> caliber bullets don't begin detonation in less than a millionth of a
> second, or that there are no flames exiting the barrel.
Well, for openers, if flames exit the barrel that pretty much negates his
millionth of a second as the powder would have been entirely consumed before
the bullet left the muzzle thus no flames.
Watch high speed photos and you'll see no flames coming out until the bullet
leaves the muzzle.
As for snipers and "production grade bullets", define "production grade".
If you mean Chinese Army rejects, no, they don't use those. If you mean
Sierra match grade, they do use those, or did a while back.
> ------
> The velocity of solid explosives can exceed 390,000 fps.
So what? Gunpowder is not "solid explosives", it is a propellant. In an
ideal cartridge, grain dimensions and composition would be adjusted to
sustain for the entire duration of the bullet's passage through the barrel
the highest pressure that the firearm could tolerate. Burning all the
powder in a millionth of a second would be very inefficient in that it would
produce a pressure spike with rapid decline as the volume behind the bullet
increased.
> Assuming 2"
> of powder in a .50cal cartridge, all the powder could burn in
>
> 2 / 12 /390,000 = 4 ten-millionths of a second (note this is less
> than "a millionth of a second).
Which is not relevant to the real world.
> That seems to be close to the minimum burn time.
It's also totally unrealistic for a real-world firearm.
Maxwell Lol wrote:
> notbob <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 2009-04-19, HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> One-tenmillionth of a second is a "fraction of a millionth" of a
>>> second.
>>
>> So is one hundredth or 5 hundred and forty seven thousandths of a
>> millionth. Which is it?
>
> The upper limit is obviously a millionth, anfd this value is less.
>
> So in other words, it's equivalent to saying "in less than a millionth
> of a second" which is a measurable number. And that ls all thatr
> matters.
>>> Anyway, you don't have to stay up the rest of the night. Just find a
>>
>> You find 'em. I got better things to do.
>
> That's a cop-out. I know nothing, but your credibility is very low
> when you argue like this.
The thing is that there are discussions that merit putting in some research
effort and there are some that do not.
notbob wrote:
> Try acquiring a target in ANY
> boat! I can hit a metal chicken (18" at 200 yds) with a 100 yr old bolt
> action rifle, but put me in a boat and all bets are off. I think I could do
> a kill maybe one out of 5 at 30 yds. I doubt even the best SEAL could do
> better. Jes speculation, but feel free to continue the fantasy.
>
> nb
>
Really? How about ten for ten?
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7367613
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
wrote:
> On 2009-04-19, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Really? How about ten for ten?
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7367613
>
> How about it? "Ideal" shooting platform shooting at "ideal" floating target
> platform. I've no doubt the actual scenario wasn't even close. Yes, SEALs
> are trained to be excellent in this bobbing environment, which is no doubt
> why they are "da bomb" and why it all worked. I'm not saying it didn't. I'm
> saying the bullshit fantasy that some of you envision is just that. As for
> the ABC story?.... these ppl can't even distinguish between auto and
> semi-auto firearms. When it comes to the news media reporting ANYTHING
> about guns, you can take it to the bank, they're clueless.
>
> nb
I'm not sure things were any less ideal shooting from the Navy ship.
And the water conditions looked about the same. I'm guessing it was
pretty darn close to what they were dealing with, and even if it wasn't,
that sniper made it seem like a walk in the park.
And don't lump me in with the "fantasy envisioned."
I'm trying to give proof to the tinfoil hat society that thinks it's
impossible, when it was obviously somewhat routine for trained snipers.
And the same evidence discredits the fantasy crowd that thinks there
were all kinds of high tech gismos involved.
Bottom line is, if you "doubt even the best SEAL could" routinely
make those shots, then you're the one in fantasy land.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
notbob wrote:
>> impossible, when it was obviously somewhat routine for trained snipers.
>
> Obvious to who?
>
Obvious to anyone who's seen what the military can do in the last 20
years.
>> Bottom line is, if you "doubt even the best SEAL could" routinely
>> make those shots, then you're the one in fantasy land.
>
> who are you arguing with? I never said anything "doubt.... best SEAL"
>
You didn't? This doesn't look familiar? You wrote it this afternoon.
"Try acquiring a target in ANY boat! I can hit a metal chicken (18" at
200 yds) with a 100 yr old bolt action rifle, but put me in a boat and
all bets are off. I think I could do a kill maybe one out of 5 at 30
yds. I doubt even the best SEAL could do better."
How about you put down the bottle before continuing this discussion. :-p
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
The Bainbridge is something like 500 ft length, 65 foot beam, displaces
9000 or 10000 tons. She is not going to be bobbing around much in calm
water. The sniper shown in the ABC demo was firing from a much smaller
vessel and hit 10 for 10.
The most impressive achievment IMHO was the teamwork of the 3 snipers
being able to take their shots and hit the pirates nearly simultaneously.
--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-04-20, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Try acquiring a target in ANY boat! I can hit a metal chicken (18" at
>> 200 yds) with a 100 yr old bolt action rifle, but put me in a boat and
>> all bets are off. I think I could do a kill maybe one out of 5 at 30
>> yds. I doubt even the best SEAL could do better."
>>
>>
>> How about you put down the bottle before continuing this discussion. :-p
>
>
>
> I finally watched your ABC vid. That was a bogus demo, as is typical of the
> media, the boat the sniper was on being a fairly large platform, much more
> stable than a powered inflatable, the choice of most SEALS. In fact, it
> looked big enough to overwhelm any opposition whether it had snipers aboard
> or not. I was referring to a small powered infatable and stand by my claim.
>
> I have no doubt SEALs are better shots than I, but a boat (not ship!)
> bobbing on the open sea shooting at another boat bobbing on the open sea
> ....not some sheltered harbor for bogus demo's sake.... makes sniping all
> but impossible, no matter how good a shot you may be. First, all that
> movement makes high power optics useless. Second, at 25 yds, a good pistol
> shot would be more practical, and good snipers are now trained in long range
> pistol shooting, which is nothing at all like sniping.
>
> Try again. I'll debate you with a bottle for each hand and still outshoot
> you.
>
> nb
Ok, let me get this straight.
You call a 500ft. Navy Destroyer with a 9000 ton displacement a boat?
Yeah, those things just bob up and down like crazy in calm seas, don't
they?
Did you even read the accounts of this event?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
notbob wrote:
>> Ok, let me get this straight.
>> You call a 500ft. Navy Destroyer with a 9000 ton displacement a boat?
>
> I can see this is pointless. Toodles.
>
> nb
I take it by your juvenile reply, that you either didn't read any of the
accounts of the event or sobered up and realized you were spewing BS. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "-MIKE-" wrote:
> Something.
>
> notbob wrote:
>
> Something else.
>
> What is it about "First liar doesn't have a chance", you two don't
> get?
>
> Lew
>
What's your point?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>=20
> > While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever =
developed, or=20
> > even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting =
the broad=20
> > side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and =
not the=20
> > gun.
>=20
> That's probably why this was the .45 I was issued:
>=20
> http://thunderbirdarmory.webs.com/Grease%20Gun.bmp
>=20
> It helps if you're /inside/ the barn. :-)
>=20
> --=20
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Just what I always wanted!!!!!
A shoulder-mounted grease gun.
Sure wish I had one of these when I had a car that had fittings.
P D Q - Laughing all the way.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:47:15 +0100, Bored Borg
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Hell, John Wayne could have done it from a rowing boat with a Remington in
>each hand.
>
>Blindfold in his good eye.
>
>While sitting on a bucking horse.
>
>And drinking corn likker put of a big jug.
"Fill your hands, you son of a bitch!"
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:57:15 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>>>
>>> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
>>>
>>> And that's with me on a rest and what I'm shooting at standing still.
>>>
>>> Remember what that old boy said, "A pistol is a weapon used to fight
>>> your way back to your rifle."
>>>
>>A long weapon is much easier to aim and hit a target than a pistol. That
>>said, there are some folk who are just deadly accurate with a 1911. I am
>>not one of them. But my little sister (six years younger) is. And she is
>>much smaller than me too!
>>
>>Remember that guy in Vietnam who was a crack pistol shot.? He crashed in a
>>helicopter and held off a whole bunch of the enemy with just his 1911.
>>Almost got the medal of honor for it too. He fired and the others reloaded
>>his magazines for him. Obviously not a typical shot. I believe he was a
>>nationally ranked champion.
>>
>>
>
>
> What I admired about the shooting was that three guys shot at
> essentially the same time and all took out the targets.
>
> I don't know what tech stuff they used but that's like three guys
> shooting buzzer shots at the final game and having them all go in.
>
> Oh, and by the way, a guy's life was on the line.
>
>
> I have enough of a hard time shooting at paper with an MOA CZ451 on a
> windless day at fifty yards. I get a sight picture that looks like
> I'm on a moving boat but I'm standing still - and so is the paper.
CZ451 is .22LR. Fifty yards is a long distance for such a rifle and your
results depend on the ammo you shoot. For 50 yards you _MUST_ use either
subsonic or high velocity ammo to hit anything reliably. Standard velocity
bullet gets subsonic at something like 30 yards so it is only good for 25
yards. You won't get a MOA precision even if you shoot from a vise.
Hands trembling is a separate issue. I met a guy at my range, a former
sniper, that reliably (9 out of 10) hits a 8x12" gong at 200 yards with his
100 yr. old bolt action rifle from standing position using only iron sights.
---
******************************************************************
* KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. *
* Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. *
******************************************************************
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:13:01 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>RE: Subject
>
>Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
>take out the pirates.
>
>Having taken a few shots from a pitching boat, makes sense.
>
>Somebody said:
>
>> It was either the best shots on earth, or we have not heard the
>> whole story of the Pirate shots.
>
>Makes sense.
>
>Anybody have any straight skinny?
>
>Lew
>
Not only from a pitching ship but into a pitching boat.
Gyro-stabilization could help on the shooting end but wouldn't do
anything to stabilize the target end. I think target acquiring, active
guidance small arms ammunition is in pretty short supply. So even if
we do hear the "whole story", my bet is it's still going to be an
example of some damn fine shooting.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
In article <[email protected]>, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Sergey Kubushin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> It is no big deal to put all the bullets into a quarter sized circle at
>> 100
>> yards distance. That is when using a commodity rifle like e.g. widely
>> available PSL-54C and cheap surplus ammo. I wouldn't even start about
>> distance 4 times shorter...
>
>With an accurized weapon and hand loads maybe, and then only with the help
>of a bench rest. Sub-MOA is difficult to achieve even at that short range.
>Your target size equates to 21 seconds of arc.
If you're talking about the "short range" being the 25 yards at which the
pirates were shot, and the "target size" being a human head, you need to check
your math -- it's 21 *minutes* of arc.
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a target
>pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized sniper
>rifles my shaven behind.
>
Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
And that's with me on a rest and what I'm shooting at standing still.
Remember what that old boy said, "A pistol is a weapon used to fight
your way back to your rifle."
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
>> Do you have a source for this?
>
> Mike.. This is the entire email..
> I think it was originally a post on a forum, for the look of it, but that's just
> a guess..
> It appears to be stepped on and forwarded several times before I got it:
>
I googled a snippet and found it online, probably the same forum you
referenced.
Thanks.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:48:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>Do you have a source for this?
Mike.. This is the entire email..
I think it was originally a post on a forum, for the look of it, but that's just
a guess..
It appears to be stepped on and forwarded several times before I got it:
Subject: FW: MORE ON PIRATES
Would appear our Navy is rather capable when permitted to do it's job.
From recently retired VADM JG Cotton, former Chief of Navy Reserve/ Commander
Navy Reserve Force, USNA â73:
From the net...courtesy of Henry...
This event is long over, but the repercussions from it are not. I have not read
a better description of the saga of the Alabama Mersk; nor a better and more
interesting sea story in a long while. I bemoan the fact that our press is so
poor that they rank below 17% in a poll defining job approval, only slightly
below the Congress. So thank God for the internet and those who shine a light
out there. H
All: I second the remarks of previous pass-throughs (more than a few Naval
Academy alumni, including a classmate whom I thank) and add that the well
written and readable summary including geographic orientation and subsequent
events should earn that author public favorable recognition for the timeliness
of his report. I only hope that it gets the recognition it deserves.and that it
be made promptly. JRP
Subject: Fw: US Navy vs. Pirates, Version Number 3
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:44:52 GMT
For what it is worth ALL of my back door msg traffic and info indicates that
this is the most accurate summary of all. Sure compliment the Captain who made
the decision to get on with it,-----i.e. cleared to FIRE, with great results.
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:59:28 -0400
Subject: Pirate Saga Details
Forwarded FYI. This sounds like the real story as it fits with other accounts
but makes more sense.
Your "Real" story is not exactly the way I heard it, and probably has a few
political twists thrown in to stir the pot. Rather than me trying to correct it,
I'll just tell you what I found out from my contacts at NSWC Norfolk and at
SOCOM Tampa.
First though, let me orient you to familiarize you with the "terrain."
In Africa from Djibouti at the southern end of the Red Sea eastward through the
Gulf of Aden to round Cape Guardafui at the easternmost tip of Africa (also
known as "The Horn of Africa") is about a 600 nm transit before you stand out
into the Indian Ocean. That transit is comparable in distance to that from the
mouth of the Mississippi at New Orleans to the tip of Florida at Key West--
except that 600 nm over there is infested with Somalia pirates.
Ships turning southward at the Horn of Africa transit the SLOC (Sea Lane of
Commerce) along the east coast of Somalia because of the prevailing southerly
currents there. It's about 1,500 nm on to Mombassa, which is just south of the
equator in Kenya. Comparably, that's about the transit distance from Portland
Maine down the east coast of the US to Miami Florida. In other words, the ocean
area being patrolled by our naval forces off the coast of Somalia is comparable
to that in the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River east to Miami then up
the eastern seaboard to Maine.
Second, let me globally orient you from our Naval Operating Base in Norfolk, VA,
east across the Atlantic to North Africa, thence across the Med to Suez in
Egypt, thence southward down the Red Sea to Djibouti at the Gulf of Aden, thence
eastward to round Cape Guardafui at the easternmost tip of Africa, and thence
southerly some 300 miles down the east cost of Somali out into the high seas of
the Indian Ocean to the position of MV ALABAMA is a little more than 7,000 nm,
and plus-nine time-zones ahead of EST.
Hold that thought, in that, a C-17 transport averaging a little better than 400
kts (SOG) takes the best part of 18 hours to make that trip. In the evening
darkness late Thursday night, a team of Navy SEALs from NSWC (Naval Surface
Warfare Center) Norfolk parachuted from such a C-17 into the black waters (no
refraction of light) of the Indian Ocean-- close-aboard to our 40,000 ton
amphibious assault ship, USS BOXER (LHD 4), the flagship of our ESG
(Expeditionary Strike Group) in the AOR (Area Of Responsibility, the Gulf of
Aden). They not only parachuted in with all of their "equipment," they had their
own inflatable boats, RHIB's (Rigid Hull, Inflatable Boats) with them for
over-water transport. They went into BOXER's landing dock, debarked, and staged
for the rescue-- Thursday night.
And, let me comment on time-late: In that the SEAL's quick response-- departing
ready-alert in less than 4 hours from Norfolk-- supposedly surprised POTUS's
staff, whereas President Obama was miffed not to get his "cops" there before the
Navy. He reportedly questioned his staff, "Will 'my' FBI people get there before
the Navy does?" It took the FBI almost 12 hours to put together a team and get
them packed-up-- for an "at sea" rescue. The FBI was trying to tell him that
they are not practiced to do this-- Navy SEALs are. But, BHO wanted the FBI
there "to help," that is, carry out the Attorney General's (his) orders to
negotiate the release of Captain Phillips peacefully-- because apparently he
doesn't trust GW's military to carry out his "political guidance."
The flight of the FBI's passenger jet took a little less than 14 hours at
500-some knots to get to Djibouti. BOXER'S helos picked them up and transported
them out to the ship. The Navy SEALs were already there, staged, and ready to
act by the time POTUS's FBI arrived on board latter that evening. Notably, the
first request by the OSC (On Scene Commander) that early Friday morning to take
them out and save Captain Phillips was denied, to wit: "No, wait until 'my' FBI
people get there."
Third, please consider a candid assessment of ability that finds that the FBI
snipers had never practiced shooting from a rolling, pitching, yawing, surging,
swaying, heaving platform-- and, target-- such as a ship and a lifeboat on the
high seas. Navies have been doing since Admiral Nelson who had trained "Marines"
to shoot muskets from the ship's rigging-- ironically, he was killed at sea in
HMS VICTORY at the Battle of Trafalgar by a French Marine rifleman that shot him
from the rigging of the French ship that they were grappling alongside.
Notably, when I was first training at USNA in 1955, the Navy was doing it with a
SATU, Small Arms Training Unit, based at our Little Creek amphib base. Now, Navy
SEAL's, in particular SEAL Team SIX (The "DevGru") based at NSWC (Naval Surface
Warfare Center) at Little Creek do that training now, and hone their skills
professionally-- daily. Shooting small arms from a ship is more of an
accomplished "Art Form" than it is a practiced skill. When you are "in the
bubble" and "in tune" with the harmonic motion you find, through practice, that
you are "able to put three .308 slugs inside the head of a quarter at 100
meters, in day or night-- or, behind a camouflaged net or a thin enclosure, such
as a superstructure bulkhead. Yes, we have the monocular scopes that can "see"
heat-- and, draw a bead on it. SEALs are absolutely expert at it-- with the
movie clips to prove it.
Okay, now try to imagine patrolling among the boats fishing everyday out on the
Grand Banks off our New England coast, and then responding to a distress call
from down around the waters between Florida and the Bahamas. Three points for
you to consider here: (1) Time-Distance-Speed relationships for ships on the
high seas, for instance, at a 25-knot SOA (Speed Of Advance) it takes 24 hours
to make good 600 nm-- BAINBRIDGE did. (2) Fishermen work on the high seas, and
(3) The best place to hide as a "fisherman" pirate is among other fishermen
Early Wednesday morning, 4/8/2009, MV ALABAMA is at sea in the IO about 300
miles off the (east) coast of Somalia en route to Mombassa Kenya. Pirates in
small boat start harassing her, and threatening her with weapons. MV ALABAMA's
captain sent out the distress call by radio, and ordered his Engineer to shut
down the engines as well as the ship-service electrical generators-- in our
lingo, "Go dark and cold." He informed his crew by radio what was happening, and
ordered them to go to an out-of-the-way compartment and lock themselves in it--
from the inside. He would stay in the pilot house to "negotiate" with the
pirates.
The pirates boarded, captured the Captain, and ordered him to start the engines.
He said he would order his Engineer to do so, and he called down to Engine
Control on the internal communication system, but got no answer. The lead pirate
ordered two of his four men to go down and find him and get the engines started.
Inside a ship without any lights is like the definition of dark. The advantage
goes to the people who work and live there. They jumped the two pirates in a
dark passageway. Both pirates lost their weapons, but one managed to scramble
and get away. The other they tied up, put tape over his mouth and a knife at his
throat.
Other members of the crew opened the drain cocks on the pirates boat and cast it
adrift. It foundered and sunk. The scrambling pirate made it back to the pilot
house and told of his demise. The pirates took the Captain at gun point, and
told him to launch one of his rescue boats (not a life boat, per se). As he was
lowering the boat for them, the crew appeared with the other pirate to negotiate
a trade. The crew let their hostage go to soon, and the pirates kept the
captain. But, he purposefully had lowered the boat so it would jam.
With the rescue boat jammed, the pirates jumped over to a lifeboat and released
it as the captain jumped in the water. They fired at him, made him stop, and
grabbed him out of the water. Now, as night falls in the vastness of the Indian
Ocean, we have the classic "Mexican" standoff, to wit: A life-boat that is just
that, a life-boat adrift without any means of propulsion except oars and
paddles; and, a huge (by comparison) Motor Vessel Container Ship adrift with a
crew that is not going to leave their captain behind. The pirates are enclosed
under its shelter-covering, holding the captain as their hostage. The crew is
hunkered down in their ship waiting for the "posse" to arrive.
After receiving MV ALABAMA'S distress call, USS BAINBRIDGE (DDG 96) was
dispatched by the ESG commander to respond to ALABAMA's distress call. At best
sustainable speed, she arrived on scene the day after-- that is, in the dark of
that early Thursday morning. As BAINBRIDGE quietly and slowly, at darkened-ship
without any lights to give her away, arrived on scene, please consider a
recorded interview with the Chief Engineer of MV ALABAMA describing BAINBRIDGE's
arrival. He said it was something else "... to see the Navy slide in there like
a greyhound!" He then said as she slipped in closer he could see the "Stars and
Stripes" flying from her masthead. He got choked up saying it was the
"...proudest moment of my life."
Phew! Let that sink in.
Earlier in the day, one of the U.S. Navy's Maritime Patrol Aircraft, a fixed
wing P3C, flew over to recon the scene. They dropped a buoy with a radio to the
pirates so that the Navy's interpreter could talk with the pirates. When
BAINBRIDGE arrived, the pirates thought the radio to be a beaconing device, and
threw it overboard. They wanted a satellite telephone so that they could call
home for help. Remember now, they are fishermen, not "Rocket Scientists," in
that, they don't know that we can intercept the phone transmission also.
MV ALABAMA provided them with a satellite phone. They called home back to
"somebody" in Eyl Somalia (so that we now know where you live) to come out and
get them. The "somebody" in Eyl said they would be out right away with other
hostages, like 54 of them from other countries, and that they would be coming
out in two of their pirated ships. Right-- and, the tooth fairy will let you
have sex with her. Yea, in paradise. The "somebody" in Eyl just chalked up four
more expendables as overhead for "the cost of operation." Next page.
Anyway, ESG will continue to "watch" Eyl for any ships standing out.
The Navy SEAL team, SEAL TEAM SIX, from NSWC briefed the OSC (Commander
Castellano, CO BAINBRIDGE) on how they could rescue the captain from the life
boat with swimmers-- "Combat Swimmers," per se. That plan was denied by POTUS
because it put the captain in danger-- and, involved killing the pirates.
The FBI negotiators arrived on scene, and talked the pirates into sending their
wounded man over for treatment Saturday morning. Later that afternoon, the
SEAL's sent over their RHIB with food and water to recon the life boat but the
pirates shot at it. They could have taken them out then (from being fired upon)
but were denied again being told that the captain was not in "imminent danger."
The FBI negotiators calmed the situation by informing the pirates of threatening
weather as they could see storm clouds closing from the horizon, and offered to
tow the life boat. The pirates agreed, and BAINBRIDGE took them under tow in
their wake at 30 meters-- exactly 30 meters, which is exactly the distance the
SEALs practice their shooting skills.
With the lifeboat under tow, riding comfortably bow-down on BAINBRIDGE's
wake-wave ("rooster tail"), had a 17-second period of harmonic motion, and at
the end of every half-period (8.5 seconds) was steady on. The light-enhanced
(infra-red heat) monocular scopes on the SEAL's .308 caliber Mark 11 Mod 0 H&K
suppressor-fitted sniper rifles easily imaged their target very clearly. Pirates
in a life boat at 30-meters could be compared to fish in a barrel. All that was
necessary was to take out the plexiglass window so that it would not deflect the
trajectory of the high velocity .308 round. So, a sniper (one of four) with a
wad-cutter round (a flaxen sabot) would take out the window a split second
before the kill-shot-- no change in sight-picture, just the window blowing out,
clean.
Now, here's the part BHO's "whiz kids" knew as well as the Navy hierarchy,
including CO BAINBRIDGE and CO SEAL TEAM SIX. It's the law in Article 19 of
Appendix L in the "Convention of the High Seas" that the Commanding Officer of a
US Ship on the high seas is obligated to respond to distress signals from any
flagged ship (US or otherwise), and protect the life and property thereof when
deemed to be in IMMINENT DANGER. So, in the final analysis, it would be Captain
Castellano call as to "Imminent Danger," and that he alone was obligated (duty
bound) to act accordingly.
Got the picture?
After medically attending to the wounded pirated, and feeding him, come first
light (from the east) on Easter Sunday morning and the pirates saw they were
being towed further out to sea (instead of westward toward land), the wounded
pirate demanded to be returned to the lifeboat. There would BE NO more
negotiations-- and, the four Navy SEAL snipers "in the bubble" went "Unlock."
The pirate holding Captain Philips raised the gun to his head, and IMMINENT
DANGER was so observed and noted in the Log as CO BAINBRIDGE gave the classic
order: WEAPONS RELEASED! I can hear the echo in my earpiece now, "On my count
(from 8.5 seconds), 3, 2, 1, !" POP, BANG! Out went the window, followed by
three simultaneous shots. The scoreboard flashed: "GAME OVER, GAME OVER-- NAVY
3, PIRATES 0!"
I hope you found the above informative as best I know it-- and, please excuse me
in that after more than 50 years the Navy is still in me. I submit that AMERICA
is going to make a comeback, and more than likely it'll be on the back of our
cherished youth serving with honor in Our military. So, let's Look Up, Get Up --
and, Never Give Up!
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On 2009-04-27, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> It appears to be stepped on......
The understatement of the century!
> you are "able to put three .308 slugs inside the head of a quarter at 100
> meters, in day or night-- or, behind a camouflaged net or a thin enclosure, such
> as a superstructure bulkhead. Yes, we have the monocular scopes that can "see"
> heat-- and, draw a bead on it. SEALs are absolutely expert at it-- with the
> movie clips to prove it.
Chrystonacrutch! The entire population of Ireland Riverdanced on this one.
Anyone got the Youtube link? <eyeroll>
nb
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:05:06 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Larry
W) wrote:
>No doubt the military has all kinds of exotic sighting systems, but even
>on the high seas, a 30 yard shot from a sniper grade M14 shouldn't be
>beyond the capabilites of the marksman who were helicoptered to
>the Navy ship.
>
>
Hell, the snipers in Nam' were getting kills from over 1,000 yards and with the
high tech stuff they're using in Iraq, the range, accuracy and lack of recoil is
flat incredible..
Check this out:
http://www.ftatalk.com/showthread.php?t=278186
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Maxwell Lol wrote:
> Sergey Kubushin <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Yes, there are some challenges because of relative boats movement
>> but it is also not rocket science. Especially when those boats are
>> tied with a rope...
>
> Someone said they used gyros on the rifles for stabilization.
Yeah, and here's where the SEALs get really high marks. Imagine the skill
necessary to attach a fair-sized gyroscope to the underside of the pirate's
boad!
As for sniping, you might enjoy the following excerpt from a Lee Childs
book:
--- begin quote
First thing out of the barrel of Reacher's Barrett was a blast of hot gas.
The powder in the cartridge exploded in a fraction of a millionth of a
second and expanded to a super-heated bubble. That bubble of gas hurled the
bullet down the barrel and forced ahead of it and around it to explode out
into the atmosphere. Most of it was smashed sideways by the muzzle brake in
a perfectly balanced radial pattern, like a doughnut, so that the recoil
moved the barrel straight back against Reacher's shoulder without deflecting
it either sideways or up or down. Meanwhile, behind it, the bullet was
starting to spin inside the barrel as the rifling grooves grabbed at it.
Then the gas ahead of the bullet was heating the oxygen in the air to the
point where the air caught fire. There was a brief flash of flame and the
bullet burst out through the exact center of it, spearing through the burned
air at nineteen hundred miles an hour. A thousandth of a second later, it
was six feet away, and its sound was bravely chasing after it, three times
slower.
The bullet took five hundredths of a second to cross the [parade ground], by
which time the sound of its shot had just passed Reacher's ears and cleared
the ridge of the roof. The bullet had a hand-polished copper jacket and it
was flying straight and true, but by the time it had passed soundlessly over
McGrath's head it had slowed a little. And the air was moving it. It was
moving it right to left as the gentle mountain breeze tugged imperceptibly
at it. Half a second into its travel, the bullet had covered thirteen
hundred feet and it had moved seven inches to the left.
And it had dropped seven inches. Gravity had pulled it in. The more gravity
pulled, the more the bullet slowed. The more it slowed, the more gravity
deflected it. It speared onward in a perfect graceful curve. A whole second
after leaving the barrel, it was nine hundred yards into its journey. Way
past McGrath's running figure, but still over the trees, still three hundred
yards short of its target. Another sixth of a second later, it was clear of
the trees and alongside the office building. Now it was a slow bullet. It
had pulled four feet left and five feet down. It passed well clear of Holly
and was twenty feet past her before she heard the hiss in the air. The sound
of the shot was still to come.
Reacher's bullet hit Borken in the head a full second and a third after he
fired it. It entered the front of his forehead and was out of the back of
his skull three ten-thousandths of a second later. In and out without really
slowing much more at all, because Borken's skull and brains were nothing to
a two-ounce lead projectile with a needle point and a polished metal jacket.
The bullet was well over the endless forest beyond before the pressure wave
built up in Borken's skull and exploded it.
Reacher was watching it through his scope. Heart in his mouth. A full second
and a third is a long time to wait. He watched Borken's skull explode like
it had been burst from the inside with a sledgehammer. It came apart like a
diagram. Reacher saw curved shards of bone bursting outward and red mist
blooming.
--- end quote
You can read one of Child's books online at leechild.com.
Then you'll go buy the rest.
And before you say "What does an ex-British lawyer know about sniping?"
remember the similar question "What the fuck does a real estate broker in
Virginia know about global submarine warfare?" That question was asked by
every major publisher in declining "The Hunt for Red October." Clancey's
book was eventually published by the Naval Institute Press, whose last big
seller was a tabulation of tide tables for Hudson Bay, 1886-87.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:01:23 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Apr 19, 5:12 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a target
>> >>pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized sniper
>> >>rifles my shaven behind.
>>
>> > Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>>
>> > I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
>>
>> I was very careful to write "target pistol".
>
>True. And the 1911s we were stuck with in the Marines were far better
>up close where you could whap someone on the head with the thing, or
>throw it like a rock.
...I managed to wangle a 1911 as a sidearm in VN, seeing as how we
flew around with virtually no armor I figured a good place for a large
hunk of metal would be between my legs. I even shot it a few
times...once at a 55 gallon drum not 25 feet away; the round clanked
out and missed by 5 feet...I *swear* on my expert rating with a .38
that I was aiming true (come on, it was a 55 gallon drum!). Which led
me to believe that that particular hunk of steel was one Sgt York had
contact with...
cg
MikeWhy <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "MikeWhy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"Sergey Kubushin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> It is no big deal to put all the bullets into a quarter sized circle at
>>>> 100
>>>> yards distance. That is when using a commodity rifle like e.g. widely
>>>> available PSL-54C and cheap surplus ammo. I wouldn't even start about
>>>> distance 4 times shorter...
>>>
>>>With an accurized weapon and hand loads maybe, and then only with the help
>>>of a bench rest. Sub-MOA is difficult to achieve even at that short range.
>>>Your target size equates to 21 seconds of arc.
>>
>> If you're talking about the "short range" being the 25 yards at which the
>> pirates were shot, and the "target size" being a human head, you need to
>> check
>> your math -- it's 21 *minutes* of arc.
>
> No, I was talking about the March Hare and his bowtie. WTF? Do you not read?
> The response was to the simplicity of hitting a quarter at 100 yds, a 3/4"
> round target at 3600 inches.
OK, I might be wrong about a quarter. I meant 1" circle that is 1 MOA. It is
easily achieved with either of my two PSL-54C rifles without any accurizing
and using cheap Bulgarian surplus ammo still available at $85/tin. Sure one
would need a bench rest to do this.
But that is not to start a discussion about sub-MOA shooting and
handloading. This is just to illustrate that 25 yards head shot in
absolutely nothing to write home about even using cheap civilian weapon with
cheap ammo.
---
******************************************************************
* KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. *
* Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. *
******************************************************************
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:31:36 -0700, mac davis
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:20:15 -0700, Charlie Groh <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>...I managed to wangle a 1911 as a sidearm in VN, seeing as how we
>>flew around with virtually no armor I figured a good place for a large
>>hunk of metal would be between my legs. I even shot it a few
>>times...once at a 55 gallon drum not 25 feet away; the round clanked
>>out and missed by 5 feet...I *swear* on my expert rating with a .38
>>that I was aiming true (come on, it was a 55 gallon drum!). Which led
>>me to believe that that particular hunk of steel was one Sgt York had
>>contact with...
>>
>>cg
>
>I was issued one in Nam and carried it for a month, until the time came to use
>it.. YUK..
>I've heard good things about "sporterized" 45's, but the one the gave me was a
>POS..
>
>Used it one time.. At a backlit target about 10 or 12 yards away, laying prone
>with the 45 on a sandbag..
>Emptied the sucker and when the "target" was recovered the next morning, I'd
>only hit it 3 times..
>Went to the airbase the next time we were in base camp and bought a .38 and
>never regretted the change.. YMWV
>
>
>mac
>
>Please remove splinters before emailing
...heh...well, as far as accuracy you're right on the money, but *my*
needs were satisfied with the added "armor"...I was a Barney
Fife-type...after finding out how it fired, I only carried one round
chambered, that one was for me (the VC didn't like scout
pilots...)...we had lots of other ordinance and different firearms,
plus I was invulnerable. ;0)
cg
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:19:48 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>We are so enamored with technology that we completely blank out any
>possibility of a skill requirement. You can have a rifle that could nick
>the butt-hole off a fly at one mile (eye-roll), but if the shooter can't hold
>steady, it's no better than a tossed biscuit. Try acquiring a target in ANY
>boat! I can hit a metal chicken (18" at 200 yds) with a 100 yr old bolt
>action rifle, but put me in a boat and all bets are off. I think I could do
>a kill maybe one out of 5 at 30 yds. I doubt even the best SEAL could do
>better. Jes speculation, but feel free to continue the fantasy.
>
Amen to that.
But, if your hundred year old rifle is a 1903-A3, you have a
significantly better chance than a guy with your average M16.
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:03:01 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>HeyBub wrote:
>> notbob wrote:
>>> On 2009-04-18, HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for sniping, you might enjoy the following excerpt from a Lee
>>>> Childs book:
>>>
>>> Pure writer's crap.
>>>
>>
>> Um, probably not. This same story was posted on a guns newsgroup.
>> Respondents agreed the only area where there might have been a
>> problem was in the beginning when Childs said "The powder in the
>> cartridge exploded in a fraction of a millionth of a second..."
>>
>> Some experts said that was an exaggeration and others said, depending
>> on the powder load, it was just barely possible.
>>
>> If you have experience or information tending to refute the physics
>> in the story, please feel free to share. Otherwise, just enjoy the
>> story.
>
>When a story makes me go "whoa, what a load of crap" then I have trouble
>enjoying it.
True. That's about the time I put the book down.
>As for the comparison with Clancy, the difference there is that Clancy was
>accurate enough that the professional society for US Naval officers saw
>merit in his work.
Enough that they (US Navy) questioned his sources for classified
information.
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:12:07 -0500, "MikeWhy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a target
>>>pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized sniper
>>>rifles my shaven behind.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>>
>> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
>
>I was very careful to write "target pistol".
>
Well, I'm shooting a tuned up Series 80 with a pull of right around
3.8 lbs and it shoots nice and straight when I clamp it up.
Some folks might consider it to be a target pistol.
Depending on the target.
And the hand that holds it.
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote
>Mike Marlow wrote
> While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever developed, or
> even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the
> broad
> side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and not the
> gun.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
/>You never got one straight out of the box, still in cosmoline, to make
/>a statement like that. After 20-25 hours of work, they're fine. Before
/>that, they quality as semi-assembled and semi-accurate.
How about one of these?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdinep/3460521500/
Max
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> While not claiming the 1911 to be the most accurate gun ever developed, or
> even a highly accurate gun, the vast majority of problems hitting the
> broad side of a barn with a 1911 is really the hand holding the gun, and
> not the gun.
>
True. When I was in the army, early 80's, the 45 I carried was an Ithaca.
That would make it WW2 issue. I qualified with a near perfect score with
that gun. Having heard of the extreme inaccuracy of the 45, I thought that I
must have gotten a good one. I tried several other pistols, standard issue,
straight from the arms room. No trouble with them either. Becoming a good
shot with a pistol takes more than the amount of training given to the
average soldier.
On 2009-04-17, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
> take out the pirates.
I suspect stabalized optics, old news in Japanese cameras. Rifled bullets
are gyro-stabized by definition.
nb
On 2009-04-18, HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
> As for sniping, you might enjoy the following excerpt from a Lee Childs
> book:
Pure writer's crap.
nb
On 2009-04-19, HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>> On 2009-04-18, HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> As for sniping, you might enjoy the following excerpt from a Lee
>>> Childs book:
>>
>> Pure writer's crap.
>>
>
> Um, probably not. This same story was posted on a guns newsgroup.
> Respondents agreed the only area where there might have been a problem was
> in the beginning when Childs said "The powder in the cartridge exploded in a
> fraction of a millionth of a second..."
>
> Some experts said that was an exaggeration and others said, depending on the
> powder load, it was just barely possible.
It was schlock writing in the first degree. BAD poetic license and over the
top exageration for the video game crowd. Exactly what is a "fraction of a
millionth"? Nothing you can pin down, just like the rest of the article.
Hand polished bullets? Air catching on fire? What horse crap.
> If you have experience or information tending to refute the physics in the
> story, please feel free to share.....
I'd be up the rest of the night.
nb
On 2009-04-19, HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
> One-tenmillionth of a second is a "fraction of a millionth" of a second.
So is one hundredth or 5 hundred and forty seven thousandths of a millionth.
Which is it?
> Sniper bullets ARE hand polished.....
Only by self deluded comic book droolers. Not even benchrest shooters are
that lame. They polish the barrel and coat the bullets.
> business, but I suppose super-heated air can do odd things.
You "suppose" the writer might be exaggerating jes a tad for effect?
> Anyway, you don't have to stay up the rest of the night. Just find a
> reference or two that snipers use production-grade bullets, that .50 caliber
You find 'em. I got better things to do. Oh, and another one... I'll
guaran-damn-tee you no shooter views the target being hit through his scope
after launching a Ma Duece round from a shoulder fired weapon. But, go
ahead and live the fantasy.
nb
On 2009-04-19, Maxwell Lol <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know nothing, but your credibility is very low....
How can one argue such bizarre logic?
nb
On 2009-04-19, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> Hell, the snipers in Nam' were getting kills from over 1,000 yards and with the
> high tech stuff they're using in Iraq, the range, accuracy and lack of recoil is
> flat incredible..
>
> Check this out:
> http://www.ftatalk.com/showthread.php?t=278186
We are so enamored with technology that we completely blank out any
possibility of a skill requirement. You can have a rifle that could nick
the butt-hole off a fly at one mile (eye-roll), but if the shooter can't hold
steady, it's no better than a tossed biscuit. Try acquiring a target in ANY
boat! I can hit a metal chicken (18" at 200 yds) with a 100 yr old bolt
action rifle, but put me in a boat and all bets are off. I think I could do
a kill maybe one out of 5 at 30 yds. I doubt even the best SEAL could do
better. Jes speculation, but feel free to continue the fantasy.
nb
nb
On 2009-04-19, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Amen to that.
>
> But, if your hundred year old rifle is a 1903-A3, you have a
> significantly better chance than a guy with your average M16.
Swedish Mauser, 6.5x55, 1898. I have no experience with current AR/M/16s,
but the same lessons apply. It's the shooter. ;)
nb
On 2009-04-19, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Really? How about ten for ten?
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7367613
How about it? "Ideal" shooting platform shooting at "ideal" floating target
platform. I've no doubt the actual scenario wasn't even close. Yes, SEALs
are trained to be excellent in this bobbing environment, which is no doubt
why they are "da bomb" and why it all worked. I'm not saying it didn't. I'm
saying the bullshit fantasy that some of you envision is just that. As for
the ABC story?.... these ppl can't even distinguish between auto and
semi-auto firearms. When it comes to the news media reporting ANYTHING
about guns, you can take it to the bank, they're clueless.
nb
On 2009-04-19, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not sure things were any less ideal shooting from the Navy ship.
Me also.
> And the water conditions looked about the same. I'm guessing.....
See. Here we go. "I'm guessing"
> pretty darn close to what they were dealing with, and even if it wasn't,
> that sniper made it seem like a walk in the park.
"even if it wasn't".... "seem"....
> And don't lump me in with the "fantasy envisioned."
Then quit coming off as same.
> I'm trying to give proof to the tinfoil hat society....
So far, you've failed.
> impossible, when it was obviously somewhat routine for trained snipers.
Obvious to who?
> Bottom line is, if you "doubt even the best SEAL could" routinely
> make those shots, then you're the one in fantasy land.
who are you arguing with? I never said anything "doubt.... best SEAL"
nb
On 2009-04-20, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Try acquiring a target in ANY boat! I can hit a metal chicken (18" at
> 200 yds) with a 100 yr old bolt action rifle, but put me in a boat and
> all bets are off. I think I could do a kill maybe one out of 5 at 30
> yds. I doubt even the best SEAL could do better."
>
>
> How about you put down the bottle before continuing this discussion. :-p
I finally watched your ABC vid. That was a bogus demo, as is typical of the
media, the boat the sniper was on being a fairly large platform, much more
stable than a powered inflatable, the choice of most SEALS. In fact, it
looked big enough to overwhelm any opposition whether it had snipers aboard
or not. I was referring to a small powered infatable and stand by my claim.
I have no doubt SEALs are better shots than I, but a boat (not ship!)
bobbing on the open sea shooting at another boat bobbing on the open sea
....not some sheltered harbor for bogus demo's sake.... makes sniping all
but impossible, no matter how good a shot you may be. First, all that
movement makes high power optics useless. Second, at 25 yds, a good pistol
shot would be more practical, and good snipers are now trained in long range
pistol shooting, which is nothing at all like sniping.
Try again. I'll debate you with a bottle for each hand and still outshoot
you.
nb
On 2009-04-20, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, let me get this straight.
> You call a 500ft. Navy Destroyer with a 9000 ton displacement a boat?
I can see this is pointless. Toodles.
nb
On 2009-04-20, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> shot with a pistol takes more than the amount of training given to the
> average soldier.
Yep. The good pistol shots are averaging 50K rounds per year. That's about
500 rnds per weekend, every weekend.
nb
On 2009-04-29, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
>>...I managed to wangle a 1911 as a sidearm in VN, seeing as how we
>>flew around with virtually no armor I figured a good place for a large
>>hunk of metal would be between my legs. I even shot it a few
>>times...once at a 55 gallon drum not 25 feet away; the round clanked
>>out and missed by 5 feet...I *swear* on my expert rating with a .38
>>that I was aiming true (come on, it was a 55 gallon drum!). Which led
>>me to believe that that particular hunk of steel was one Sgt York had
>>contact with...
The military issue .45 auto was designed to do two things. One, deliver a
lethal pill to the enemy's body. Two, do it every single time the trigger
is pulled. Failure on either point is almost always a case of operator
error. In short, ya' gotta be smarter than the tool.
nb
On 2009-04-30, Charlie Groh <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...are you sounding condescending on purpose?
Yes. I'm a dick. ;)
nb
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:12:07 -0500, "MikeWhy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:31 -0500, "MikeWhy"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a target
>>>>pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized sniper
>>>>rifles my shaven behind.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Y'all must be one hell of a better pistol shot than me.
>>>
>>> I don't think I can hit anything at 80' with my 1911.
>>
>>I was very careful to write "target pistol".
>>
>
> Well, I'm shooting a tuned up Series 80 with a pull of right around
> 3.8 lbs and it shoots nice and straight when I clamp it up.
>
> Some folks might consider it to be a target pistol.
Muzzle loaders, too I suppose. Good F***** Lord.
Highland Pairos wrote:
> I was damned impressed when I heard the story. Being perched on a
> stabilized gun mount makes sense. Otherwise I chalked it up to the
> SEALS identifying a potential situation, i.e. a sniper shot from one
> boat to another, and have practiced the hell out of it. The report I
> thought was funny was that the sea states started getting heavy and
> the pirates didn't seem to be too comfortable, so the USN offered to
> tow them to calmer waters which they accepted. SUCKERS, thanks for
> making the shot a little easier.
> Damn fine work by some of America's best.
>
> SteveP.
Richard Marcinko's first book and even his second offer some intriguing
descriptions of how realistic he tried to make the training of his SEAL team
and how it paid off in improved performance. However for one reason or
another he was either forced to or decided to use a fictional approach to
telling his story by the second book so it gets harder to tell what might
have really happened from what he makes up. I for one wouldn't be surprised
if the SEALS who took out these punk pirates had trained for something very
much like what happened.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:53:50 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2009-04-29, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>...I managed to wangle a 1911 as a sidearm in VN, seeing as how we
>>>flew around with virtually no armor I figured a good place for a large
>>>hunk of metal would be between my legs. I even shot it a few
>>>times...once at a 55 gallon drum not 25 feet away; the round clanked
>>>out and missed by 5 feet...I *swear* on my expert rating with a .38
>>>that I was aiming true (come on, it was a 55 gallon drum!). Which led
>>>me to believe that that particular hunk of steel was one Sgt York had
>>>contact with...
>
>The military issue .45 auto was designed to do two things. One, deliver a
>lethal pill to the enemy's body. Two, do it every single time the trigger
>is pulled. Failure on either point is almost always a case of operator
>error. In short, ya' gotta be smarter than the tool.
>
>nb
...uh, yeah? That's exactly what a mentor of mine once said as I was
cursing at a door I couldn't make work right. Difference is, I had
the tools and time to make that door work (and realize I was truly
smarter than *it*...after all) and in the case of the weapon no
amount of skill on my part was going to make it shoot better...luck,
maybe so. My intent in my post was a little humor, nothing more.
...are you sounding condescending on purpose?
cg
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:18:00 -0500, "MikeWhy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Muzzle loaders, too I suppose. Good F***** Lord.
>
Bubba, you don't make a whole lot of sense.
That is your right, of course.
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Apr 17, 5:13 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> Heard on ABC news that the Navy Seals used "Gyro Stabalized" rifles to
> take out the pirates.
>
> Having taken a few shots from a pitching boat, makes sense.
>
> Somebody said:
>
> > It was either the best shots on earth, or we have not heard the
> > whole story of the Pirate shots.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> Anybody have any straight skinny?
>
> Lew
You'd need gyro stabilized pirates too then?
=======
At the end of the 80' tow rope? I think I could do that with a target
pistol, sitting on a gyro stabilized gun mount. Gyro stabilized sniper
rifles my shaven behind.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:05:46 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self <[email protected]>
wrote:
Thought this might be of some interest:
The FBI negotiators arrived on scene, and talked the pirates into sending their
wounded man over for treatment Saturday morning. Later that afternoon, the
SEAL's sent over their RHIB with food and water to recon the life boat but the
pirates shot at it. They could have taken them out then (from being fired upon)
but were denied again being told that the captain was not in "imminent danger."
The FBI negotiators calmed the situation by informing the pirates of threatening
weather as they could see storm clouds closing from the horizon, and offered to
tow the life boat. The pirates agreed, and BAINBRIDGE took them under tow in
their wake at 30 meters-- exactly 30 meters, which is exactly the distance the
SEALs practice their shooting skills.
With the lifeboat under tow, riding comfortably bow-down on BAINBRIDGE's
wake-wave ("rooster tail"), had a 17-second period of harmonic motion, and at
the end of every half-period (8.5 seconds) was steady on. The light-enhanced
(infra-red heat) monocular scopes on the SEAL's .308 caliber Mark 11 Mod 0 H&K
suppressor-fitted sniper rifles easily imaged their target very clearly. Pirates
in a life boat at 30-meters could be compared to fish in a barrel.
All that was necessary was to take out the plexiglass window so that it would
not deflect the trajectory of the high velocity .308 round. So, a sniper (one of
four) with a wad-cutter round (a flaxen sabot) would take out the window a split
second before the kill-shot-- no change in sight-picture, just the window
blowing out, clean.
After medically attending to the wounded pirated, and feeding him, come first
light (from the east) on Easter Sunday morning and the pirates saw they were
being towed further out to sea (instead of westward toward land), the wounded
pirate demanded to be returned to the lifeboat. There would BE NO more
negotiations-- and, the four Navy SEAL snipers "in the bubble" went "Unlock."
The pirate holding Captain Philips raised the gun to his head, and IMMINENT
DANGER was so observed and noted in the Log as CO BAINBRIDGE gave the classic
order: WEAPONS RELEASED! I can hear the echo in my earpiece now, "On my count
(from 8.5 seconds), 3, 2, 1, !" POP, BANG! Out went the window, followed by
three simultaneous shots. The scoreboard flashed: "GAME OVER, GAME OVER-- NAVY
3, PIRATES 0!"
>I didn't do shit. It was an issue weapon that I got to use for maybe
>two weeks. If you have to ask...how about lightening the trigger pull,
>while also making sure the trigger pull was more consistent?
>
>Certainly the feed can be improved, generally by using a non-G.I.
>magazine. Add adjustable sights, usually a high viz combat style.
>Various combat grips improve holding. Front strap checkering, or other
>form of grip adding at that point. Add target barrel bushings and a
>target grade barrel.
>
>There are plenty more. If you want a good treatise, pick up The
>Combat .45 Automatic by Bill Wilson, publishing by Wilson's Gun Shop
>in 1984.
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
mac davis wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:05:46 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Thought this might be of some interest:
> The FBI negotiators arrived on scene, and talked the pirates into sending their
> wounded man over for treatment Saturday morning. Later that afternoon, the
> SEAL's sent over their RHIB with food and water to recon the life boat but the
> pirates shot at it. They could have taken them out then (from being fired upon)
> but were denied again being told that the captain was not in "imminent danger."
> The FBI negotiators calmed the situation by informing the pirates of threatening
> weather as they could see storm clouds closing from the horizon, and offered to
> tow the life boat. The pirates agreed, and BAINBRIDGE took them under tow in
> their wake at 30 meters-- exactly 30 meters, which is exactly the distance the
> SEALs practice their shooting skills.
>
> With the lifeboat under tow, riding comfortably bow-down on BAINBRIDGE's
> wake-wave ("rooster tail"), had a 17-second period of harmonic motion, and at
> the end of every half-period (8.5 seconds) was steady on. The light-enhanced
> (infra-red heat) monocular scopes on the SEAL's .308 caliber Mark 11 Mod 0 H&K
> suppressor-fitted sniper rifles easily imaged their target very clearly. Pirates
> in a life boat at 30-meters could be compared to fish in a barrel.
>
> All that was necessary was to take out the plexiglass window so that it would
> not deflect the trajectory of the high velocity .308 round. So, a sniper (one of
> four) with a wad-cutter round (a flaxen sabot) would take out the window a split
> second before the kill-shot-- no change in sight-picture, just the window
> blowing out, clean.
>
> After medically attending to the wounded pirated, and feeding him, come first
> light (from the east) on Easter Sunday morning and the pirates saw they were
> being towed further out to sea (instead of westward toward land), the wounded
> pirate demanded to be returned to the lifeboat. There would BE NO more
> negotiations-- and, the four Navy SEAL snipers "in the bubble" went "Unlock."
>
> The pirate holding Captain Philips raised the gun to his head, and IMMINENT
> DANGER was so observed and noted in the Log as CO BAINBRIDGE gave the classic
> order: WEAPONS RELEASED! I can hear the echo in my earpiece now, "On my count
> (from 8.5 seconds), 3, 2, 1, !" POP, BANG! Out went the window, followed by
> three simultaneous shots. The scoreboard flashed: "GAME OVER, GAME OVER-- NAVY
> 3, PIRATES 0!"
>
Do you have a source for this?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply