25-01-2017, 06:09 PM
31
Re: Value for money
Originally Posted by Rehab44
->
Yet it did in the case above and at a longer range, same round ipso facto it would still have had the kinetic energy to do what is claimed, But if you know better..hey ho!Anyway it must be true because Tom Cruise is making a film about it
Originally Posted by Rehab44
->
One sniper can have a confirmed kill at 2475m with enough KE to killYet you say that that the same round at 1800m is subsonic and will have lost a lot of KE. I would have thought that a round at 1800m would have a lot more kinetic energy than the one at 2475metres. But hey ho you are the expert
Not the second or am I mistaken?
you're not using diversionary tactics again......are you?
Go on.......challenge him with your knowledge
25-01-2017, 06:34 PM
32
Re: Value for money
Originally Posted by Rehab44
->
One sniper can have a confirmed kill at 2475m with enough KE to killYet you say that that the same round at 1800m is subsonic and will have lost a lot of KE. I would have thought that a round at 1800m would have a lot more kinetic energy than the one at 2475metres. But hey ho you are the expert
For one, the article does not state (unless I missed it) whether a .338 mag was being used or the .338 ovp round.
Yes, it will be going subsonic at that distance and will have lost a lot of KE.
It could be down to around 900fps @ 1800m. It's energy could then be likened at that point to something like a .45acp being fired at close range, and that would struggle to go through a head, then a chest and then ricochet.
The .338 is a smaller diameter, more aerodynamic which would make a difference of course.
Maybe it really was one in a million / lucky shot and the story has not been exaggerated?
I see nothing wrong with questioning these things though!
25-01-2017, 06:41 PM
34
Re: Value for money
Originally Posted by Tpin
->
He was referring to the op wasnt he?Not the second or am I mistaken?
you're not using diversionary tactics again......are you?
Go on.......challenge him with your knowledge
25-01-2017, 06:44 PM
35
Re: Value for money
Originally Posted by Rehab44
->
Like I said you are the expert mate.
I do however have a certain amount of knowledge on the subject though.
And, not all on the internet is true - Wiki is not unknown to get things wrong either.
Lets leave it at that for the sake of peace and harmony eh?
25-01-2017, 06:51 PM
36
Re: Value for money
Originally Posted by fender
->
Do you really have to be sarcastic? - where have I been sarcastic to you on this thread? - just trying to discuss!For one, the article does not state (unless I missed it) whether a .338 mag was being used or the .338 ovp round.
Yes, it will be going subsonic at that distance and will have lost a lot of KE.
It could be down to around 900fps @ 1800m. It's energy could then be likened at that point to something like a .45acp being fired at close range, and that would struggle to go through a head, then a chest and then ricochet.
The .338 is a smaller diameter, more aerodynamic which would make a difference of course.
Maybe it really was one in a million / lucky shot and the story has not been exaggerated?
I see nothing wrong with questioning these things though!
25-01-2017, 07:49 PM
39
Re: Value for money
Originally Posted by Morticia
->
It's an interesting read even if we're not laying bets.
I won't tell you what the odds are on each contender, though!
27-01-2017, 04:14 AM
40
Re: Value for money
Originally Posted by Tregonsee
->
Here is how binoculars work, they make things look closer!They have magnification! (Gee thanks !
)So a pair of bins with a 10X magnification will make things look 10 times bigger (or closer) so 1800m seems like 180M
But they do not stop there! they go upto 30X and beyond.
So 1800M becomes 60M.
I am going out on a limb here, but I would take a guess that very few snipers spotters have visual problems.
|
|
