• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

  • The site has been updated!

    If you notice any issues, please let us know below!

    VIEW THREAD

Advanced Marksmanship Worlds longest kill

Delta4-3

Gunny Sergeant
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
May 21, 2013
1,715
19
Arkansas
So I was just watching the documentary on the history channel about Rob Furlong's shot. Please understand I'm not trying to slander or debunk him. In the interview he states that he maxed out the scopes windage and elevation via the turrets, then holds an additional 4 MIl lead. Depending on the scope that could be over 100 MOA of wind. Is that not some crazy heavy wind, or is my calc off? He also said he set his ammo out in the sun to warm up to gain velocity. He knows more than I ever will about sniping than this SFARTAEC (06 grad, before it was renamed SOTIC) ever will. However, I would never introduce an unknown variable like that, as it would screw up my dope to the point that my pea brain would probably start smoking. What gives? I don't want to call it luck, because as I said previously, I'm not trying to bash him, but both seem like serious discrepancies.

For the record, I do think the British claim of a longer shot with a .338 after that was total BS. That account was just stupid ridiculous.
 
I think both accounts are pretty far fetched when you start doing the math and looking at the equipment limitations. I saw a good write up on the Aussie 2815 meter shot that pretty much proves that it was next to impossible to do. If I can find it, I'll post it up as it goes into great detail on the "why" it can't be an accurate distance or account of the shot.

Found it, here is the link:

Steve Reichert on the 2815 Meter Shot - Soldier Systems


Steve Reichert on the 2815 Meter Shot
Former Marine Sniper Steve Reichert posted his take on the recent claims that two Australian Snipers made a 2815 meter shot within seconds of each other on his Facebook wall. He isn’t saying it was impossible, but rather letting the science speak.

I recently came across a news article stating that two Australian Defense Force snipers had killed a Taliban “commander” at a distance of 2815 meters. They were using a Barrett M82A1. I thought the story was a little fishy; after all trying to get positive ID on a person at said distance is extremely hard with conventional optical devices. The question stuck in my mind… was the shot even possible? Let’s look at the math involved, after all physics don’t lie.

•Rifle: M82A1
•Ammunition: Unknown, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and use a plug in a match grade 750 grain Lapua @ say 2700fps
•Scope: Unknown, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and use a S&B 5-25×56 PM II/LP/MTC/LT
•Scope base: Unknown, let’s give them the advantage and use a base with 30 MOA built in
•Zero Distance: Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and use 900 meters
•Altitude: Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and use 5000ft MSL

If the rifle didn’t have a 30 MOA base, and was zeroed at 100m like most sniper rifles are, then you would need a total come-up of 67.85 mils (233.25 MOA). That’s a lot of mils, and most scopes do not have half that adjustment range. Suppose that they did have a 30 MOA base on the rifle… and they were only interested in making an extremely long shot, so they zeroed at 900 meters. Doing this would drop the total come-up’s required to hit at 2815m by a little over 7 mils, to 60.29 mils (207.26 MOA). Now subtract the 30 MOA ramp angle and you get the actual remaining, real scope come-up of 51.56 mils (177.26 MOA). This is still outside the available travel of most scopes. The S&B 5-25×56 lists only 26 mils of total elevation travel, so it would most likely be impossible to dial on enough elevation to make a shot at 2815m. This would mean they would have to hold…. But in order to see the target they would have to power the scope down. The FOV specification for the S&B is 5.3 meters at 100 meters with the scope at minimum magnification and 1.5 meters at 100 meters with it at maximum magnification. Field of view is all the way across the scope, so the maximum hold you can accomplish optically; going all the way from center to the rim is half of these values. So, at minimum magnification we can hold up to 0.5 x 5.3 / 100 = 0.0265 radian or 26.5 mils all the way to the rim. At maximum magnification this is 0.5 x 1.5 / 100 = 0.0075 radian or 7.5 mils. As stated earlier, since the scope has a maximum vertical adjustment of 26 mils and the shot requires a total of 67.85 mils, the optical hold required would be 41.85 mils. Even at minimum magnification, the available field of view would only allow about 63 percent of the required hold. At maximum magnification, it would only allow about 18 percent of the required angle.

Bottom line: Using the gear they more than likely had, and assuming they had smoking hot match grade rounds, the best optics and ramped scope bases… it’s highly unlikely this shot was pulled off…

Special thanks to Dr Lyman R. Hazelton at Empyreal Sciences for his contribution to this article.

Semper Fi
Steve
 
Didn't he say though that he took the first shot (or 2?) and they missed? From there he used a hold... If the conditions were identical (with his experience, I'm sure the follow up was quick) I could see him observing the splash and adjusting.
 
Your calculation is off.
1 mil = 3.6" @ 100 yards
1 MOA = 1.047 " @100 yards

Therefore 4 mil = 4x3.6 = 14.4 inches at 100 yards

Im guessing what you meant to say is over 100" of wind. Ive personally held 5 mil at 1165 yards with a 308 which is about 209 inches and a 15mph wind. And I hit the target on the second shot.
If the wind is consistent, you can account for it without too much difficulty. A little luck never hurts either. At the SH cup this year, day 1 was holding about a 15-20mph average wind with gusts to almost 40
 
Last edited:
His math is way off ... and the BS with FOV is a waste of time. That is changing the subject, or using math to camouflage the facts.

I have shot my 338 to 2200m and it only needs 26 mils of adjustment, and I have held over and hit without issue. Did it at Gunsite more than one. 4000ft

I will have to look up the Barrett data but 67 mils is wrong, off the cuff I get 36mil from a 100 yard zero. (my 338s were zeroed at 100 and I was able to hit from 100 with 2 mils of hold)

Odds are they used a 45 MOA base, not a 30, and the MV is closer to 2800 fps which brings it down even further like 35 mils. On top of that I would bet in A-Stan the elevation was higher than 5000ft... probably closer to 8000 but that can be debated. No angle calculation in there Steve ?

The S&B definitely has the ability to hold over, 7+ mils easily. So 26 mils + 7 Mils = 33 mils which is where i find the dope from 100 yard zero. Now I would suspect they also shot "down" at an angle which would reduce the dope, potentially by a lot. If I change the situation to 8000ft elevation, 25 degree angle, and a 1000 yard zero you only need 25 Mils to hit the target. From 100 yards you use 34mils -- completely doable.

Not to start any trouble but I don't think Steve went to Sniper School, and was not billeted as a sniper. He was heavy guns and just had access to a .50 which he used thanks to rank which allowed him to take what he wanted. At least that is what I have been told. I don't believe his bio lists him as an actual sniper, just a lot of stuff around sniping. And I have met Dr. Hazelton who co-wrote or assisted with the data and he is definitely one to complicate a situation. 67 mils is completely wrong though, and the FOV is stupid at best.

There is no reason why this could not have worked, and I have been around Aussie Snipers who are pretty darn professional. So while it might not have went like they said, it can be done mathematically, at least based on the limited information posted.

The science is sound. JBM :
Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 6.55.54 PM.jpg

And wind isn't that bad, still inside the reticle.
 
Steve's math is way off.

Also, zero distance is completely irrelevant. This is a discussion about scope travel and hold over and that doesnt change based upon where you zero it. 38 mils is about right for 2750fps, 2800fps for a 750 would be pretty damn fast. 45 MOA = roughly 12.5 mils. 13 mils of travel up (half of 26) plus 12.5 mils for a 45 MOA base means he could come up 25.5 mils, meaning he'd have to hold over about 12.5 mils.

I don't know the story, but a hit at that distance with a 2MOA barret scatter gun is some basic math followed by a hell of a lot of luck.
 
Your calculation is off.
1 mil = 3.6" @ 100 yards
1 MOA = 1.047 " @100 yards

Therefore 4 mil = 4x3.6 = 14.4 inches at 100 yards

Im guessing what you meant to say is over 100" of wind. Ive personally held 5 mil at 1165 yards with a 308 which is about 209 inches and a 15mph wind. And I hit the target on the second shot.
If the wind is consistent, you can account for it without too much difficulty. A little luck never hurts either. At the SH cup this year, day 1 was holding about a 15-20mph average wind with gusts to almost 40

No I didn't say 4 mils, I said his windage knob was maxed out PLUS 4 mils, that's a huge difference.
 
He said in the interview that he was at 9k ft elevation. I would question that too.
Also, everyone is bringing up the elevation. I'm talking windage. Dialing all of a S&B's windage plus 4 mils is a pretty serious wind. I know a guy by the initials of RW, that was a spotter for me (as in my boss). I truly think he is one of the greatest snipers ever, and I guarantee he couldn't read the 59 bazillion winds that high up, spanning that much distance. He won $100 from me by removing a speaker from a mosque tower at 1220 meters, first shot. I doubt there are many better. I happen to reside at the opposite end of the scale as he.
 
Last edited:
Most of the foreign .50 cal records have them all shooting the 750gr Amax which actually helps reduce the dope. Better BC.

9k elevation and including an angle to the dope to reduce the drop makes perfect sense. I know several who shot from above 8k ft in A-Stan.

I think if you figure it realistically based on other shots you'll find it to be less than 32mils and with a max elevation dialed of 25 mils and using 7 mils for a hold you have that shot within reason. If they dropped it down from above gravity will also assist the shot.

being generous,

750 Amax
2750fps
9000ft
25 degree angle

29 mils from 100 yards
 
He said he used us machine gun ammo, de-linked. That's about 4-6MOA out of a barret, so half that in a McMillan.
I've shot over 8k elev. in A Stan too, that isn't my issue so much, as is the fact that I don't think I ever had Visibility of 800M while at that elevation.

Also, I know that you could get enough vertical elevation to make it possible, I was thinking that the windage adjustments I gave earlier seemed crazy, as does adding in unknowns such as heating your ammo that you've never shot, to "make it go faster".

For what it's worth, I'm not a pro, I've shot on bragg's out to 1400 extensively, but never past that, so I'm not a pro. More along the lines of novice, but a lot just doesn't add up for me, which could be because of my skill level, or lack there of.
 
Windage is nothing, with what I ran its only 3 mils with a 10mph wind.

The accuracy potentially is a non-issue really, they are shooting more than one, its not like they are claiming a 1st round hit.

Full value wind is much smaller than you think, about the same as a 308 at 1000.

the ammo could be an issue, but again we don't have all the details.

Under the right conditions its doable.
 
I dont know why people get all wound up by these 'record kills'. There is little skill involved in them but its rather a combination of opportunity and luck. I've seen people do mile shots with 223, basically just using kentucky windage. The reason he wasn't worried about his dope being off because of the heated ammo is because it doesn't matter. He takes a shot and his spotter tells him the correction. None of these long rage records are one shot one kill type shots where they had too apply some real skill and understanding. For all you know, they sat there shooting all day. Or for all you know they might have 'thought' they saw a kill. Shooting at a mile+, sometimes you see what seems to be a hit , but when you go to the target its clean.

I'm not saying the snipers that took the shots aren't good snipers. I cant say that since I since I dont know them. I'm just saying there shouldn't be all this awe surrounding these records.
 
Last edited:
I concur that it's doable, even plausible with multiple shots, I just wouldn't have thought it would have taken 16+ mils of windage.
 
I concur that it's doable, even plausible with multiple shots, I just wouldn't have thought it would have taken 16+ mils of windage.

Where did you read that he used this much windage? Thats highly unlikely, as you point out.

Notice he said that he maxed windage AND elevation. If he maxed out elevation, that means the amount of windage his scope would have would be severly limited (by how much, depends on the scope). So I'm guessing actual windage was much less.

Try it out... See how much windage you scope has when its zeroed. Reset everything. Then max out your elevation and see how much windage you have then. Still ~16 mils?
 
16+ mils of windage sounds like a mistake, either that or like said above it just a ton of Kentucky Windage they guessed it was 16 after the fact.

As noted above it wasn't calculated, it just was. You wing a shot, get lucky and pick up a splash and then just walk it in. What and where you held is pretty irrelevant. As long as you can see they could have walked in a Ma Deuce and been just as lucky.
 
Where did you read that he used this much windage? Thats highly unlikely, as you point out.

Notice he said that he maxed windage AND elevation. If he maxed out elevation, that means the amount of windage his scope would have would be severly limited (by how much, depends on the scope). So I'm guessing actual windage was much less.

Try it out... See how much windage you scope has when its zeroed. Reset everything. Then max out your elevation and see how much windage you have then. Still ~16 mils?

Nope, you're right. I left my thinking cap in the fridge when I went to get something out.
 
Delta4-3,

I have to call into question, why you think this is impossible. It's pretty well documented Furlong didn't hit the guy until his third shot. And Harris didn't hit the guys/gun until his ninth/tenth and eleventh shots. Both used the best dope they could to get them close then walked it in. Some days with the wind (lack of), you can do that.
 
Delta4-3,

I have to call into question, why you think this is impossible. It's pretty well documented Furlong didn't hit the guy until his third shot. And Harris didn't hit the guys/gun until his ninth/tenth and eleventh shots. Both used the best dope they could to get them close then walked it in. Some days with the wind (lack of), you can do that.


I don't thing it's impossible, I just wanted to know two things:
Why would he add unknowns by heating ammo?
And why did it take so much wind?
I found both answers.
It didn't take a ton of wind, I just have very little common sense apparently. And as for the ammo deal, it didn't really matter because it was foreign to them anyway.
 
With regards to the scope adjustments, I'm not going to comment as it has been thoroughly discussed and I'm also not familar enough with the scope used to sit here and argue about it.

The ammo though, I'm less inclined to believe "Extra Velocity" and the phenomenon that I have seen and also heard from a few other Bigbore precision guys. The 50 ammo he was supposed to be shooting is more consistent with it pre-heated to "warm". Letting the ammo sit in the sun and warm up vs. coming in from a cooler gave a lot lower vertical dispersion at mile plus targets. The velocity shift was less important than closing the group size up a lot. I have some suppositions as to why that might be the case, but I've seen it happen several times now. The Hornady factory 50c Amax Match ammo does it too.

I also don't own a 50 nor do I have the pockets required to shoot enough factory 50 match ammo that I'm willing to sit around and try to debunk some guy's shot. It's well documented that he made it, good for him, I'm glad he's here to relay the story and not the other way around.
 
With regards to the scope adjustments, I'm not going to comment as it has been thoroughly discussed and I'm also not familar enough with the scope used to sit here and argue about it.

The ammo though, I'm less inclined to believe "Extra Velocity" and the phenomenon that I have seen and also heard from a few other Bigbore precision guys. The 50 ammo he was supposed to be shooting is more consistent with it pre-heated to "warm". Letting the ammo sit in the sun and warm up vs. coming in from a cooler gave a lot lower vertical dispersion at mile plus targets. The velocity shift was less important than closing the group size up a lot. I have some suppositions as to why that might be the case, but I've seen it happen several times now. The Hornady factory 50c Amax Match ammo does it too.

I also don't own a 50 nor do I have the pockets required to shoot enough factory 50 match ammo that I'm willing to sit around and try to debunk some guy's shot. It's well documented that he made it, good for him, I'm glad he's here to relay the story and not the other way around.


Delta4-3,

I would have to agree with you "why introduce a variable". I think Bohem explained it best. With slow double-based powders, loads typically work best at full intended operating pressure. At least that is what I've found using .50 BMG powders in large magnum cases.