-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Range Report Is this safe?
- Thread starter jake_c02
- Start date
Re: Is this safe?
Right - but they don't know he's doing that, and he thinks that he's a LOOOONG way from the road (looks like he is).
It would be awful if he skipped a bullet off the top of the frame (or some other low-likelihood event), and it made it out there. Weirder things have happened.
Right - but they don't know he's doing that, and he thinks that he's a LOOOONG way from the road (looks like he is).
It would be awful if he skipped a bullet off the top of the frame (or some other low-likelihood event), and it made it out there. Weirder things have happened.
Re: Is this safe?
I'd say don't do it. He's really lobbing those bullets to hit that target (you can really see the drop) and it appears he'd be at little (if any) risk of actually making the distance to the road. Still, as brunop says, "weirder things have happened." All it takes is for some strange event to make that bullet reach the road and hit some poor bastard. Then the anti-gun mob arrives and gives everyone a hard time. Just don't do it and save us all the headache.
I'd say don't do it. He's really lobbing those bullets to hit that target (you can really see the drop) and it appears he'd be at little (if any) risk of actually making the distance to the road. Still, as brunop says, "weirder things have happened." All it takes is for some strange event to make that bullet reach the road and hit some poor bastard. Then the anti-gun mob arrives and gives everyone a hard time. Just don't do it and save us all the headache.
Re: Is this safe?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jake_c02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> youtube
Is'nt this a rather dumb idea? I would not want to be driving down the road while he is doing this... </div></div>
Yes it is dumb, and dangerous. One of the rules of safe gun handling is keeping your gun pointed in a safe direction. In my younger days I had two negligent discharges, but no one was hurt in either one because the guns were pointed at a brick wall in one case and a sand berm in the other. If this ass has a ND while getting up from his shooting position he could very well lob one into that road.
Is it likely? Not really, but fate does not like being tempted.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jake_c02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> youtube
Is'nt this a rather dumb idea? I would not want to be driving down the road while he is doing this... </div></div>
Yes it is dumb, and dangerous. One of the rules of safe gun handling is keeping your gun pointed in a safe direction. In my younger days I had two negligent discharges, but no one was hurt in either one because the guns were pointed at a brick wall in one case and a sand berm in the other. If this ass has a ND while getting up from his shooting position he could very well lob one into that road.
Is it likely? Not really, but fate does not like being tempted.
Re: Is this safe?
If you look at the time of flight, about 1.5 or so seconds, then I have to believe him on the 800 yards. If you look at the size of the target maybe 40" tall and look at the SUV that crosses the path at maybe 70" or so I would say it is 2 or more miles. Is it safe? No friggin' way. having shot a lot of tracer back in my Marine Corps days you can just imagine a ricochet smacking into a crumb crunchers window. I don't care if it was 10 miles you just don't shoot towards friendlies.
If you look at the time of flight, about 1.5 or so seconds, then I have to believe him on the 800 yards. If you look at the size of the target maybe 40" tall and look at the SUV that crosses the path at maybe 70" or so I would say it is 2 or more miles. Is it safe? No friggin' way. having shot a lot of tracer back in my Marine Corps days you can just imagine a ricochet smacking into a crumb crunchers window. I don't care if it was 10 miles you just don't shoot towards friendlies.
Re: Is this safe?
This is the response from the poster of the video when questioned why he was shooting towards the road.
"The road is 3 miles away and well below the line of sight from the target. Thanks."-primalrights(poster of video)
This is the response from the poster of the video when questioned why he was shooting towards the road.
"The road is 3 miles away and well below the line of sight from the target. Thanks."-primalrights(poster of video)
Re: Is this safe?
I get nervous even hitting golf balls toward a road. Needless to say I wouldn't shoot one of the most capable long range cartridges in the general direction of one.
I get nervous even hitting golf balls toward a road. Needless to say I wouldn't shoot one of the most capable long range cartridges in the general direction of one.
Re: Is this safe?
This topic has relevance to this topic as well.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2603729
This topic has relevance to this topic as well.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2603729
Re: Is this safe?
yeah it's a really stupid idea... clearly for a normal shot it would be entirely safe, but what if he accidentally pulled the trigger while setting up the shot and the rifle was tilted up 20 degrees... boom, there goes the mom on the way to grocery store.
If you are totally pointed into the side of a hill, even that accidental trigger pull would be totally innocuous.
yeah it's a really stupid idea... clearly for a normal shot it would be entirely safe, but what if he accidentally pulled the trigger while setting up the shot and the rifle was tilted up 20 degrees... boom, there goes the mom on the way to grocery store.
If you are totally pointed into the side of a hill, even that accidental trigger pull would be totally innocuous.
Re: Is this safe?
And...if some poor dude stopped and ran out of sight of the road to take an emergency dump...
And...if some poor dude stopped and ran out of sight of the road to take an emergency dump...
Re: Is this safe?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArmaHeavy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the response from the poster of the video when questioned why he was shooting towards the road.
"The road is 3 miles away and well below the line of sight from the target. Thanks."-primalrights(poster of video) </div></div>
I can't believe that road is 3 miles away..... Those cars look way to big/close compared to the size of the target...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArmaHeavy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the response from the poster of the video when questioned why he was shooting towards the road.
"The road is 3 miles away and well below the line of sight from the target. Thanks."-primalrights(poster of video) </div></div>
I can't believe that road is 3 miles away..... Those cars look way to big/close compared to the size of the target...
Re: Is this safe?
I am too tired to do it right now (end of shift), but it really wound't be too hard to lay a scale over a screenshot and using his 777 yards, back into how far the road is based on know height of the make/model of vehicles running down the road.
Sure looks closer than 3 miles to me.
Maybe tomorrow I will look up the SDZ for the .338LM.
No it's not "safe" and no it's not a good idea. It's a good way to end up trying to use math to save your ass in front of a judge.
I am too tired to do it right now (end of shift), but it really wound't be too hard to lay a scale over a screenshot and using his 777 yards, back into how far the road is based on know height of the make/model of vehicles running down the road.
Sure looks closer than 3 miles to me.
Maybe tomorrow I will look up the SDZ for the .338LM.
No it's not "safe" and no it's not a good idea. It's a good way to end up trying to use math to save your ass in front of a judge.
Re: Is this safe?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am too tired to do it right now (end of shift), but it really wound't be too hard to lay a scale over a screenshot and using his 777 yards, back into how far the road is based on know height of the make/model of vehicles running down the road.
Sure looks closer than 3 miles to me.
Maybe tomorrow I will look up the SDZ for the .338LM.
No it's not "safe" and no it's not a good idea. It's a good way to end up trying to use math to save your ass in front of a judge.</div></div>
Ditto. Show your work. Looks like the silhouette should be 40 inches and the SUV at approx 29 seconds looks like either a Nissan pathfinder or a Tahoe/Yukon. Either way approx 70 inches. It looks like the silhouette is almost exactly double the height of the SUV. Just need to math out the mils.
Pulled out the MilDot Master and slide the "known" yardage
777 yards
40 inch steel is VERY close to 1.4 mils
So half of 1.4 (SUV was roughly half the height of the target) or .7 mil
70 inches at .7 mil ..... goes over 2K so I will double the mil back to 1.4 and just double the yardage.
Approx 1300 yards doubled is 2600 yards.
5280 feet in a mile (2600*3=7800 feet)
7800/5280=1.477 miles??? WTF?
Did I divide by 2 somewhere?
Maybe cumulative error but dang that is WAY into danger space.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am too tired to do it right now (end of shift), but it really wound't be too hard to lay a scale over a screenshot and using his 777 yards, back into how far the road is based on know height of the make/model of vehicles running down the road.
Sure looks closer than 3 miles to me.
Maybe tomorrow I will look up the SDZ for the .338LM.
No it's not "safe" and no it's not a good idea. It's a good way to end up trying to use math to save your ass in front of a judge.</div></div>
Ditto. Show your work. Looks like the silhouette should be 40 inches and the SUV at approx 29 seconds looks like either a Nissan pathfinder or a Tahoe/Yukon. Either way approx 70 inches. It looks like the silhouette is almost exactly double the height of the SUV. Just need to math out the mils.
Pulled out the MilDot Master and slide the "known" yardage
777 yards
40 inch steel is VERY close to 1.4 mils
So half of 1.4 (SUV was roughly half the height of the target) or .7 mil
70 inches at .7 mil ..... goes over 2K so I will double the mil back to 1.4 and just double the yardage.
Approx 1300 yards doubled is 2600 yards.
5280 feet in a mile (2600*3=7800 feet)
7800/5280=1.477 miles??? WTF?
Did I divide by 2 somewhere?
Maybe cumulative error but dang that is WAY into danger space.
Re: Is this safe?
Just guessing it's an IPSC sized target and 18" wide.
Average wheelbase of the 3 SUV's mentioned by The Mechanic is 111" roughly.
I don't have time to do the math right this minute, but that SUV is nowhere close to 3 miles away. Looks to me like it's WELL within reach of the 338LM.
Just guessing it's an IPSC sized target and 18" wide.
Average wheelbase of the 3 SUV's mentioned by The Mechanic is 111" roughly.
I don't have time to do the math right this minute, but that SUV is nowhere close to 3 miles away. Looks to me like it's WELL within reach of the 338LM.
Re: Is this safe?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Maybe tomorrow I will look up the SDZ for the .338LM.</div></div>
There ain't one in DA PAM 385-63, Range Safety, so you have to interpolate between M118LR and .50 cal M2 Ball. That gives you a downrange safety hazard of 5,894 Meters.
No backstop at all. <span style="text-decoration: line-through"><span style="color: #FF0000">I hope he has</span></span> He needs a good lawyer.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Maybe tomorrow I will look up the SDZ for the .338LM.</div></div>
There ain't one in DA PAM 385-63, Range Safety, so you have to interpolate between M118LR and .50 cal M2 Ball. That gives you a downrange safety hazard of 5,894 Meters.
No backstop at all. <span style="text-decoration: line-through"><span style="color: #FF0000">I hope he has</span></span> He needs a good lawyer.
Re: Is this safe?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: thespecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just guessing it's an IPSC sized target and 18" wide.
Average wheelbase of the 3 SUV's mentioned by The Mechanic is 111" roughly.
I don't have time to do the math right this minute, but that SUV is nowhere close to 3 miles away. Looks to me like it's WELL within reach of the 338LM.</div></div>
You know I seem to ALWAYS forget to use the wheelbase. The only REAL non changeable constant with vehicles. Height is only an informed guess by me. I will have to play with it some more.
Thanks thespecialist for reminding me.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: thespecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just guessing it's an IPSC sized target and 18" wide.
Average wheelbase of the 3 SUV's mentioned by The Mechanic is 111" roughly.
I don't have time to do the math right this minute, but that SUV is nowhere close to 3 miles away. Looks to me like it's WELL within reach of the 338LM.</div></div>
You know I seem to ALWAYS forget to use the wheelbase. The only REAL non changeable constant with vehicles. Height is only an informed guess by me. I will have to play with it some more.
Thanks thespecialist for reminding me.
Re: Is this safe?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: thespecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just guessing it's an IPSC sized target and 18" wide.
Average wheelbase of the 3 SUV's mentioned by The Mechanic is 111" roughly.
I don't have time to do the math right this minute, but that SUV is nowhere close to 3 miles away. <span style="color: #009900">Looks to me like it's WELL within reach of the 338LM</span>. </div></div>
+1
All math aside, would you let your kids play at that range while shooting that rifle?
I think not.
SScott
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: thespecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just guessing it's an IPSC sized target and 18" wide.
Average wheelbase of the 3 SUV's mentioned by The Mechanic is 111" roughly.
I don't have time to do the math right this minute, but that SUV is nowhere close to 3 miles away. <span style="color: #009900">Looks to me like it's WELL within reach of the 338LM</span>. </div></div>
+1
All math aside, would you let your kids play at that range while shooting that rifle?
I think not.
SScott
Re: Is this safe?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: thespecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just guessing it's an IPSC sized target and 18" wide.
Average wheelbase of the 3 SUV's mentioned by The Mechanic is 111" roughly.
I don't have time to do the math right this minute, but that SUV is nowhere close to 3 miles away. Looks to me like it's WELL within reach of the 338LM. </div></div>
Now I have time
That target would be about .64 MILs (roughly, measuring by width if it's 18" wide)
The wheelbase of the SUV measures roughly 1.5 times the width of the target, or .96 MILs
111" is 3.08yds
3.08x1000 / .96 MILs = 3208yds.......1.8 miles
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All math aside, would you let your kids play at that range while shooting that rifle?
I think not.
SScott</div></div>
Not a chance in hell
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: thespecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just guessing it's an IPSC sized target and 18" wide.
Average wheelbase of the 3 SUV's mentioned by The Mechanic is 111" roughly.
I don't have time to do the math right this minute, but that SUV is nowhere close to 3 miles away. Looks to me like it's WELL within reach of the 338LM. </div></div>
Now I have time
That target would be about .64 MILs (roughly, measuring by width if it's 18" wide)
The wheelbase of the SUV measures roughly 1.5 times the width of the target, or .96 MILs
111" is 3.08yds
3.08x1000 / .96 MILs = 3208yds.......1.8 miles
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All math aside, would you let your kids play at that range while shooting that rifle?
I think not.
SScott</div></div>
Not a chance in hell
Re: Is this safe?
That steel target could be any size, but if that's a 2x4 frame it's hanging from, then it may be about 28" wide. That would put it at about 1 mil wide. If it was 18" then it would be .643 mRad.
It looks like a Chevy Blazer (s10 4-door, second gen) at 0:29. They have a wheelbase of 100.5" according to wikipedia.
Looks like the wheelbase of the SUV is about 1.6x the width of the target.
18" Target=
(100.5"*27.77)/1.03 mRad = 2709 yards
28" target=
(100.5*27.77)/1.6 mRad = 1744 yards
Now maybe I really screwed the pooch on my math, but it seems to me that things don't quite match up. I posted in his video asking about the size of his target. That would make the problem much easier.
That steel target could be any size, but if that's a 2x4 frame it's hanging from, then it may be about 28" wide. That would put it at about 1 mil wide. If it was 18" then it would be .643 mRad.
It looks like a Chevy Blazer (s10 4-door, second gen) at 0:29. They have a wheelbase of 100.5" according to wikipedia.
Looks like the wheelbase of the SUV is about 1.6x the width of the target.
18" Target=
(100.5"*27.77)/1.03 mRad = 2709 yards
28" target=
(100.5*27.77)/1.6 mRad = 1744 yards
Now maybe I really screwed the pooch on my math, but it seems to me that things don't quite match up. I posted in his video asking about the size of his target. That would make the problem much easier.
Re: Is this safe?
Well here's his first response:
@LoneWolfUSMC: I know you, and I know where you hang out. I've enjoyed a few of your articles on your site, and feel you to be an intelligent human being. I have no intention of having the snipershide safety nazi's try to justify their existence by telling me I'm unsafe. You can't see the road when standing at the target due to the target being at the bottom of a hill, well below line of sight even on a 30 degree departure. (unlikely) I was there, they weren't. It was a safe setup.
Well here's his first response:
@LoneWolfUSMC: I know you, and I know where you hang out. I've enjoyed a few of your articles on your site, and feel you to be an intelligent human being. I have no intention of having the snipershide safety nazi's try to justify their existence by telling me I'm unsafe. You can't see the road when standing at the target due to the target being at the bottom of a hill, well below line of sight even on a 30 degree departure. (unlikely) I was there, they weren't. It was a safe setup.
Re: Is this safe?
Here's his second response:
@LoneWolfUSMC: Was one of my rounds going to magically go 50 mils higher than I was aiming to get enough elevation to make it that distance? Was a round going to ricochet at 777yds and then have enough energy to skip out after hitting the dirt and go the remaining 2.5 miles? For argument's sake, say it is 2 miles on the nose, ... could it have made it? I know you have the technical knowledge of ballistics to run the numbers for yourself
Here's his second response:
@LoneWolfUSMC: Was one of my rounds going to magically go 50 mils higher than I was aiming to get enough elevation to make it that distance? Was a round going to ricochet at 777yds and then have enough energy to skip out after hitting the dirt and go the remaining 2.5 miles? For argument's sake, say it is 2 miles on the nose, ... could it have made it? I know you have the technical knowledge of ballistics to run the numbers for yourself
Re: Is this safe?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> @LoneWolfUSMC: I know you, and I know where you hang out </div></div>
LOVE that response.
Looks as though he has now disabled all comments. Bet he will delete the video even though it is one of the best vapor trail videos out there. As to a ricochet making that far I say "yes it can"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> @LoneWolfUSMC: I know you, and I know where you hang out </div></div>
LOVE that response.
Re: Is this safe?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As to a ricochet making that far I say "yes it can"</div></div>
I witnessed a 9mm round ricochet off the ground and travel close to 3/4 of a mile over a small hill and tag someones barn...
So yea.. I agree, it CAN happen, even if it's very unlikely.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As to a ricochet making that far I say "yes it can"</div></div>
I witnessed a 9mm round ricochet off the ground and travel close to 3/4 of a mile over a small hill and tag someones barn...
So yea.. I agree, it CAN happen, even if it's very unlikely.
Re: Is this safe?
I agree its pretty stupid and I wouldnt do it.... But hoenstly worst things have been done. Sure its POSSIBLE that he could trip and tilt the rifle to exact elevation to hit an suv on the road thats even 2 miles away.... but in reality the chances of that happening are almost zero. Most would have a hard time getting it on a NON moving target at that distance INTENTIONALLY.
I understand that Shit happens, and im not saying its a smart idea but if you think this is dangerous you should probably never drive in a car....There's a bigger chance you will die in a car accident. Point of the matter is your guys's response is as irrational as those that are afraid of flying but are ok to drive.. when its statistically plroven flying is WAY safer.
Planning for something with a 1/100 chance of happening is smart, planning on something happening that has 1/10000000000 chance in happening is stupid. Those cars have a bigger chance of the person driving towards them being drunk and falling asleep. And then people wonder why the government still spends billions of dollars on obvious fake securities that only make the public feel safe.
To make a more understandable metaphor. We have all seen pictures of something going wrong in a shot and the rifle blowing up and injuring/killing the person shooting. It happens and is a REAL danger, but you guys are still shooting right? Thats because the chances of that happening is extremely small. The chances of him hitting a car at 2 miles when hes aiming at something thats 777 yards is even smaller. I don't want to do the math but it would be along the lines of... take the amount of inches of length of the road thats in his field of view(which is gigantic since its 2+ miles away), then multiply it by the inverse of the width of the bullet in inches. Then devide this by the amount of vital inches in the suv. 1 over this number is the chance of hitting that suv if you were to intentionally just lob a bullet at PERFECT elevation but not correct windage. When you add getting the perfect elevation, the chances get even more astronomically smaller.. And that doesnt even include factoring in the chancing of him accidently somehow jerking the rifle that far.
After all this , many of you will still reply back saying 'uhhh well no, i disagree its unsafe just because i said so and it looks scary. Proof? who needs that, its unsafe because it seems unsafe, comon we all know anything can happen. how dare he do this, what if it was your child in there or a cute puppy. Obama better do something about this.' Great, I expect nothing less or more.
Sorry for the rant, just a pet peeve of mine when people over-generalize and pick on somebody ignorantly.
I agree its pretty stupid and I wouldnt do it.... But hoenstly worst things have been done. Sure its POSSIBLE that he could trip and tilt the rifle to exact elevation to hit an suv on the road thats even 2 miles away.... but in reality the chances of that happening are almost zero. Most would have a hard time getting it on a NON moving target at that distance INTENTIONALLY.
I understand that Shit happens, and im not saying its a smart idea but if you think this is dangerous you should probably never drive in a car....There's a bigger chance you will die in a car accident. Point of the matter is your guys's response is as irrational as those that are afraid of flying but are ok to drive.. when its statistically plroven flying is WAY safer.
Planning for something with a 1/100 chance of happening is smart, planning on something happening that has 1/10000000000 chance in happening is stupid. Those cars have a bigger chance of the person driving towards them being drunk and falling asleep. And then people wonder why the government still spends billions of dollars on obvious fake securities that only make the public feel safe.
To make a more understandable metaphor. We have all seen pictures of something going wrong in a shot and the rifle blowing up and injuring/killing the person shooting. It happens and is a REAL danger, but you guys are still shooting right? Thats because the chances of that happening is extremely small. The chances of him hitting a car at 2 miles when hes aiming at something thats 777 yards is even smaller. I don't want to do the math but it would be along the lines of... take the amount of inches of length of the road thats in his field of view(which is gigantic since its 2+ miles away), then multiply it by the inverse of the width of the bullet in inches. Then devide this by the amount of vital inches in the suv. 1 over this number is the chance of hitting that suv if you were to intentionally just lob a bullet at PERFECT elevation but not correct windage. When you add getting the perfect elevation, the chances get even more astronomically smaller.. And that doesnt even include factoring in the chancing of him accidently somehow jerking the rifle that far.
After all this , many of you will still reply back saying 'uhhh well no, i disagree its unsafe just because i said so and it looks scary. Proof? who needs that, its unsafe because it seems unsafe, comon we all know anything can happen. how dare he do this, what if it was your child in there or a cute puppy. Obama better do something about this.' Great, I expect nothing less or more.
Sorry for the rant, just a pet peeve of mine when people over-generalize and pick on somebody ignorantly.
Re: Is this safe?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: timelinex</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree its pretty stupid and I wouldnt do it.... But hoenstly worst things have been done. Sure its POSSIBLE that he could trip and tilt the rifle to exact elevation to hit an suv on the road thats even 2 miles away.... but in reality the chances of that happening are almost zero. Most would have a hard time getting it on a NON moving target at that distance INTENTIONALLY.
I understand that Shit happens, and im not saying its a smart idea but if you think this is dangerous you should probably never drive in a car....There's a bigger chance you will die in a car accident. Point of the matter is your guys's response is as irrational as those that are afraid of flying but are ok to drive.. when its statistically plroven flying is WAY safer.
Planning for something with a 1/100 chance of happening is smart, planning on something happening that has 1/10000000000 chance in happening is stupid. Those cars have a bigger chance of the person driving towards them being drunk and falling asleep. And then people wonder why the government still spends billions of dollars on obvious fake securities that only make the public feel safe.</div></div>
The concern is not the unlikelihood of a skyward tilted artillery round. It is of a ricochet from a steel target or rock from a miss. Even a wood or steel framing of a target stand hit correctly could send one downrange further. If you have seen one of the BIG machine gun shoots that tracers are used you will often see ricochets.
Ok I found one. This is the Big Sandy night shoot. Just check out how some of these rounds could EASILY go that distance. some rounds have tracer burnout around 4 seconds and are still climbing.
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wic9gr4NbLQ"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wic9gr4NbLQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: timelinex</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree its pretty stupid and I wouldnt do it.... But hoenstly worst things have been done. Sure its POSSIBLE that he could trip and tilt the rifle to exact elevation to hit an suv on the road thats even 2 miles away.... but in reality the chances of that happening are almost zero. Most would have a hard time getting it on a NON moving target at that distance INTENTIONALLY.
I understand that Shit happens, and im not saying its a smart idea but if you think this is dangerous you should probably never drive in a car....There's a bigger chance you will die in a car accident. Point of the matter is your guys's response is as irrational as those that are afraid of flying but are ok to drive.. when its statistically plroven flying is WAY safer.
Planning for something with a 1/100 chance of happening is smart, planning on something happening that has 1/10000000000 chance in happening is stupid. Those cars have a bigger chance of the person driving towards them being drunk and falling asleep. And then people wonder why the government still spends billions of dollars on obvious fake securities that only make the public feel safe.</div></div>
The concern is not the unlikelihood of a skyward tilted artillery round. It is of a ricochet from a steel target or rock from a miss. Even a wood or steel framing of a target stand hit correctly could send one downrange further. If you have seen one of the BIG machine gun shoots that tracers are used you will often see ricochets.
Ok I found one. This is the Big Sandy night shoot. Just check out how some of these rounds could EASILY go that distance. some rounds have tracer burnout around 4 seconds and are still climbing.
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wic9gr4NbLQ"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wic9gr4NbLQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
Re: Is this safe?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The concern is not the unlikelihood of a skyward tilted artillery round. It is of a ricochet from a steel target or rock from a miss. Even a wood or steel framing of a target stand hit correctly could send one downrange further. If you have seen one of the BIG machine gun shoots that tracers are used you will often see ricochets.
Ok I found one. This is the Big Sandy night shoot. Just check out how some of these rounds could EASILY go that distance. some rounds have tracer burnout around 4 seconds and are still climbing.
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wic9gr4NbLQ"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wic9gr4NbLQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object> </div></div>
Thank you for taking the time to reply with a informed post. I still stand by what I said though. THe video you posted is hard to make out, but I get the point you were trying to make. On the other hand, take a look at the video more closely. All the very high fliers look like thtey were bounced off the ground at a short distance(100-200 yards?) and go high because of the angle from the machine gun to the ground. This ALSO means MUCH of the energy was absorbed by the impact in the ground. So the bullet has enough energy to bounce off but its lost most its energy. Lets face it, the 338 round is a great round that can make it to 2 miles BUT do you think it can make it 2 miles with half its energy. Maybe, but my car is full of rock chips, and I've lived.
Besides that though, the numbers STILL stay the same. The chances of a ricochet having the exact elevation and windage on an object TWO MILES away, is EXTREMELY small, and not something to worry about any more than the rifle blowing up in your hands while shooting. Ricochets don't have any different intrinsic advantage of hitting something. They have just as small a chance to hit something that far away as him just randomly lobbing it, actually a smaller chance of doing damage actually because of the decreased energy.Don't forget the object we are talking about isn't the great wall of china here, it has a finite and small(Relative to 2 miles) length and height. So for the richocet to have hit the ground/object at the exact point and angle is small. Lets not forget about the HILL it needs to fly over, which again severly reduces the amount of possible combinations of paths that can happen for the bullet to hit the car while still making it over the hill.
If he was shooting a machine gun and putting 100's of rounds down the field a minute for extended periods of time. Your right, I would call him an idiot. Not even because the chances are high he would hit something, but at that point the chances become large enough to even be comprehendable, so my personal opinion would be that he should go somewhere else.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The concern is not the unlikelihood of a skyward tilted artillery round. It is of a ricochet from a steel target or rock from a miss. Even a wood or steel framing of a target stand hit correctly could send one downrange further. If you have seen one of the BIG machine gun shoots that tracers are used you will often see ricochets.
Ok I found one. This is the Big Sandy night shoot. Just check out how some of these rounds could EASILY go that distance. some rounds have tracer burnout around 4 seconds and are still climbing.
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wic9gr4NbLQ"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wic9gr4NbLQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object> </div></div>
Thank you for taking the time to reply with a informed post. I still stand by what I said though. THe video you posted is hard to make out, but I get the point you were trying to make. On the other hand, take a look at the video more closely. All the very high fliers look like thtey were bounced off the ground at a short distance(100-200 yards?) and go high because of the angle from the machine gun to the ground. This ALSO means MUCH of the energy was absorbed by the impact in the ground. So the bullet has enough energy to bounce off but its lost most its energy. Lets face it, the 338 round is a great round that can make it to 2 miles BUT do you think it can make it 2 miles with half its energy. Maybe, but my car is full of rock chips, and I've lived.
Besides that though, the numbers STILL stay the same. The chances of a ricochet having the exact elevation and windage on an object TWO MILES away, is EXTREMELY small, and not something to worry about any more than the rifle blowing up in your hands while shooting. Ricochets don't have any different intrinsic advantage of hitting something. They have just as small a chance to hit something that far away as him just randomly lobbing it, actually a smaller chance of doing damage actually because of the decreased energy.Don't forget the object we are talking about isn't the great wall of china here, it has a finite and small(Relative to 2 miles) length and height. So for the richocet to have hit the ground/object at the exact point and angle is small. Lets not forget about the HILL it needs to fly over, which again severly reduces the amount of possible combinations of paths that can happen for the bullet to hit the car while still making it over the hill.
If he was shooting a machine gun and putting 100's of rounds down the field a minute for extended periods of time. Your right, I would call him an idiot. Not even because the chances are high he would hit something, but at that point the chances become large enough to even be comprehendable, so my personal opinion would be that he should go somewhere else.
Re: Is this safe?
It seems it is taking the bullet a while to get there, so there might be some good distance there. Plus, the road might appear closer than we think (Magnification). Having written what's above, he's shooting a 338. So .....
It seems it is taking the bullet a while to get there, so there might be some good distance there. Plus, the road might appear closer than we think (Magnification). Having written what's above, he's shooting a 338. So .....
Re: Is this safe?
Excuses, excuses. One person hurt or dead...bad juju for ANYONE shooting anything out there. Look...we have enough trouble with the left trying to restrict our play...don't give them FREE ammunition to fight us. JMHO
Excuses, excuses. One person hurt or dead...bad juju for ANYONE shooting anything out there. Look...we have enough trouble with the left trying to restrict our play...don't give them FREE ammunition to fight us. JMHO
Similar threads
Precision Rifle Gear
Camper Gun Rack
