After returning from Roswell to civilization last month, I penned a missive on extreme long range shooting. Ritter & Stark had us slinging .338 Lapua freedom slugs (I did not just say that) out to 4,000 yards. Though that was a skosh optimistic . . .
2,600 was more realistic, and Patrick of The Firearm Rack has just published a super chill (I did not just say that) video with some great footage from the shoot:
What’s a good distance for a cold bore 1st round hit with that setup?
You, Sir… have asked the right question.
Extremely relevant question – so many of these extreme range claims basically involve walking the shot in by the spotter. Heck, I used to shoot my .44 Magnum at a few hundred yards just for fun, but never claimed that it was effective fire. I could hit a mailbox sized rock across a canyon (300 yards, say) but it took a few shots to get there.
Based on experience with .300 WSM and .300 Ultra Mag, I’d think you should be able to get reliable cold bore shots – hitting the torso of an IPSC target – at 1000 yards.
Obviously you have never shot a magical Karl Lippard 1911 chambered in miraculous .45acp. ….
http://dev.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/robert-farago/springfield-colt-and-karl-lippard-duke-it-out-for-new-marines-1911/
You don’t need to walk your 400 yard shots in, you just aim.
Well, heck – I need to get one of those. Even Jerry Miculek takes a couple of shots at 1000 yards with his custom S&W 929 revolver to fine tune his aim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw
Indirect 400 yard fire with a 1911 does not hold a candle to Chuck Norris sniping with his Uzi. For Chuck, indirect fire is unnecessary because he just throws the bullets with more speed after he does a set of earth-downs (push-ups for us mortals)
2600 yards is mortar range…. mortars require bracketing adjustments of the target, so why is it unreasonable to expect some walking into the target?
Love the long range game. Way too much fun.
I don’t know about anyone else: I am starting to really DESPISE videos where everything is moving and bouncing around, stuff is tilted, stuff is zoomed too much or not enough, stuff is zooming in and out, the scene changes every two seconds, and the “background” music is actually loud foreground music and has zero relationship to the subject of the video.
Absolutely. One of my pet peeves is someone will send me a link to a video of a stage magician or dancers or something athletic, where continuity is everything — and they’ve got a dozen cameras on it, cutting back and forth so much that you begin to suspect it’s actually a dozen different takes all spliced together. I quit after the first couple of jumps. You want to impress me, show one single take. If you want multiple camera angles, show them one after another, or at the same time.
Maybe that’s the recipe that made Hickok45 so popular. One long continuous take. What a novel idea!
Comments are closed.