That was a great read. It was nice to see someone go out and try it instead of armchair quarterbacking. I myself, to this day believe that it can be done. This trial by the shooter proved that under ideal condition that a shot like this can be achieved. That is the one part of the article that makes this a plausable scenario.
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
If you find your self in a fair fight, your tactics suck!- Marine 1st Sergeant Jim Ryfinger
Friends don't let friends develop canonitis!-chucknbach
arguing over the internet is like the special Olympics....even if you win, you are still...special!
Somewhere there's an old goodgrouper post where he shot them into wet newspaper or phonebooks and, as I recall, they did not expand, but mostly just got bent at an angle and didn't go in a straight path through the medium. Have to find it yourself.
With the advent of the 300g Bergers, if they work terminally, which is likely, they'll leave the scenars and SMK's behind balistically.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?" Thomas Jefferson - Notes on the State of Virginia
I believe the British shooter was using the 250 Senar so this is totally irrelivant from what I can tell.
Even from his own words, just one click in windage adjustment moved point of impact from 2 feet on one side of the target to clear to the other side. That does not sounds like extreme consistancy to me, more like 2-3 moa type consistancy or that the bullet is loosing stability and consistancy.
he also admits that it took him 5 shots to even get a shot on steel but did not say how many shots after that he took trying to tap steel a second time and you know damn well he did not stop with one hit. There is not a human alive, especially a long range shooting nut that would slap steel at 2700 yards and then stop shooting......
As far as the Senar expanding well at this range, I call BS here again. This bullet has been tested many times on game and nearly every time the results were that this bullet was far inferior to the SMK as far as consistant bullet expansion. As mentioned. Goodgrouper did perhaps the most extensive expansion test I have seen with this bullet and at ranged of 1/2 this range, expansion on a hydrated target was extremely inconsistant with many bullets bending and tumbling and showing severe deflection as they penetrated a target.
The bullets shot in the post you refer to were shot into what appears to be very hard, rock dirt, so if your wanting to put a trophy rock on the wall, they likely would work great, I would not use them on big game from what I have seen personally and what has been repeatedly reported here.
Again, I see absolutely nothing in his article that proved a 338 Lapua was capable of consistant shot placement at 2700 yards, in fact he proved just the opposite with his one shooting.
Last thing, shooting a target of that size at 2700 yards on 8x...... Please. I am not one to say you need ultra high power optics but you do need to be able to see your target and have the target large enough that you can hold a quality reticle hold on the target to make the shot. On 8x, the reticle would completely cover up the target. That may have been something to why he shot as poorly as he did.
Again, alot of missed and one "lucky" hit at 2707 yards tells me nothing except that this range is out of the useful range of the 338 Lapua.
One other question, how did he measure 2707.7 yards. I may have missed it but I do not believe he offered that information. Unless he is using a Leica Vector or some other military grade range finder I would not put to much stock in the fact he was actually shooting that far.
I made a 2370 yard kill on a rock chuck and using a Wilde range finder, I came up with an average of 2450 yards, then I used Google Earth and GPS to measure it and came up with 2480 and 2500 yards respectively. It was not until I had a friend come out that had a miltary surplus laser range finder that we were able to accurately measure the shot. We took dozens of ranges using the instrument off solid heavy tripods and came up with a range of 2365 to 2385 yards. To confirm the accuracy of this unit we checked the unit at a known 1000 yard range and it averaged within 1 yard of that measurement. Because of this I had to agree that the shooting distance was 2370 yards. I would have much preffered to say it was 2500 yards but that was not accurate.
Simply put, unless you have a very high quality instrument to measure straight line of sight from shooting position to target, you are likely not getting an accurate range measurement and I know very few that own equipment that will give accurate measurements out to 2707 yards.
Anyway, I find it amusing that the boys over on the hide hammer the hell out of someone for posting a 4 shot group instead of a 5 shot group and basically call him a liar and ban him from the site for a while but then this guy can fully admit his rifle is not consistant at all at this range with his own shooting results but then say that the 338 Lapua is totally capable of making three precision shots at this range with as many shots down range. WOW!!!
He also states that he proved that the rifle was consistant as far as point of impact shifts that were consistant with adjustment in the scope so "THAT MUST MEAN THE BULLET IS FULLY STABILIZED AT THESE RANGES." How can he determine this as he reports he only fired 5 shots total at the target, so he is saying he tested both directional shift in the vertical adjustment range and both directions in the horizontal adjustment plane with only five shots and determined the rifle was consistant. If that were the case, why was there only one shot that impacted the 3 FOOT diameter target?
All he proved, AGAIN, was that if you put enough bullets in the air, you will eventually hit what your shooting at, this was many of our points all along. Hell, even if he had gotten a couple shots on steel it would have ment much more. Were the test shooting conditions ideal, nope, but I have shot many times in winds this strong and stronger and once you find the dial in point and read the conditons, its not hard to hold under 1 moa, this guy was shooting three times that size of groups......
Again, he says he proves something but his report proves the exact opposite in my opinion.
I still solidly stand by my comments about the original post of this story, a 338 Lapua will not stay consistant out to anywhere near this range but again my standard of consistant is sub moa. I guess if 3 moa is alright with you, it will certainly do this......
Allen Precision Shooting
Home of the Allen Magnum, Allen Xpress and Allen Tactical Wildcats and the Painkiller Muzzle brakes.
You make many good points, But I believe all that he is trying to say is that it was possible. And I think he proved that it was "possible". I don't believe he said that it was probable, just possible. As for the range, he used a 9 digit grid coordinate for latitude and longitude, for both the position of the target and of the shooting position. I am not saying that results are factual or that everything stated was real. I am just saying that in all some crazy stuff can happen and based on my limited understanding of balistics and rifle calibers, I believe that the shot is possible but highly unlikely.
If i was a sniper and people were trying to kill me or my buddies and they were 2707 yds away i would certainly have a punt at them what can it hurt ? meanwhile my spotter could be calling in arty or air ? ultimatly they did shoot and did hit and it's been proved it's possible so hats off to them? as for terminal results , well i think a 338 hole in you is going to properly upset your day weather it expands or not?