New Longest Confirmed Sniper Kill

PNW EOD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
67
Location
Issaquah, WA
Record-Breaking Canadian Sniper Kills ISIS Fighter With Two-Mile Shot

In case you guys haven't heard, another Canadian SOF Sniper took the record for the longest confirmed sniper kill the other day. The shot was 3,450 meters with the Mcmillan TAC-50. Always cool to see the good guys pushing the limits of once was thought impossible to administer a lethal dose of copper and lead to the bad dudes doing bad stuff. I'd like to hear some thoughts on this amazing shot, and where we go from here...
 
Does anyone have the bullet info they use for that platform?
I'm thinking a 250 grain would take some work to get it that far accurately.
 
Every time one of these reports surfaces we find an influx of sniper wannabes clambering to use the 1000 yard range. The challenge of learning to manage the cross winds eventually thins out the crowd but it's still not a pretty sight.
Those 50 cal. pills do a very good job. Congrats. to the Canadian sniper for a job well done. Credit to the Canadian sniper training program. gun)
 
My mistake, I for some reason was under the impression it was a 338 Lapua. I think I mixed the two longest sniper kill stories up when reading them earlier.
 
From what I understand it was a 750gr Amax, interesting thing to me was it had a time of flight of about 10 seconds, a lot of things can happen in that 10 seconds, amazing!
 
TiborasaurusRex and I just put together a video on this topic where we anatomize the shot a bit. It should be live in the next 24-48hrs.

We set up a S&B PMII 5-25x56 and took some video at 3500m. At 25x you can only tell that the target (he had a human walk around) is there, not what it exactly is. Given a PMII on a Tac50 with 750 A-Max's at 2650fps you're looking at over 80MRAD of drop plus all of the other effects.

Short version, given a 120MOA base, 22MRAD in the turrets, ~20MRAD in the reticle for holdover the shooter would have had to dial out to about 7x on the scope to get the target into the optic, which would have made the target nearly invisible. So it's entirely probable that the sniper was actually sighting against a rock and his spotter or more likely another set of folks entirely was helping to guide him in while he walked rounds down to the bad guy.

Beyond the sheer scale of the scope adjustment and hold-off required some of the effects that only manifest at really long range manifest the hell out of themselves when time of flight gets super nasty: Horizontal coriolis drift would have been somewhere around 50ft. A 1mph variance in the wind call would have meant an easy 6ft of miss potential. A 10fps MV variance would have meant a >6ft miss potential. A big change in humidity could have resulted in a miss of up to about 8ft. Spin drift would be around 30ft. Vertical coriolis would have been around 8ft at full value. It would be super easy to miss 15feet high and 100ft to the right. It would have been insanely difficult if not outright impossible to clearly identify, much less hold on, the target.

Point is, start stacking all of those tolerances and we know exactly how it happened. Blind luck. Yes, TONS of skill too but in all seriousness, it was a lucky shot. Beyond that it was a confirmed kill. Anyone that knows about that process knows that either your spotter sees the target drop or someone walks over and confirms the dead body but another person does the confirming. A sniper ain't likely walking 2 miles right after an engagement TOWARD the enemy to do confirmations. It would be completely normal for these guys to have been on one side of a valley and for some squad to squawk over the radio that they're taking fire or have a BG spotted & they can't get fire on him and they need some support. They'd call in the spot the bad guy is at and the sniper would start raining in fire.

All of my numbers are based on assumptions about the barometric pressure, temperature, angle of the shot and lots about the ammunition/weapon performance. What Rex and I can say pretty much for sure, the sniper almost certainly couldn't actually identify his target and would have relied on someone else to guide his fire in. Even with awesome S&B PMII glass, there are limits.
 
Story states the sniper fired from a "high-rise". I think the sniper was on.an Afgan mountain side and the target was in the valley. The sniper could have easily been 1000 ft or more above the target. Sniper might not have had an issue with getting holdover correct and keeping the target in the scope.
 
Story states the sniper fired from a "high-rise". I think the sniper was on.an Afgan mountain side and the target was in the valley.

The story also states Iraq.

Or are you suggesting they actually were in Afghanistan and they're just saying Iraq and ISIS?
 
Forgot which account I was reading, but it stated that the kill was recorded on video, I believe it was taken from a different position.
Under those conditions, I would call it a helluva shot taken by a very educated sniper with an angel on his shoulder.
 
I've also heard in the past someone has made adjustable bases, I would sure think a machinist could make something like that relatively easily. And if practiced with one could keep the power cranked a little higher (marage allowing) to allow target to be seen in the center of the scope without hold over. A new thought on almost unlimited MOA or MRAD!
 
High-rise is important. So I got he country wrong. Contribute, if you possibly can instead of trying to be funny.

I'm as serious as a heart attack, bud. And as funny as a stroke.

I was curious if you thought it was actually Afghanistan against Taliban/HQN/whoever and official sources were just saying Iraq and ISIS. Which is what I said. (possible for OPSEC reasons or something)

I've never seen any high rises in Afghanistan, and similarly, I haven't seen much mountainous terrain in Iraq that would allow for a shot taken from 1000's of feet above the target, especially in the areas where ISIS is reported to be operating currently.

Details matter. Try assuming it's a clarifying question next time, instead of taking offense.
 
Rag, my apologies. Obviously I didn't take the time to understand your statement, assumed and was wrong.

I actually didn't even read the article attached to this thread and was referencing statements from another article. The article in this thread does clean things up some by stating "high-rise building" and not just "high-rise".
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top