I don't mind they took 68 shots. I mind that they took that long and then certify it as some sort of record? And this is the target they shot at?????




I do agree with the shooter's decision to keep his name silent. Certifying this as a record is embarassing. Wise man

Target should be no larger than a person or animal or other actual real life target, and should get no more than 3-5 shots. Anything more than that is fine if you want to do it, but don't pretend that it's anything remotely meaningful or should count as a "record".

Could I hit at 4.4 miles under those circumstances? Nope. Neither could these guys. Not saying I could. I am saying that having a record for rifle shooting should have requirements that make the scenario realistic and the accomplishment meaningful.

Your ignorance is showing again…..we believe it should be done in a limited number of attempts TO QUALIFY AS A RECORD.

I guess

Imagine a doctor needing 68 attempts before getting a surgery right.

Do schools now allow 68 attempts before passing tests? [uh, actually, don't answer that because the answer is probably yes at least in some schools]

LOL, that "record" shot is stupid.

Every surgery that is commonplace today started out as experimental and it took a lot more than 68 tries to perfect the techniques. My buddy is a neurosurgeon and his residency is 7 years. By the time he's considered a fully competent brain surgeon he would have performed about 6,000 procedures and in the meantime they pay him $72,000 a year.

The instance that we're discussing is not really a record at all because it's unlikely to be repeatable. For that kind of range the bullet is way too light and underpowered. It is too susceptible to winds at high altitude and trust me, at one point that bullet was at high altitude. For consistent results at those distances the projectile needs to be weighed in pounds and ounces, not grains. What they did was really neat and it had to be a lot of fun but it was kind of pointless. I can't say for certainty but I suspect when dealing with those kind of ranges with that light weight equipment even the size of the pellet in the primer has an effect on where the bullet is going to hit. Even the heaviest machine guns used by the military can't consistently hit targets at that distance and when used in an indirect fire mode they are used for area denial and not for precision fire.

I can't say for certain because I don't have any data to work with but I suspect to get precision hits at those ranges with something that looks like a bolt-action rifle you would need a 30 mm bore, a bullet that weighs probably three or four times as much, and it would need probably another 500 to 800 ft per second more muzzle velocity even when using a projectile that has the freaky aerodynamics as the one they used.

Every surgery that is commonplace today started out as experimental and it took a lot more than 68 tries to perfect the techniques.

Y'all can gripe all you like about this but the fact that they were able to hit anything other than the ground no matter how many tries they took is pretty impressive but like I said before it's kind of pointless. Given the gear that they are using they should probably start taking two and a half mile shots at a target like the one used in NRA high power thousand yard matches. I bet you they would have some pretty decent groups considering the range involved. That would be some shooting that I would be impressed with.

Imagine making a doctor complete a surgery with scalpels mounted on a 10 foot pole in a variable wind speed wind tunnel.

I wouldn’t be surprised if those guys who built the ammo knew exactly what load they were going to construct when Austin reached out to them with the challenge. Then like those who built the rifle, everything else was a matter of staying within almost ridiculous tolerances.