6 ms·

Two quotes I thought were noteworthy: > traveling at a downward angle and about 600 feet per second as they reached the target zone. That is incredible. Some

Two quotes I thought were noteworthy: > traveling at a downward angle and about 600 feet per second as they reached the target zone. That is incredible. Some BB guns don't even fire horizontally that fast > Regarding it taking 69 shots to hit the mark, with all the variables that had to be taken into account, “we were thrilled it was so few,” Humphries said. To give an idea of how difficult this is....

akerl_ 4y ago
Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure they're saying that the bullet left the muzzle at 3,300 fps and had decelerated down to 600 fps at time of impact, not that it was moving vertically at 600 feet per second. So the fact that it was moving faster than a BB gun isn't really shocking.
- mod 4y ago
  After four miles, it's a little shocking to me. And I'm into shooting sports.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    > ...of a 422-grain copper bullet... > The shot was made with a custom-built rifle chambered for the .416 Barrett cartridge That's a huge bullet that was specifically designed for low-supersonic drag and extreme long range. It has a huge amount of energy at the muzzle... (8,767.4 ft-lb or 11,887 J according to wikipedia[1]) so ~600fps down range, even at 4.4 miles, is not that surprising. The only surprising feat here is they managed to actually hit a target... which is quite incredible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.416_Barrett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.416_Barrett
    - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
      For the non-gun people in here that is an absolute chonker of a bullet. The .556 (very common AR round) is 112. 9mm common in handguns is around 115. 422 grain = 27.35 grams / 0.9646 ounces.
      - bjt2n3904 4y ago
        5.56 is 45 - 75 gn, typically 55 or 62.
      - OJFord 4y ago
        > .556 Do you mean 5.56mm, the NATO standard small arms round iirc? i.e. as an imperial measurement it'd be about the same as a .22, not .556.
        mburee 4y ago
        0.556 cm ;)
        OJFord 4y ago
        ... touché!
        NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
        Yeah. lol, I was thinking about how it's said "five five six" and paid no attention to what I wrote.
    - mod 4y ago
      > BC (Ballistic Coefficient) ≈ 1.103 Wow.
    - mrb 4y ago
      Doing the exact math, a 422-grain bullet shot at 3300 feet/sec is 13,833 joules of kinetic energy (.5 * mass * speed*2 = energy) Right before hitting the target it slowed down to 600 feet/sec, meaning it lost 97% of its kinetic energy during the flight.
hinkley 4y ago
Assuming the bullet is traveling on a purely ballistic trajectory, no weird aerodynamics, calculator is saying it will have a vertical delta V of -235 m/s at 24 seconds. So more like -700 ft/s. But friction is real so I don’t know the real number. I’m quite surprised they didn’t have the barrel pointed higher. Was the shooter on a plateau?
- williamscales 4y ago
  The article briefly mentions towards the end that the shooter was on a ridge above the target
  - causality0 4y ago
    Interesting. I wonder if laws against firing a gun into the sky were a factor in that decision.
    - pdpi 4y ago
      The angle between the barrel and the scope is already pretty extreme for a rifle. Can’t imagine it being particularly pleasant to shoot with the scope mounted at the sort of angle you’d need for the shot you’re describing.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - snypher 4y ago
      I would doubt Wyoming has such a law?
      - HighPlainsDrftr 4y ago
        I doubt we do. That would take out all forms of bird hunting. Most firearm owner's and hunters I know would say "Shooting in the air is a waste of ammunition and stupid - unless there was a target there." They would also be impressed. I am. I never thought this would get to HN. Really nerding out on some of the math and insight that has been commented on here.
lumost 4y ago
There shouldn't be any limit to the distance of a rifle shot along a parabolic trajectory if someone builds an appropriate cannon and can shoot many times aye? Artillery shoots much further... Is there a restriction which prevents a motivated team that can manufacture their own barrels from building a rifle/howitzer hybrid?
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  This record is only somewhat a record because it’s done with a rifle firing an ammunition sized for a rifle. By the standard of artillery, there is nothing remarkable here. The criteria used here are very arbitrary. That’s why they can beat their own record by 43% years after setting it. No one is really interested in doing what they are doing because that’s not really interesting.
Animats 4y ago
If they just put that weapon in a bench rest and kept firing, how tight a group would it shoot?
- Alupis 4y ago
  At these ranges, wind, heat, humidity and more play huge factors into the bullet's trajectory. I highly doubt even a bench rest would yield anything resembling a group at this range.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Could you build a smarter bullet that could actively compensate?
    - Alupis 4y ago
      It's been tried, but I'm not sure how successful they are/were. Modern day military artillery has "smart shells"[1] as well, which can move small deflection surfaces to "steer" the shell towards it's target. I do not know the limits of these systems... and of course they would be exceedingly expensive for your average sport shooter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
      - wahern 4y ago
        The U.S. has apparently sent M982 Excalibur shells to Ukraine, according to leaked budget documents: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-08/most-accurate-us-artillery-shell-is-quietly-added-to-ukraine-aid https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-08/most-accu... AFAIU, Russia doesn't have any munitions comparable to these guided artillery shells or even the guided HIMARS rockets. Arguably these deployments in Ukraine may inch Russia a little closer to resorting to tactical nukes. Their military doctrine relies on tactical nukes as an answer to conventional weapons beyond their own capability, and that's part of the reason Russia has so many tactical nukes deployed (at least at sea).
infogulch 4y ago
It was freefalling for 24 seconds. 600fps downwards isn't even remotely surprising to me.
bergenty 4y ago
What does a BB gun have to do with this, why are you making that comparison?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  It’s a reference point.

akerl_ 4y ago

Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure they're saying that the bullet left the muzzle at 3,300 fps and had decelerated down to 600 fps at time of impact, not that it was moving vertically at 600 feet per second. So the fact that it was moving faster than a BB gun isn't really shocking.

mod 4y ago
After four miles, it's a little shocking to me. And I'm into shooting sports.
- Alupis 4y ago
  > ...of a 422-grain copper bullet... > The shot was made with a custom-built rifle chambered for the .416 Barrett cartridge That's a huge bullet that was specifically designed for low-supersonic drag and extreme long range. It has a huge amount of energy at the muzzle... (8,767.4 ft-lb or 11,887 J according to wikipedia[1]) so ~600fps down range, even at 4.4 miles, is not that surprising. The only surprising feat here is they managed to actually hit a target... which is quite incredible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.416_Barrett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.416_Barrett
  - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
    For the non-gun people in here that is an absolute chonker of a bullet. The .556 (very common AR round) is 112. 9mm common in handguns is around 115. 422 grain = 27.35 grams / 0.9646 ounces.
    - bjt2n3904 4y ago
      5.56 is 45 - 75 gn, typically 55 or 62.
    - OJFord 4y ago
      > .556 Do you mean 5.56mm, the NATO standard small arms round iirc? i.e. as an imperial measurement it'd be about the same as a .22, not .556.
      - mburee 4y ago
        0.556 cm ;)
        OJFord 4y ago
        ... touché!
      - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
        Yeah. lol, I was thinking about how it's said "five five six" and paid no attention to what I wrote.
  - mod 4y ago
    > BC (Ballistic Coefficient) ≈ 1.103 Wow.
  - mrb 4y ago
    Doing the exact math, a 422-grain bullet shot at 3300 feet/sec is 13,833 joules of kinetic energy (.5 * mass * speed*2 = energy) Right before hitting the target it slowed down to 600 feet/sec, meaning it lost 97% of its kinetic energy during the flight.

hinkley 4y ago

Assuming the bullet is traveling on a purely ballistic trajectory, no weird aerodynamics, calculator is saying it will have a vertical delta V of -235 m/s at 24 seconds. So more like -700 ft/s. But friction is real so I don’t know the real number. I’m quite surprised they didn’t have the barrel pointed higher. Was the shooter on a plateau?

williamscales 4y ago
The article briefly mentions towards the end that the shooter was on a ridge above the target
- causality0 4y ago
  Interesting. I wonder if laws against firing a gun into the sky were a factor in that decision.
  - pdpi 4y ago
    The angle between the barrel and the scope is already pretty extreme for a rifle. Can’t imagine it being particularly pleasant to shoot with the scope mounted at the sort of angle you’d need for the shot you’re describing.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - snypher 4y ago
    I would doubt Wyoming has such a law?
    - HighPlainsDrftr 4y ago
      I doubt we do. That would take out all forms of bird hunting. Most firearm owner's and hunters I know would say "Shooting in the air is a waste of ammunition and stupid - unless there was a target there." They would also be impressed. I am. I never thought this would get to HN. Really nerding out on some of the math and insight that has been commented on here.

lumost 4y ago

There shouldn't be any limit to the distance of a rifle shot along a parabolic trajectory if someone builds an appropriate cannon and can shoot many times aye? Artillery shoots much further... Is there a restriction which prevents a motivated team that can manufacture their own barrels from building a rifle/howitzer hybrid?

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
This record is only somewhat a record because it’s done with a rifle firing an ammunition sized for a rifle. By the standard of artillery, there is nothing remarkable here. The criteria used here are very arbitrary. That’s why they can beat their own record by 43% years after setting it. No one is really interested in doing what they are doing because that’s not really interesting.

Animats 4y ago

If they just put that weapon in a bench rest and kept firing, how tight a group would it shoot?

Alupis 4y ago
At these ranges, wind, heat, humidity and more play huge factors into the bullet's trajectory. I highly doubt even a bench rest would yield anything resembling a group at this range.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Could you build a smarter bullet that could actively compensate?
  - Alupis 4y ago
    It's been tried, but I'm not sure how successful they are/were. Modern day military artillery has "smart shells"[1] as well, which can move small deflection surfaces to "steer" the shell towards it's target. I do not know the limits of these systems... and of course they would be exceedingly expensive for your average sport shooter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
    - wahern 4y ago
      The U.S. has apparently sent M982 Excalibur shells to Ukraine, according to leaked budget documents: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-08/most-accurate-us-artillery-shell-is-quietly-added-to-ukraine-aid https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-08/most-accu... AFAIU, Russia doesn't have any munitions comparable to these guided artillery shells or even the guided HIMARS rockets. Arguably these deployments in Ukraine may inch Russia a little closer to resorting to tactical nukes. Their military doctrine relies on tactical nukes as an answer to conventional weapons beyond their own capability, and that's part of the reason Russia has so many tactical nukes deployed (at least at sea).

infogulch 4y ago

It was freefalling for 24 seconds. 600fps downwards isn't even remotely surprising to me.

bergenty 4y ago

What does a BB gun have to do with this, why are you making that comparison?

chrisseaton 4y ago
It’s a reference point.