Navy SEAL sniping from 2,500 yards!

[Cowboy22]

Originally posted by Ryan H.

Lastly, Cowboy, I guarantee you if I shot you point blank with a shottie, you'd be blown back. It's not the same as using a shotgun to hunt pheasant or turkey.

Maybe a bit if you were right next to me but it's not nearly as far as you seem to think, I'd most likely just have a really big hole in my chest. And don't talk to me like I don't have any idea what I'm talking about, I understand it's not the same as hunting pheasent or turkey, the type of shot one would generally use to shoot a person (slugs or buckshot for the most part, although admittedly I don't do much people shooting ) are completely different. I've shot plenty of things with slugs (which I use to hunt deer, rifle hunting is illegal in Iowa) including targets and animals a hell of a lot lighter than a human at pretty close range and it's been my experience that don't really fly back that far.

And also everett, as far as I know (and I may be off on this, I'm no physics expert) the fact that it's farther away is WHY it makes the target blow apart. Because it doesn't have enough speed pass straight through like it would at close range, the target takes the entire force from the bullet (that's somewhat poorly explained but that's the best I know how to word it). It doesn't matter that it's not a round that expands on impact (although I did space on the fact that they can't use hollow points, which would have been my original assumption) it's still a big enough round hitting with enough force to do that kind of damage.

Thanks for the info on the moose hunting though, it's something my dad and I have always wanted to try. I've always imagined it to be a bit like deer hunting but much more impressive given the animal envolved. Don't know if I'd want to use a bow though, bow hunting's never really been my thing, although I admire those that can do it (I actually saw someone kill a PHEASENT with a bow once, THAT was impressive.). I assume there's a rifle season on them somewhere but I guess I don't really know.

[everett102]

Originally posted by Ryan H.
Everret, you must not watch a lot of these videos, because I've seen plenty of them where our ammo rips people apart. I've seen a thirty can turret turn terrorists into little more than mists of blood and bone, I've seen terrorists heads explode from sniper shots, etc.

Besides which, if you say this CAN'T be a fifty cal sniper, then why is it said that it is, and if it's not, then what is it?

Lastly, Cowboy, I guarantee you if I shot you point blank with a shottie, you'd be blown back. It's not the same as using a shotgun to hunt pheasant or turkey.

I've seen many videos of varying different kinds too. ive seen videos were people get shot with .50 machine guns (GAU type) and just fall down. l've seen videos were people get hit with 20mm cannon and just fall down. (no "poofing" or explosion in either case).

people would say that this description of the video is true 'cause that would be really cool (seriously. it would be). however, common sense tells us that if a bullet were to make someone fly off screen after exploding (like the first shot), than the shooter would feel a recoil of equal strength (which is also fact, by the way), not only in the displacement of the badguy's body, but of the energy of the explosion too. that would undoubtedly be fatal to the shooter.
I would also question this video based on the scenario. apperently a spotter would carry a video camera with them into enemy teritory to make evidence against them in the case of capture? I could see video coming from the sights of a gunship (the videos I've seen) since they use cameras for sighting, but I wouldn't believe that a spotter would use a camera as a spotting scope, or their commanding officer would approve the taking of this footage, or they would comprimise troop movement intelegence by taking a camera with them into a warzone, ect.

I think, by the way the target move due to the impact, that they are somewhat small animals, possibly rabbits, ground hogs, something like that. I think that they are being shot with a fairly powerful gun, such as a 7mm, .300 mag, .338, maybe .50 with a hunting bullet (hollow or soft point), and i think they are being shot at medium range (200-300 yards). a lighter object requires less energy to move, and therefore doesn't require the shooter to have so much energy transfered to them to make the bullet move fast enough to get the target airborne.

answering the statement directed to Cowboy, I shot a snipe from maybe 10 feet with a shotgun loaded with hunting loads. for those unfamiliar with snipe, they might weigh 1 pound. this snipe was not blown back, but was hit very solidly. if a snipe wasn't blown away by my shotgun (12 ga.), a person wouldn't.

off topic again...
the only reason I'm using a bow for moose is that they have hunting in town that is restricted to bows. otherwise I could go use a rilfe out north of town. i just don't thave the time to really go hunting like i would with college, etc. It's really nice to know that there is at least one other hunter here.

[Ryan H.]

Everett, that's so ridiculous, to assume that the shooter would be impacted by as much force as the target. That never happens when shooting ANY gun.

And given that you clearly see ARMS flying about, and that the video zooms out, in the end, way way WAY farther than 200 yards, I'm going to now realize that you really didn't pay attention to what you watched, and end my participation in this debate with you.

Have a good night, dude.

[everett102]

How is it ridiculous that the bullet strikes with the same amount of force the shooter feels on their shoulder? where is the extra bullet energy coming from? the reason why the shooter doesn't get killed is because the buttstock of a rifle is larger than the point of a bullet.

I did watch it closely. all i can see is some kind of apendage (on the second shot). maybe a leg. what kind of leg? who can say.

I admit, i'm a terrible judge of distance. however, that last clip did not zoom out over one and a half miles as stated in the description of the clip.

p.s. you have a good night too

[Cowboy22]

Originally posted by everett102

off topic again...
the only reason I'm using a bow for moose is that they have hunting in town that is restricted to bows. otherwise I could go use a rilfe out north of town. i just don't thave the time to really go hunting like i would with college, etc. It's really nice to know that there is at least one other hunter here.

That's cool. I know what you mean not having enough time to go hunting with college, I'll probably gonna run into the same problem this year during pheasent season. I go to school too far away from home to go back and hunt with my dad, friends, and our hunting dog and I don't know anyone here with a decent dog. It's possible to hunt pheasent without one but it's a pain in the ass and amounts to mostly stumbling around randomly and hoping to step on one. I do have some friends up here that deer hunt so I'll probably do that this season. I prefer pheasent hunting (more challenging and I enjoy watching the dog work) but deer hunting's quite a bit of fun too and it's a hell of a lot better than no hunting at all.

[everett102]

I went pheasent hunting once here in Alaska, which is hard consitering there are no (wild) pheasent in Alaska. we had to buy farm raised pheasent and then release then into a field. i thought it was really canned, and could see how it would be much better with wild birds. I have relatives who live in Iowa and they invite me down every once in a while for deer hunting, but i've never gone. it would give me a chance to use the slug barrel for my 870 though.

[Cowboy22]

If you get the chance I'd highly recommend it. The deer hunting here is the best in world and we draw a ton of out of state hunters, which is nice because we desperately need the herd thinned out. You've got a great chance of getting a big ol' buck (please get an antlerless tag and try to shoot a doe too, too many hunters, especially from out of state, trophy hunt, which doesn't really help the overpopulation). The pheasent hunting here is outstanding also, only South Dakota can really compare in terms of number of birds. I think you'd like it if you gave it shot with wild birds, it's a ton of fun, especially if you have a good dog like I do.

[sabbas]

Originally posted by everett102
How is it ridiculous that the bullet strikes with the same amount of force the shooter feels on their shoulder? where is the extra bullet energy coming from? the reason why the shooter doesn't get killed is because the buttstock of a rifle is larger than the point of a bullet.

EXACTLY! Newton's 3rd law of motion states (for those who don't know):

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

This does not mean that the IMPACT on the target is equal in the opposite direction. This means that the FORCE used to propel the bullet forward also acts in the opposite direction (with equal force). But because the force is displaced across a much larger surface area and volume in the buttstock, as Everett already mentioned, the result - the kickback against the shooter's shoulder - is not as great as the equal force which is focussed on just the tiny point of the bullet. Well, both forces are equal, but just distributed differently.

This can easily be solved by momentum conservation where:

mv = mv

where Mass of the bullet times velocity of the bullet = mass of the gun times velocity of the gun (backwards)

If you know the mass of the bullet and its velocity, as well as the mass of the gun, you can then calculate the gun's velocity...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as you said "This is a Navy Seal sniping terrorists at 2,500 yards", I could easily respond with "This is a video of a hunter shooting small animals, disprove me."

You haven't been able to prove that it's a Navy Seal, so there's no reason to believe it. Pure reasoning and logic points towards the latter statement, for reasons previously mentioned.

[Gabriel013]

Sorry, not got much time to post in depth here.


1) Just because hollow points are illegal 'officially', doesn't mean they aren't regularly used.

2) I just can't see how something travelling as fast as a bullet (I know this varies but let's take a rough estimate of 1000fps) could NOT push someone back or make a mess out of someone's head.

3) Found this just now: http://www.xmission.com/~fractil/math/kp.html

Not sure if this helps to prove or disprove the description of the vid. Not time to read so hopefully someone can summarise it

4) can't remember who, but earlier someone mentioned incendiary rounds. Could this type not have been used with a .50?

[Ryan H.]

Hey Sabbas... little green men live on the moon. Prove me wrong.

The info I was given was that this was a Navy SEAL sniping terrorists. There is no reason to disbelieve that, and you'll pardon me if I don't find the laughable claims about Newton's third law credible. Yes, Newton's law applies, but not in the way any of you are trying to apply it. Given that force is directed when it comes to weapons, the law is applied differently.

If not, then why is it that someone could fire a Stinger missile off their shoulder, a weapon capable of blowing up an airplane, without recoil enough to cause them to step back even one foot? Why? Because the force is DIRECTED. Newton's third law basically does not apply in the way you are trying to apply it.

Other than that, without something other than logical fallacies such as "I can say whatever I want and if you don't disprove it, I'm right" which most of you are throwing at me, I'm going to take the word I was given at face value.

I asked the person who posted the video to link me to the site where he got it from, so that I can see what, specifically, was said about it. Hopefully he'll reply soon, and I'll share the results, either way.

Until then, I think we can all agree that it is some seriously cool footage.