It clearly doesn't "guarantee" a one shot kill, as that pig escaping with a blood trail proved.

The sniping in the video with the sights was mostly being done from around 1000 metres. The compensating for the wind was being done by hand. The technology was just holding back the firing until you had the previously locked target in the cross hair, and maintaining that laser lock.

There was talk of the military getting this technology, but not specifically from this company.

The 3000 yard range was with what they called a "super gun", rather than anything in production. There have been several confirmed kills over 2500 yards with existing tech so it doesn't sound that unrealistic:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_ ... iper_kills

You know the old adage - the first 80% of the job takes 80% of the effort and the last 20% of the job, that also takes 80% of the effort? That kind of holds. It's one of those cases where things get harder the farther you push it.

I'd agree it's hypothetically possible to build a device which could put a lump of metal onto a a target 3000m away with enough force to seriously injure or kill a person. I'm just kind of dubious if that device would look much like a rifle.

This might be marketed for culls but that is it re civilian use. Also there are .50 calibre sniper rifles that can kill a man at 2.5 km confirmed but I doubt that is the real limit of them as they can still go through a wall at that distance, so could probably go even further. Official secrets might make it Impossible to get any more accurate info on the true ranges of today's sniper rifles. The problems that it takes a lot of skill to adjust for wind barometric pressure temperature and still hit a target nearly 2km away. If they could create dozens of snipers without much effort this would probably be highly restricted. The last thing any government would want are loads of rogue citizens with the ability to kill a politician from 2km.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It's not just skill. You need to know what the wind is going to be as the bullet arrives along the entire trajectory. Thats magic.

That's one of the points that was raised in Cpl. Harrison's report - there was absolutely no wind when he was firing at his target. Plus it was in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan, at altitude where the air density is lower so any atmospheric factors that might alter the trajectory of the bullet (air density either as drag or changes due to thermals) are reduced.

He hit a target at 2,700 yards in ideal conditions with as powerful a weapon as we can currently make that we still call a 'rifle' with a couple of sighting shots and he's as highly trained a marksman as there is around.10% further away? Consistently? Even with semi-automated optics? It's theoretically possible but y'know...

I remember reading about smart bullets, which might be an answer.

Added bonus of making each shot damned expensive, so unlikely to be used for "sport"

They also had to allow for gravity and curvature of the earth, over the path of the bullet. I think that they aimed something like six feet above the target and gravity brought it back into line and onto target.

When you're shooting that far, you don't just have to account for drop, you have to account for the coriolis effect

Yes that as well, but that would require knowing where on earth you were and the speed of the earth rotating underneath you. It all explains why the really long range snipers are military.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/27/47790 ... -microsoft

Ballmer's leaving concert.

That goes way beyond my cringe reflex

Great comment from someone:



Christ.

Unexpected turn while cycling downhill

Did no-one check the route first?

Brilliant.