The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: billt on June 14, 2010, 06:04:28 AM
-
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2960837/Sniper-shoots-5-Taliban-in-28-seconds-in-Helmand-Afghanistan.html
"It took me nine rounds but I took him down with the ninth.
Then the other four had moved closer, so I took them down as well.
They were taken down in the next 28 seconds."
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying any of it. Certainly not in "28 seconds". Here is why. He said in his own words it took him 9 rounds to hit the first guy. Then, he "took the other 4 as well". Assuming he killed each one of the 4 with just one round, that would mean a total of 13 rounds were fired minimally in just 28 seconds at targets that were at least ONE MILE AWAY! 13 rounds in 28 seconds equals 2.15 seconds per shot! This from a .338 Lapua rifle that only holds 5 rounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_rifles
"Calibre .338 Lapua Magnum (8.58x70mm) (L115 / AWM), 7,62x51mm NATO (L96 / AW) Weight 6.8 kg, Length 1,300 mm, Muzzle velocity 936 m/s, Feed 5-round box and Effective range 1,100 m plus."
So in order to fire 13 rounds in 28 seconds, he would have to not only shoot at the rate of one round every 2.15 seconds, but he would also have to RELOAD 3 TIMES! Even if he had an extended magazine that held 13 rounds, (which he didn't), there is no way you are going to accurately acquire man sized targets one mile away, fire, work the bolt, reacquire the target, and fire again in the small span of 2.15 seconds. You can see in the picture there in fact is no extended magazine in his rifle. They show it resting flat and being supported from the trigger guard forward. They also show him holding it, and the magazine is flush. So it is no more than a 5 round capacity. I'm calling complete and total B.S, Bill T.
-
I was with him when he admitted it took 9 shots to hit the first guy, but he lost me on the 28 seconds too.
-
The headline of the article said he took out 5 Taliban in 28 seconds, period. He himself said it took him 9 rounds to hit the first guy. He then "took out the other 4". All 5 were killed in 28 seconds per the headline. No matter how you cut it, he had to fire the rifle 13 times in 28 seconds, and kill 5 people in the process over 1 mile away.
All this from a rifle that only holds 5 rounds. No how, no way. Complete and total B.S. Bill T.
-
Another thing you have to believe, is that after he popped the first guy, (after admittingly shooting 9 rounds at him before he hit him), all 5 just stood there and patiently waited to be killed. No one is going to stay put after the guy you were having coffee with just got ripped to shreds by 9 incoming rounds, 8 of which didn't hit! I can't believe they would print such nonsense, and expect anyone to believe it. Bill T.
-
Another thing you have to believe, is that after he popped the first guy, (after admittingly shooting 9 rounds at him before he hit him), all 5 just stood there and patiently waited to be killed. No one is going to stay put after the guy you were having coffee with just got ripped to shreds by 9 incoming rounds, 8 of which didn't hit! I can't believe they would print such nonsense, and expect anyone to believe it. Bill T.
Actually, he said he killed them in 28 seconds. It could be the clock started when the first guy was taken down with the last of the 9 shots. If the other 4 were one shots (not likely) it might have only been 5 shots in the 28 seconds.
Also, he says "they" were taken down in 28 seconds. The "they" might refer to the last four targets
-
28 seconds is a LONG time when you're receiving fire. Bill T.
-
But, he'd lubed the action with unicorn grease and was using a special "fast action" provided by the Odamna Oil Spill Response Team. I'm buying it. Now, I'm going to the corner to hit myself in the head with a hammer for awhile.
Racists.
Sheesh.
-
Mall Ninjas can do it
-
Actually, he said he killed them in 28 seconds. It could be the clock started when the first guy was taken down with the last of the 9 shots. If the other 4 were one shots (not likely) it might have only been 5 shots in the 28 seconds.
Also, he says "they" were taken down in 28 seconds. The "they" might refer to the last four targets
Agree. After the first guy went down, the next four were taken in '"the next" 28 seconds.
-
Agree. After the first guy went down, the next four were taken in '"the next" 28 seconds.
It depends who you want to believe. It states 3 different times, 5 men were killed in 28 seconds. 1.) The headline of the article. 2.) The lead paragraph that is highlighted. 3.) In the side article written by Mr. McNab titled, "My View". I think it's all B.S. Ever notice how these sniper records that were held for years, are now being broken what seems like every few weeks? Each time they are the story becomes all the more difficult to believe. Bill T.
-
Maybe they were imperial seconds, like heavy tonnes the Brits use.
Do I think he killed 5 Taliban? Yea probably.
A mile away? Maybe. If the bad guys were moving that's some fast adjustment on the scope or alot of Kentucky windage hold over/under.
The time is just drama.
Good shooting for our team anyway.
Andy McNab view of the SAS raid in 92 was "polished up" according to the units CSM.
-
In all fairness to the soldier concerned its reported by THE SUN, if there was a more rag rated newspaper I havent heard about one, these are the tards that pay people to make up BS about people. "a close friend of the royals revealed" type BS.
The questionability of the reporting is what should be called into question rather than bagging a bloke of what may or may not have taken place.
-
These are the same kind of papers that report Big Foot was sighted eating lunch at Taco Bell last week. Bill T.
-
These are the same kind of papers that report Big Foot was sighted eating lunch at Taco Bell last week. Bill T.
I heard Sasquatch was wrestling with Elvis over a chimichanga....
-
These are the same kind of papers that report Big Foot was sighted eating lunch at Taco Bell last week. Bill T.
Exactly!! theyre filth,
-
It depends who you want to believe. It states 3 different times, 5 men were killed in 28 seconds. 1.) The headline of the article. 2.) The lead paragraph that is highlighted. 3.) In the side article written by Mr. McNab titled, "My View". I think it's all B.S. Ever notice how these sniper records that were held for years, are now being broken what seems like every few weeks? Each time they are the story becomes all the more difficult to believe. Bill T.
Yeah, something I've noticed over the years is the headlines often misstate the article or act as a one-line op-ed along the political lines of the paper. Often the article states something quite different than the headline would lead you to believe.
Editors apparently take a hint from the 2 second TV sound bites, hope no one actually reads the article.
AS for this article, I agree that everyone is a god recently.
-
Questioning the shots is reasonable, I don't see a magazine at all in any picture, and the mags on these rifles, even at 5rds protrude. I think the pictures were staged. And what round was he shooting, did he have a Raufus, that would take out 3-5 people in 1 shot. More info needed.
-
Maybe he shot the first one, then "took out" the rest with an air strike.
-
In all fairness to the soldier concerned its reported by THE SUN, if there was a more rag rated newspaper I havent heard about one, these are the tards that pay people to make up BS about people. "a close friend of the royals revealed" type BS.
The questionability of the reporting is what should be called into question rather than bagging a bloke of what may or may not have taken place.
I must say they do a good job with the page 3 girls.. ;D ;D ;D ;D
http://www.page3.com/
;D
deepwater
-
If this guy had honestly accomplished this feat, it would be all over Fox News, The Military Channel, and every newsworthy magazine in the free world. Instead it appears only in a rag with about the same integrity as The National Enquirer. There is nothing on You Tube either. Bill T.
-
Bill,
I think very little of what happens in the special warfare groups ever makes the news.
The media has no interest in what we do to the poor oppressed followers of Islam. They only want to report KIA/WIA if it shows the military in a bad light.
When did you here anythiing about Iraq over the last few months except for bombings by internal factions?
I do agree The Sun is a rag.
-
When Canadian Corporal Rob Furlong established the longest sniper kill in history at 1.509 miles, it was the subject of a "60 Minutes" piece, and it was all over You Tube, as well as in several reliable military publications. And rightfully so, as it was an incredible feat that had witnesses, along with a ton of actual proof. This whole thing has little credibility because it only appears in a sensationalistic British rag. If it were factual enough to be backed up, I would think other, more reliable news sources would have picked up on it, as it would be even a greater accomplishment than Furlong produced. There are tons of articles about the M-4, and the issues it's been having. But this is picked up by no one. That causes suspicion much like the stories these type of rags run about aliens abducting Billy Bob from a Tennessee swamp at 2:00 AM, instead of landing on the front lawn of M.I.T. at 10:00 AM on a Monday. Bill T.