Skip to comments.Smaller Bullet Gets The Longer Shot
Posted on 05/23/2010 6:29:19 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
It was recently revealed that, last November, a British sniper (corporal Craig Harrison) set a new distance record when he killed two Taliban in Afghanistan, at a range of 2,620 meters (8,596 feet). He did this with a L115A3 rifle firing the 8.6mm Lapua Magnum round. The previous record was held by a Canadian soldier, corporal Rob Furlong, who dropped an al Qaeda gunman at 2,573 meters (7,972 feet) in 2002, also in Afghanistan. Furlong, however, was using a 12.7mm (.50 caliber) rifle. These weapons are good at 2,000 meters or more, but weigh twice as much as the 6.8 kg (15 pound) 8.6mm rifles. Three years ago, the British Army began replacing most of its 3,000 7.62mm L96A1 sniper rifles with one modified to use the .338 (8.6mm) Lapua Magnum caliber round. This Accuracy International "Super Magnum" rifle is basically a L96A1 "Arctic Warfare" rifle modified to handle the larger, 8.6mm Lapua Magnum round. The new rifle (the L115A1) weighed 6.8 kg (without a scope), was fifty inches long and had a 27 inch barrel and a five round magazine.
Snipers in Iraq, and especially Afghanistan, have been calling for a longer range round, but find the 12.7mm (.50 caliber) weapons too heavy. The .338 (8.6mm) Lapua Magnum round has an effective range (about 1,500 meters) about 50 percent greater than the 7.62mm standard NATO round. Like most long range rounds, if the weather (clear) and winds (calm) are right, you can hit targets farther away. Those were the conditions Harrison encountered when he took his three shots (the third one hit the machine-gun the two Taliban were using.)
(Excerpt) Read more at strategypage.com ...
Amazing shots no matter which round they used.
If smaller is better then they should really love the .300-378 weatherby magnum.
I have an AR-30 in .338Lapua Magnum that I have placed on target at 1500yds, but I’d dearly love to get my hands on a .416Barrett.
My local firing range tops out at 80 yards. I don’t know what any of my rifles will do at long ranges.
or a .408 Chey Tac
Another sniper, retired in a high plains state, chose the .416. He has his own 1500 meter range, can shoot what he wants, and chose the .416 -which says a lot, I think.
But I have a lot of ideas for a 375 H&H magnum that has about the same energy as the 338 Lapua. Sigh. I’ll have to finally get reloading stuff.
.338 LM, .408 Chey-tac, or .416 Barrett are my serious contenders. .50 is out as it just isn't accurate enough.
Looking at either a Vigilance VR-1 as an "off the shelf" rifle. Or possibly customizing one with a Surgeon 1581 XL actions as it's base. Possible Kreiger barrel. I'd custom build a stock for my left-handed shooting style.
.338 LM has broad availability and good accuracy, even on the far end of it's envelope.
.408 Chey-tac has better range, similar accuracy, but the brass and bullets are as rare as Hen's teeth and the company may be having internal troubles.
.416 Barrett, brass is expensive, range is exemplary, but finding an action/barrel chambered for it is difficult.
Never bring a machine gun to a sniper rifle fight;)
Wind at the sniper’s back?
So does aim.
Precisely what is holding me back. It's expensive enough to handload the .338LM, I paid $2.50/casing (Lapua) from Midway a couple of months ago, with the price of the other components initially approaches $5/round. I have reloaded 20 cases 5 times each. Good thing I can re-use the brass a few times, and I've got 80 cases I haven't even touched yet.
.416 cases run upwards of $4 ea (unprimed) last I checked.
I think that was one of the reasons the .50 was so popular. Recycled mil brass was cheap.
Conservation applies to ammo too. Why use any more than you have too?
92.5gr/H1000 topped with a 250gr Lapua Scenar
I SERIOUSLY doubt this!!!
Are they saying that the gun is not good at less than 2,000 meters?
Just imagine what Carlos Hathcock could have done with one of these babies!
a range of 2,620 meters (8,596 feet) ... The previous record was held by a Canadian soldier [...] at 2,573 meters (7,972 feet)
Just wanted to point out a mathmatical error here. While the first conversion is right, the second equates to 8441 feet, not 7972. The difference in distances is 155 feet, not 624 as the article implies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.