SKS 420 yard shots
- Thread starter sharpshooter74
- Start date
- Status
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
T165, the video appears to be working just fine.
To say nothing of using proper holdover technique to engage a target at distance.
To say nothing of using proper holdover technique to engage a target at distance.
The video is not a shooting match at a closed range. What ever gave you that idea Gus McCrae? I really do not wish to argue but I will never conceed to foolish shooting habits. I am more than a little angry with the moderator who should know better. He should be removed. Any experienced law enforcement officer would agree with me. Perhaps some already have but I'll leave that to THR management. My arguments are valid. The shooter in the video has his back sight set on the lowest setting. He is shooting the 7.62x39 cartridge. There is absolutely no way in this world he can see his target at 420 yards. Anyone who states as much is smoking crack. Period! Shooting a weapon at this angle is commiting a criminal act if another person is injured. I'm still wish to identify the shooter and location. I have absolutely no problem seeing him arrested if he has damaged property or injured someone. Irresponsible, foolish individuals are a bane and as bad to the 2nd Amendment cause as any foe we have including the "Brady Bunch". Fools are despised...the Beatles even wrote a song about it.
Okay Andrew Wyant...I'll bite. Who the heck is shenanigans? I'm trying to be funny. Ask for the Treasury Department...last name "DYE". You will be told the "BOSS" is out and in Peoria, Illinois today and will not be in until next Monday. It is no big deal if you do not wish to leave your name...big brother will know who you are. 
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Perhaps the obviously covered firing point with what can be assumed to be permanent firing positions facing what appears to be a small mountain which has a large, fixed-in-place steel target gave him that idea.
So what?
Way to keep it on The High Road. He's plainly using holdover to engage the target.
As opposed to just blasting them at point-blank range?
What proof do you have that he injured anyone or damaged any property?
I am surprised that you don't know shenanigans. It's a reference to the acclaimed police documentary Super Troopers.
Additionally, I'd like you to refrain from misspelling my last name.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, we already have your name from the document you posted previously.
Still, none of these supposed credentials you've posted have squat to do with one's marksmanship ability, and your obviously distraught mental state has caused you to post things that, frankly, you ought to apologize for.
Claiming that I am unsafe is ridiculous as I've never had an ND, never injured anyone with a firearm, broken the 180 at a match, or ever thrown a round over a berm. I can vouch for Gus' safety record as well, as he's always conducted himself safely when I've been around him.
Frankly, you owe both him and me an apology.
BCRider
Member
This thread needs some popcorn...
T, given the size of the hill and pit holding the target even at the angle he's shooting at all he's seeing over that front sight is just more hillside. So he's ensuring that there's a proper backstop. This isn't a case of some negligent hunter in the woods taking shots at some movement without identifying the target or ensuring that there's adequite space or backstop. It's a proper range with proper backstops.
Also how do you know that he isn't;
If you've ever tried some long range pistol shooting then you've had to use some holdover. Even shooting my .38 revolver at 50 yards I found I need to put my sights on the top edge of the steel target we were using in the match. So according to your criteria I was shooting at something I could not see since the steel plate was hidden by the end of my barrel. So does that mean we should not be shooting at such targets even though there was a huge 100 foot high by 250 foot wide backstop in this case?
T, given the size of the hill and pit holding the target even at the angle he's shooting at all he's seeing over that front sight is just more hillside. So he's ensuring that there's a proper backstop. This isn't a case of some negligent hunter in the woods taking shots at some movement without identifying the target or ensuring that there's adequite space or backstop. It's a proper range with proper backstops.
Also how do you know that he isn't;
- looking at the target with his front sight but wiht the rear lowered?
- using both eyes open so he can use superimposed images to aid in lining up the holdover? That would ensure he's got a perfect view of the target and surrounding area.
If you've ever tried some long range pistol shooting then you've had to use some holdover. Even shooting my .38 revolver at 50 yards I found I need to put my sights on the top edge of the steel target we were using in the match. So according to your criteria I was shooting at something I could not see since the steel plate was hidden by the end of my barrel. So does that mean we should not be shooting at such targets even though there was a huge 100 foot high by 250 foot wide backstop in this case?
Zak Smith
Member
This thread reminds be of this.
However, I have a couple things to mention:
* There is no reason you cannot see both the target and the point of aim, even if you are holding 4' over the target and the front sight is covering up the target, if you keep both eyes open.
* Even using a high-powered scope with a fine reticle that does not obscure the target, if you're full turn, or more, off from where you should be, your bullets will impact somewhere other than where you're looking. I'd rather have Mr. SKS who can put bullets where he wants them, than someone using a scope incorrectly and putting rounds way shorter or further than intended.
* It is possible to certify an entire impact area as safe. In this case, placing your bullets in the area the front sight obscures is not unsafe.
Heck, if you want to take the statement, "even when they cannot see them" to its logical conclusion, nobody could shoot a pistol at a target past about 5 yards because the front sight (and the rest of the sight picture) will cover up more than half the target.
With regard to "lawmen"-- I have a bunch of LEO friends I've met through the course of my shooting career, and I have administered LEO-only 3-Gun matches in the past. For overall safety, give me a 3Gunner or IPSC shooter any day of the week over a LEO (who does not shoot competition).
-z
PS- I've hit man-sized targets with my Glock at 330 yards. It was done safely and in a controlled environment. How much holdover do you think I used?
However, I have a couple things to mention:
* There is no reason you cannot see both the target and the point of aim, even if you are holding 4' over the target and the front sight is covering up the target, if you keep both eyes open.
* Even using a high-powered scope with a fine reticle that does not obscure the target, if you're full turn, or more, off from where you should be, your bullets will impact somewhere other than where you're looking. I'd rather have Mr. SKS who can put bullets where he wants them, than someone using a scope incorrectly and putting rounds way shorter or further than intended.
* It is possible to certify an entire impact area as safe. In this case, placing your bullets in the area the front sight obscures is not unsafe.
Heck, if you want to take the statement, "even when they cannot see them" to its logical conclusion, nobody could shoot a pistol at a target past about 5 yards because the front sight (and the rest of the sight picture) will cover up more than half the target.
This is not what you've been saying, actually. The guy in the video is clearly not "shooting blindly" and he has "made sure of his target." You're wrapped around the axle because he's holding a few feet above his intended point of impact.
With regard to "lawmen"-- I have a bunch of LEO friends I've met through the course of my shooting career, and I have administered LEO-only 3-Gun matches in the past. For overall safety, give me a 3Gunner or IPSC shooter any day of the week over a LEO (who does not shoot competition).
-z
PS- I've hit man-sized targets with my Glock at 330 yards. It was done safely and in a controlled environment. How much holdover do you think I used?
You JUSTIN have absolutely no proof the shooter was shooting at 420 yards. There is absolutley no proof whatsoever. No camera shots included the shooter and target when he was shooting. You are a "Koolaid" drinker. You viewed a shooter. A target range, and other camera shots which did not include simultaneous viewpoints of nothing but what was crafted to make you believe he was shooting a 420 yard target at 420 yards with a SKS firing 7.62x39 cartridges with iron sights set at their lowest setting. Are you still not ready to give up. It is dangerous to fire a weapon when you cannot see your target. Amateurs may argue differently but law enforcement and military will not agree. It is very apparent to me that the many members of "The High Road" do not even bother to read the instruction manuals that come with their firearm purchases. These manuals will instruct as much. You and your "High Road" groupies are not only arguing with me but the firearms industry as a whole. I guarantee you the United States Military, all law Enforcement Agencies in America, and the domestic firearm manufacturers as a whole will never advocate your silly argument of "it's okay to discharge your firearm even if you cannot see your target'. Of course, if you had ever been a real LEO, real Soldier, or professionally employed by a domestic firearm manufacturer you would already know this. Unfortunately, "The High Road' has some who are not qualified to know the difference. So sad.
rbernie
Contributing Member
- Status
