----- Original message -----
From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck(a)gmail.com>
To: Lindsay W <lindz_wolf(a)fastmail.com>
Subject: Re: [luv-talk] How many Lumens can blind you?
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:46:07 +1000
Lindsay W wrote:
If one has a GOOD rifle (solidly and evenly built,
manually operated front locking bolt etc, NOT any automatic weapons) …
I've been assuming you mean "automatic" in the sense of "fully
automatic" rather than "semi-automatic" (self-loading).
I regard any
self loading rifle as "automatic".
Righto; I was reading it in a different context :-)
> The problem with getting fire arms REALLY accurate
> landing in 1 cm square at 100metres) is that the mechanism CANNOT be
> allowed to distort unevenly. In high powered weapons on firing the
> chamber pressure is so high that it will cause the barrel to
> "balloon" slightly and if the bolt or the barrel is even slightly
> unevenly made, it will cause the barrel to deflect off straight. For
> this reason a group from a weapon such as the M107 it would be good
> going to land 5 shots in a 5cm circle.
The other way to mitigate that is to switch to a sabot
a smoothbore barrel), which is what all main battle tanks do now
(except for UK, for backcompat with special purpose rounds).
That will not get around the problem of non symetrical breach locking and Barrel
IF anything is non symetrical the whole weapon will distort when its is fired with a
consequent loss of accuracy.
> A problem with self loading (semi automatic)
weapons is its very
> difficult to build them SIMPLE, RELIABLE AND make the weapon accurate.
Yep, granted — tradeoff of ROF vs.
As a friend of mine once observed: if you need a
semi-auto hunting rifle, you're hunting wrong.
(You mentioned .700 Nitro Express and .50 BMG, though,
which are overkill for anything but big game.)
It was a 400 nitro express, used in tiger hunting and it gave the tiger a sporting chance
as only an accurate
shot would stop a tiger. VERY nice double rifle, made around 1895, the engraving on it was
something one had to see to be believed. Kicks like a mule when fired as its quite light
in weight, as does any .458 rifle and the M107.
> With something like the M107 or the Weatherby one
would have a
> reasonably good chance of killing a person at 1000 metres even if
> they were behind 20mm armour plate, hence the M107's use as a sniper
AFAIK this is not a common operational requirement.
Such operations were usually VERY secret to even well after the conflict had ended.
>The current generation of the R700 / M24 family is
effective up to 1200m (up from 800m):
* US snipers field the Remington 700 family when they expect to kill people
* US snipers field the Barrett M82 family (i.e. M107) when they expect to kill light
* US DMs field accurized semi-automatics from AR-15 or M14 families (branch-dependent)
However I haven't found any specific citations to
back up this rule of thumb.
I think you will find the choice of weapon would have/still is the choice of the
as REALLY accurate shooting is a combination of an exellent weapon and a VERY good
It being IMPOSSIBLE to get a poorly constucted rifle (and this would be most of them) to