SKS 420 yard shots


PDA






sharpshooter74
November 16, 2009, 02:01 AM
This guy is amazing! I never knew shots like that were possible especially with irons sights and no scopes. In the right hands, these rifles are unbelievable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pkhhDyvYp4

If you enjoyed reading about "SKS 420 yard shots" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
thriftyjoe
November 16, 2009, 02:13 AM
wow! great video

t165
November 16, 2009, 03:13 AM
420 yards with the SKS's rear site set at it's lowest setting! I wonder how much hold over he had to use? I also have to wonder how he could even see the target using what should have been a significant holdover while it was being blocked from his line of sight by the gas tube/barrel? Hell, as bad as my eyes are I would not have been able to see the target at all without a scope.

THE DARK KNIGHT
November 16, 2009, 03:28 AM
No amount of gadgets and gizmos can make up for good marksmanship. This man is using a rifle the way it was intended. Remember this video every time you see someone with an AK/SKS saying they need a scope/red dot for 50 yard shots.

t165
November 16, 2009, 07:40 AM
I'm certainly going to remember this video regarding an SKS, iron sights, and 50 yard shots. ;)

John Parker
November 16, 2009, 07:50 AM
The AK and SKS are far more accurate than most people give them credit for.

X-Rap
November 16, 2009, 10:47 AM
Wow he wasn't hitting a coffee can was he? Most of the rounds were impacting around the target.
I suggest some of you try this for yourself and you might be surprised how close you get. Then set a real target and see if you can actually hit it. Getting close is quite easy, shooting MOA or less is much harder. That rifle shoots as designed if the shooter can hold up his end. Wouldn't trade one of mine for a Mini!

Jeff H
November 16, 2009, 10:57 AM
This guy is amazing! I never knew shots like that were possible especially with irons sights and no scopes. In the right hands, these rifles are unbelievable.

While I won't question a good shot, he did unload a 50 round mag at that target, one would hope that you would hit it eventually. I'm not that good of a shot and I think I could even do it given 50 tries :D

t165
November 16, 2009, 11:06 AM
To answer your question X-Rap...uh, NO! Not only was he not hitting a coffee can I doubt he could even see it. His back site was set on the lowest setting. I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night. Now, if he wishes to set the camera up behind him at let us view the target, him shooting, and the bullet impacts at the same time I may give this redacted video some credit. But, he did not! Like PT Barnum said...there is one born every minute. :rolleyes:

Robert
November 16, 2009, 11:10 AM
At the last tactical rifle match I shot I hit the 400 yard plate 5 out of 5 times and took less than 15 rounds to do so with my FAL using only the irons. Some folks will tell you the FAL, SKS, or AK is not that accurate but from personal experience it can be done. Sure there are more accurate rifles out there but if you practice enough and know your rifle a 400 yard shot is doable. Oh and it surprised the hell out of me when the spotter called HIT the first time... I was blown away. Oh and at 400 yards the 40" tall by 18" wide plate was totally covered by my front sight.

X-Rap
November 16, 2009, 11:15 AM
t when you have that lag in time of impact you can pick a hold over and repeat the hit once you walk it onto the target by shooting and looking to see impact.
We used to shoot at snags in dry washes down in the Burro Mtns. from sick distances with 22 pistols, if you can see the impact you will eventually get pretty close.
I don't question him being the shooter I just contend it is no great feat.

t165
November 16, 2009, 11:26 AM
Any person with military and or LEO experience will tell you that the front sight is the most important thing in fixed sight shooting. Look at the video. This guy has the rear sight of the SKS on it's lowest setting. He cannot possibly see the target in relation to the front sight of his firearm. He is holding over and cannot see his target. To do this at a known range and distance where you can identify a landmark is not going to work on an unfamiliar terrain and is false on it's face. Please, explain to me why in the world would this man shoot that rifle at a very distant target with the rear sight set at it's lowest setting? And the video...simply place it behind you if you are trying to prove something. This is all bull**** in my eyes. At the angle he was shooting the stack of logs off of he would have been looking at clouds.

X-Rap
November 16, 2009, 11:37 AM
Ok I see you know there is no possible way to make that shot without elevating the rear:rolleyes:you are right:banghead:

t165
November 16, 2009, 11:41 AM
I am not degrading the SKS, AK or any fixed sight firearm. I am not wishing to argue with anyone. Gus McCrae...did you not acquire the target in your sights before firing? Look at the video guys. The shooter could not possibly see his target at 420 yards with the rear sight of the SKS set on it's lowest setting. Lets get real here.

Quoheleth
November 16, 2009, 11:48 AM
Well, if I can hit soda cans at 100 yards with an open-sight .22 (actually, with a couple different .22s - Browning BL, a Marlin, and a Stevens 15A), why can't he hit a metal plate at 400 yards? We don't know how big the plate was, true, but it's obviously bigger than a sheet of paper.

Q

Robert
November 16, 2009, 12:09 PM
did you not acquire the target in your sights before firing?
Of course I did. Why would you not? I watched the video and find it to be a bit goofy. Personally I think the video is full of it. My rear sight was set at 200m, the lowest factory setting. I left the rear sight at the lowest setting because the match I was shooting was fast paced with targets from 200 to 400 yards and I did not want to move the sights around and get lost. I acquired the target and adjusted my hold over from there. This guy is shooting off of 3 stacked wooden blocks with an elevation that can best be described as "volley" fire, so yes I doubt the his ability to hit the target at that range. And at that range the plate is totally covered by the front sight so it is really more of I think it is there that anything else. I know that you are not trying to attack me personally and I hope that I do not come across as defensive but hitting a long range target with the rear sight set low can be done IF you know your holds.

t165
November 16, 2009, 12:10 PM
Quoheleth...because the trajectory of the 7.62x39 requires a vast holdover at 420 yards. Combined with his rear sight being set at it's lowest trajectory setting and his physical inability to see his target with the SKS being set at it's lowest setting it is a no-brainer. Try hitting one of your sode cans at 420 yards with your 22! You would have to look underneath your 22 to even get a glimpse of your target at that range if you could even sight your 22 in at that range. This is all nonsense. Good grief guys...is anyone on this thread a real riflemen. One of the most basic rules of gun safety is to never shoot unless you can see your target. Look at the video...again, look at the video. There is absolutely no way the shooter can shoot a 7.62x39 cartridge and hit a target at 420 yards with the rear sight of the SKS set on it's lowest setting with an unmodified rifle and be able to see his target. NO WAY!

Robert
November 16, 2009, 12:15 PM
And no, you can not really see the target in great detail at that range. I could see what I was aiming at and held over from there.

X-Rap
November 16, 2009, 12:21 PM
I am not degrading the SKS, AK or any fixed sight firearm. I am not wishing to argue with anyone. Gus McCrae...did you not acquire the target in your sights before firing? Look at the video guys. The shooter could not possibly see his target at 420 yards with the rear sight of the SKS set on it's lowest setting. Lets get real here.
I'm not trying to argue either just point out that there is no reason to not believe the guy made the shot based in him not using the rear site for elevation.
Here's the trick.
Shoot at your target with a soft backstop to allow visual of bullet impact sighting dead on with the irons.
Note the drop from point of aim and adjust up and allow for wind, try again until you are on.
From the shooting position it is a simple matter of a slight shift of the head to the right to see around the gun and see the impact.
There will likely be some object on the hill to use as an aiming point so it can be quite repeatable.

This can be done with any gun that shoots a bullet heavy enough to see its impact.
Now if you want better than minute of sheet of plywood then you will want to use the battle sights and the aperture type are the best and will give results that gus achieved. Double this if someone is on the other end but for just fun and shooting up the hillside the guy with the SKS is doing nothing special.

Out in the west we have lots of open space and you can pick a rock on a hill or in an old creek bed and blast away, I won't say its marksmanship but you will learn some about trajectory and what a gun can do.

Robert
November 16, 2009, 12:23 PM
X-Rap, you said it better than I.

X-Rap
November 16, 2009, 12:30 PM
I'm guessing from the video that the target was higher in elevation than the range floor which is not uncommon for steel plates and other reactive targets, making the high angle of the gun make a little more sense. I'm am just pulling this out of my hat but I guess the hold over for the sks at that distance will be about 5-6 feet with a 100yd. zero.
I'm not trying to beat you up t only suggest you get out and try some different stuff before you dig your heals in to much.

t165
November 16, 2009, 12:35 PM
Okay Gus McCrae and X-Rap! I cannot tell either of you what to do with your firearms. You may shoot them in any fashion you wish. I simply choose to first identify my targets and be able to see what I am shooting at before I pull the trigger. Looking around, over, or underneath a firearm before I fire is something I am not comfortable doing. The video is still bull**** in my eyes and I'll never advocate shooting blind at anything. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned and you guys are the new wave.

Robert
November 16, 2009, 12:42 PM
See here is where I take issue. You are saying that by engaging targets at that range with iron sights that I am somehow unsafe. Are High Power and PALMA shooters unsafe for using irons to shoot 600 and 1000 yards respectively? I was shooting on a closed range during a match. The maximum distance on the range was a little over 400 yards with more than adequate berms on all three sides. I was in a very controlled environment. I would agree that doing this off of a safe range environment is a bad idea.

X-Rap
November 16, 2009, 12:42 PM
Yep I was waiting for the safety card, bring it out when all else fails.
Any person with LE or Military will have some experience with night fires and other situations in which the whole range is not illuminated and in view.
Check and see how close I am with the 5-6' hold over and tell me you couldn't safely make that shot on a dedicated range or open side of a mountain.

You can't learn everything from some internet forum. Go out and shoot once and a while.

Justin
November 16, 2009, 12:50 PM
There is absolutely no way the shooter can shoot a 7.62x39 cartridge and hit a target at 420 yards with the rear sight of the SKS set on it's lowest setting with an unmodified rifle and be able to see his target. NO WAY!

I believe you're vastly over-stating your case. A cursory Google search turns up information stating that at 400 yards 7.62x39 is going to drop somewhere between 40 and 70 inches depending on how the gun is zeroed. From the video, it's clear that the backstop is sufficient, and even assuming the worst case, that he's holding over by 70 inches, I doubt he's seeing anything other than the back stop.

Okay Gus McCrae and X-Rap! I cannot tell either of you what to do with your firearms. You may shoot them in any fashion you wish. I simply choose to first identify my targets and be able to see what I am shooting at before I pull the trigger.

I happen to be the Assistant Match Director for the tactical rifle match that Gus is talking about. Not only does he conduct himself safely on the firing line, he also did surprisingly well shooting an iron-sighted FAL.

For anyone who's shooting iron sights in field conditions at any serious distance, it's quite common to get on target, acquire the sights, and then adjust your hold upward in order to compensate for bullet drop. There's fundamentally nothing unsafe or unsound about this, as people have been using estimated holdover to engage targets for as long as combustion-powered firearms have been in use.

t165
November 16, 2009, 01:00 PM
Good grief X-Rap and Gus McCrae...did you both not read the entire thread. You both seem to want to brag about your self proclaimed prowess with firearms. Safety card? Hell yes...no matter how important either of you think you are it is all about safety. The genesis of this discussion is about safety. Only fools fire unless they know and can see thier targets. Do either of you really wish to argue that? I am ex-military. I am ex-LEO. I would advise anyone reading this thread to totally dismiss X-Rap and Gus McCrae because neither of them seem to have ever been the real thing. Shooting at anything without being able to identify your target is not only foolish it can lead to a criminal conviction. That this internet forum would allow such foolishness is amazing to me. I am a ex-LEO. My wife is still a practicing Federal agent. Never, ever, shoot at anything without first seeing your target. Do NOT listen to idiots who tell you it is okay to fire a weapon without seeing your target.

Justin
November 16, 2009, 01:06 PM
Wait, so what you're saying is that if you get into a position, line up on target, then focus your eye on the front sight, and adjust your hold in order to compensate for the bullet drop at a given distance, you're being unsafe?

Please explain this.

Also, please address the points in my previous post. If Gus is unsafe in his firearms handling, perhaps you'd care to explain why he was not pulled off of the line and disqualified at the match he participated in?

t165
November 16, 2009, 01:12 PM
Now it appears a moderator of "THE HIGH ROAD" is advocating shooting a firearm without being able to see your target. I'm sure the NRA would be real proud of this moderator also. Just another amateur who should not be listened to. This forum is sinking fast with such irresponsible behavior and advice. It is also liable. None of these guys are professionals in any way, shape or fashion. Do not listen to them. Shooting firearms at targets without being able to see what you are shooting at is not only reckless it is criminal.

Justin
November 16, 2009, 01:15 PM
So, what you're saying is that any time you shoot an iron-sighted firearm, both the front sight and the target are in perfect focus?

That any time you shoot at a target at a distance further/closer than what you zeroed it for that you do not hold high/low?

I find it quite curious that you would claim that techniques that are considered to be fundamental basics of marksmanship are somehow unsafe.

Please, enlighten us further.

X-Rap
November 16, 2009, 01:16 PM
I went back and read all over and the only thing I see is someone painting themselves into a corner one keystroke at a time.
The notion that safety cannot be achieved unless the target is setting directly atop the front post is pure bull.
With a good backstop and clear range this kind of shot is perfectly safe although maybe a waste of ammo. t, you make it sound as though the guy was lobbing rounds over the top of a hill into a school yard.
My position stands, the guy in the video is doing nothing spectacular and his method of sighting is well within the abilities of an average shooter and safe.

X-Rap
November 16, 2009, 01:21 PM
t, I would simply stop digging. You are begining to sound irrational. I would be happy to have you turn this over to the NRA, CIA, FBI or anyone you think cares and they too will laugh you off. There is no safety violation and none condoned.

RevolvingGarbage
November 16, 2009, 01:21 PM
Am I the only one who simply sets the front sight post on the target and then, hinging the rifle at the front sight, lowers the rifle to create the nessicary ballistic arc?

I mean you guys are talking about sighting on a far away target as though it were one at ~50 yards, then raising the rifle with the hingepoint being the butt of the rifle, so that you are aiming the sights at an estimated distance over a target? Correct?

Justin
November 16, 2009, 01:24 PM
t165, what are your marksmanship qualifications?

Are you a ranked Service Rifle, National Match, CMP, Bench Rest, or Silhouette shooter?

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us as to where you've placed at any of the regional or national-level 3Gun matches such as Rocky Mountain 3 Gun, Superstition Mystery Mountain, Fort Benning, Iron Man, DPMS Tri-Gun challenge, or any other match?

If I'm so unsafe, perhaps you'd care to explain this to the match directors of the matches I've been to? I can provide you with contact information if you like.

Robert
November 16, 2009, 01:24 PM
Yes, we are talking about holding the front sight over the top of the target to estimate elevation (hold over) rather than adjust the rear sight. In a match setting with targets at different distances this is easier and faster than adjusting your sights for 5 different targets at 5 different ranges.

t165
November 16, 2009, 01:24 PM
Read the posts again. I believe 50 to 70 inches is mentioned. The only people painting themselves into a corner is you and JUSTIN! Shooting at targets you cannot see is WRONG. I have seen what happens when "idiots" do such things. Argue all you want. I'll never back down. You and JUSTIN are not professional lawmen. You have never been. You will never be. There is not one single law enforcement agency or domestic firearm manufacturer who will back you on this. I'm surprised "The High Road" would even allow this JUSTIN fellow to be a moderator on this forum after the foolish and irresponsible dribble he is now spewing about just elevating a firearm and firing without being able to see your target. He should be replaced before "The High Road" gets sued for his stupid advice.

X-Rap
November 16, 2009, 01:28 PM
No what I said was take a shot with the sights dead on, note the impact distance below the target and compensate with a higher point of aim.
Very little guessing if you have decent perception of distance.
Using the battle sight to its full advantage would as you say would mean lowering the butt and keeping the post on target.
We are talking about compensation/hold over.

t165
November 16, 2009, 01:30 PM
Anyone who feels froggy then just call the federal authorities on me. I live in Indiana and you can just call the Indianapolis Federal Building. When the Agents get the call they can stop by my wife's office and we can all have a good laugh on you! I'll make sure they know the idiot who called thinks shooting at targets blindly is the mark of a good rifleman. Boy, this forum is sinking fast.

Robert
November 16, 2009, 01:30 PM
As a former Colorado State Trooper, left of my own accord on good terms with the Patrol, I would love to know what your credentials are. You say your were military. Great, what branch and what mos? You say you are former LEO, great, who did you work for? If you are going to make statements to the effect that you know better than us, please provide your training and experience.

Justin
November 16, 2009, 01:31 PM
You and JUSTIN are not professional lawmen.

Thankfully one doesn't need to be in law enforcement to understand basic physics.

t165
November 16, 2009, 01:34 PM
Justin! Got one of these. Or just some Bull**** out of a crackerjack box? You are not and will never be the real thing.

Justin
November 16, 2009, 01:36 PM
How odd, I see nothing in that document that says anything about your qualifications with a rifle.

However, as long as we're posting documents that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, here's mine:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=85136&d=1222147482

That said, I know there aren't a lot of long-distance rifle ranges in Indiana. Perhaps you've shot some High Power matches at Red Brush Rifle Range or Wild Cat Gun Club?

X-Rap
November 16, 2009, 01:42 PM
t Those credentials have squat to do with your experience, love or knowledge of the shooting sports of firearms.
There is a great percentage of armed professionals who have no clue about firearms other than what they are taught about their carry weapon. You sir are proving that point.

t165
November 16, 2009, 01:46 PM
Perhaps "The High Road" staff needs to know they have a moderator who advocates shooting at targets even when they cannot see them? What you are advocating is foolish and just plain wrong. I'm saving all of your comments. I'm going to forward them to all of the major publications. You are just plain wrong. Read this thread from the start. The video shows a man shooting a SKS at a very elevated angle without being able to see the front sight. How in gods name can you or this forum advocate this? I may be getting a bit angry over this but damn...that is not a safe practice. A little hold over in the field or target shooting is one thing but this is dangerous. It should not be promoted by "The High Road".

t165
November 16, 2009, 01:48 PM
I'm the person advocating safe shooting X-Rap. You are advocating "holdover" and let fly. Get real man!

glockgod
November 16, 2009, 01:49 PM
Excellent film!! Do the research on the rear sight settings on an SKS. At the 5 minute mark You can see the rear sight is in the "battle" position. This setting will get you hits on a torso sized target out to 300 meters. This "battle" setting is the one I use most. You just need to remember to aim for the go-nads between 100-200 yards or so to get good hits. If I could see a target at 420 yards I'd try it. Hell-sounds like fun!!!!:)

Justin
November 16, 2009, 01:51 PM
I'm saving all of your comments. I'm going to forward them to all of the major publications.

OH NOES! Would you also like me to forward the contact information for all of the match directors for the major matches I've attended? No doubt they would be happy to receive a heads up about an unsafe shooter who wishes to attend their competitions.

The video shows a man shooting a SKS at a very elevated angle without being able to see the front sight.

In the video, he appears to be quite capable of seeing the front sight.

I may be getting a bit angry over this but damn...that is not a safe practice. A little hold over in the field or target shooting is one thing but this is dangerous.

From the video, it's quite apparent that there is ample back stop to contain the bullets, and that he's doing a decent job of putting the rounds at least in the general vicinity of the target. I fail to see what is unsafe about this?

t165
November 16, 2009, 01:56 PM
Who here besides me has ever been at the scene of a firearm related accident where a person lost their life. No bull****...tell the truth. All I have been saying for the last three hours is to not shoot blindly. Make sure of your target. I have seen the devastation of these type accidents. I know I am coming off a bit hard but...


damnit...I just hate to see anyone else get hurt and see people cry because of firearm foolishness. I cannot make people listen to me. Perhaps I am just a fool to try. Shooting at anything whe you cannot see your target is not safe under any circumstances.

X-Rap
November 16, 2009, 01:58 PM
t, I am going to go and shoot at my mountain, PM if you need directions to send the black helo's. Maybe today I will try shooting the gun unside down so I can see the target.

rbernie
November 16, 2009, 02:03 PM
Make sure of your targetThis has nothing to do with holdover. In order to shoot at the target, you must first acquire it and verify that it is your target and that it's safe to shoot. Having done that, if the target is beyond the PBR of the weapon then hold-over must be used to correct for the trajectory.

Suggesting that holdover equates to not having adequately ensured the safety of the shot is just silly and should be more than a bit embarrassing.

t165
November 16, 2009, 02:04 PM
And the video is redacted. My god! Some people will believe anything. I understand all members of "The High Road' are not mensa but an IQ test should be performed on the moderators. Like PT Barnum said "there is one born every minute". The video is redacted JUSTIN "REDACTED". Do you understand what that means JUSTIN. I know you are not law enforcement or federal agent qualified but this is really simple stuff.

Robert
November 16, 2009, 02:08 PM
Who here besides me has ever been at the scene of a firearm related accident where a person lost their life. No bull****...tell the truth. All I have been saying for the last three hours is to not shoot blindly. Make sure of your target. I have seen the devastation of these type accidents. I know I am coming off a bit hard but...
Not I. But hows does that have anything to do with shooting a match on a closed range?

Justin
November 16, 2009, 02:08 PM
T165, the video appears to be working just fine.

Not I. But hows does that have anything to do with shooting a match on a closed range?

To say nothing of using proper holdover technique to engage a target at distance.

Andrew Wyatt
November 16, 2009, 02:16 PM
I know you are not law enforcement or federal agent qualified but this is really simple stuff.

I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans right now. there is no way you can not be joking.

t165
November 16, 2009, 02:30 PM
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.

t165
November 16, 2009, 02:38 PM
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. :eek:

Justin
November 16, 2009, 02:44 PM
The video is not a shooting match at a closed range. What ever gave you that idea Gus McCrae?

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.

My arguments are valid. The shooter in the video has his back sight set on the lowest setting.

So what?

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!

Way to keep it on The High Road. He's plainly using holdover to engage the target.

Shooting a weapon at this angle is commiting a criminal act if another person is injured.

As opposed to just blasting them at point-blank range?

I have absolutely no problem seeing him arrested if he has damaged property or injured someone.

What proof do you have that he injured anyone or damaged any property?

Andrew Wyatt
November 16, 2009, 02:50 PM
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.

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
November 16, 2009, 02:51 PM
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

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
November 16, 2009, 02:59 PM
This thread needs some popcorn... :D

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
November 16, 2009, 03:11 PM
This thread reminds be of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cripple_Fight).

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.

All I have been saying for the last three hours is to not shoot blindly. Make sure of your 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?

t165
November 16, 2009, 03:14 PM
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
November 16, 2009, 03:17 PM
I'm tired of the personal attacks in this one. We're done.

If you enjoyed reading about "SKS 420 yard shots" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!