Household Cavalry was historically full of posh people (because of the prestige of being the mounted guards of the royal family) and they objected to the rank of sergeant because the word derives from the word "servant"
American Civil War: Unknown Confederate - 1,390 yards
American Indian Wars: Billy Dixon - 1,538 yards
World War I: Herbert Sleigh - 1,400 yards
Vietnam War: Carlos Hathwiener - 2,500 yards
Soviet-Afghan War: Vladimir Ilyin - 1,476 yards
Iraq War: Brian Kremer - 2,515 yards
War in Afghanistan: Unknown Australian - 3,079 yards
MONUSCO: Unknown South African - 2,324 yards
Yemeni Civil War: Unknown Saudi - 1,859 yards
Iraqi Civil War: Unknown Canadian - 3,871 yards
For a very long while, .50BMG was the best since it was the biggest cartridge with a decent BC out there. Sure, African big game rifles existed (notably even used in WW1 for sniping) but lacked the high BC bullets to use at long distance. This meant that if you had to choose between 7.62x51 or .50, the latter was a good choice but came at a high cost: having to lug a Ma Deuce, at least for decades. Some bolt action guns existed, but the main solution to that problem was the Barrett - problem is, that is semi-auto with a lot of moving parts, a 1MOA gun at best, especially with machine gun ammo. Note that most of the military long range shots were made with fancy API or Raufoss ammo, because it's know for accuracy due to higher quality.
Is .50BMG inaccurate? Not inherently so, but the military ammo can be, especially in a rifle that was designed to shoot minute-of-IFV I stead of minute-of-angle. For a sniper cartridge it can be considered to be bad in the sense that it requires lugging around an excessively heavy rifle, with very limited extra capability compared to a .338 Magnum - that extra capability only shows in one specific record list. There's a reason the US is simplifying everything with a single platform that only goes up to .338 Magnum: it can do 99% of what they need, without requiring 150-200% of the weight.
Outside of the military, .50BMG still holds strong, only being outpaced by rather niche calibres such as .375 Cheytac, .416 Barrett and similar wildcats - although not in all cases.
Marksmanship tradition dating back to the days of archery, strong focus on accuracy during training (similar to US Marines back when they gave a crap) and still a relatively strong long range civilian shooting community (e.g. Bisley). Also, each individual cartridge required a license, so you better make them count.
Spaniards were pretty close. But yes, ultimately the Anglo won because even in today's globohomosexual they have a high standard of marksmanship despite their laws and now gay-a-fied culture.
Compared to more modern bullet designs with high BC? It's not that great for its size class. However it's better than smaller calibers simply by virtue of being fricking massive and heavy.
There are likely a lot of black ops confirmed kills at distances beyond these that just aren't declassified, and depending on their nature may never be public knowledge.
Most of those kills aren't from some fancy black ops one-shot one-kill deal, but rather from a team setting up a good position and establishing good holdovers for each sector of fire. Most of those shots took several sighters/misses, you don't have that luxury in special operations.
>But morons still say 50 BMG is inaccurate or bad sniper cartridge...
None of those shot were done with standard HMG ammo.
All snipers are reloaders, it's one of the basic skill taught when you're doing the training. >bad sniper cartridge
No one said that. Just that given it's size and bulk you could make better ones. But custom load custom bullets in .50 bmg works very well.
>All snipers are reloaders, it's one of the basic skill taught when you're doing the training.
I've never heard of this, at least in US doctrine the MoD just issues specialty ammo for snipers - reloading it yourself would be a pain in the ass and a real occupational hazard. Do you any sources on that?
338 can penetrate level IV armor from 200 yards. 50 can penetrate level IV armor no matter how long is the distance.
Why does armor penetration matter within 500 yards? If you can shoot minute of angles you can reliably hit heads at that distance. Beyond that distance armor penetration is much less important, I've never heard of it being an issue for snipers. Even with .338 it's gonna be a significant emotional event.
by your logic an m2 browning is the fourth most accurate gun in the world
>Corporal of horse
What the frick is that
brits were 'avin a laff an trained a 'orse ta shoot
quite funny innit
equiv to E6/Sgt but guy's posted to HCav, which uses funny names for most of its ranks
Household Cavalry was historically full of posh people (because of the prestige of being the mounted guards of the royal family) and they objected to the rank of sergeant because the word derives from the word "servant"
American Civil War: Unknown Confederate - 1,390 yards
American Indian Wars: Billy Dixon - 1,538 yards
World War I: Herbert Sleigh - 1,400 yards
Vietnam War: Carlos Hathwiener - 2,500 yards
Soviet-Afghan War: Vladimir Ilyin - 1,476 yards
Iraq War: Brian Kremer - 2,515 yards
War in Afghanistan: Unknown Australian - 3,079 yards
MONUSCO: Unknown South African - 2,324 yards
Yemeni Civil War: Unknown Saudi - 1,859 yards
Iraqi Civil War: Unknown Canadian - 3,871 yards
why are anglos so good at sniping
can't afford much ammo so trained to use it carefully
For a very long while, .50BMG was the best since it was the biggest cartridge with a decent BC out there. Sure, African big game rifles existed (notably even used in WW1 for sniping) but lacked the high BC bullets to use at long distance. This meant that if you had to choose between 7.62x51 or .50, the latter was a good choice but came at a high cost: having to lug a Ma Deuce, at least for decades. Some bolt action guns existed, but the main solution to that problem was the Barrett - problem is, that is semi-auto with a lot of moving parts, a 1MOA gun at best, especially with machine gun ammo. Note that most of the military long range shots were made with fancy API or Raufoss ammo, because it's know for accuracy due to higher quality.
Is .50BMG inaccurate? Not inherently so, but the military ammo can be, especially in a rifle that was designed to shoot minute-of-IFV I stead of minute-of-angle. For a sniper cartridge it can be considered to be bad in the sense that it requires lugging around an excessively heavy rifle, with very limited extra capability compared to a .338 Magnum - that extra capability only shows in one specific record list. There's a reason the US is simplifying everything with a single platform that only goes up to .338 Magnum: it can do 99% of what they need, without requiring 150-200% of the weight.
Outside of the military, .50BMG still holds strong, only being outpaced by rather niche calibres such as .375 Cheytac, .416 Barrett and similar wildcats - although not in all cases.
Marksmanship tradition dating back to the days of archery, strong focus on accuracy during training (similar to US Marines back when they gave a crap) and still a relatively strong long range civilian shooting community (e.g. Bisley). Also, each individual cartridge required a license, so you better make them count.
Thanks for the write up. Another dump taken on Amerimutts
338 can penetrate level IV armor from 200 yards. 50 can penetrate level IV armor no matter how long is the distance.
Because the Anglo man is the greatest warrior the world has ever known.
Spaniards were pretty close. But yes, ultimately the Anglo won because even in today's globohomosexual they have a high standard of marksmanship despite their laws and now gay-a-fied culture.
Beady eyes
One is french
Compared to more modern bullet designs with high BC? It's not that great for its size class. However it's better than smaller calibers simply by virtue of being fricking massive and heavy.
There are likely a lot of black ops confirmed kills at distances beyond these that just aren't declassified, and depending on their nature may never be public knowledge.
Most of those kills aren't from some fancy black ops one-shot one-kill deal, but rather from a team setting up a good position and establishing good holdovers for each sector of fire. Most of those shots took several sighters/misses, you don't have that luxury in special operations.
>But morons still say 50 BMG is inaccurate or bad sniper cartridge...
None of those shot were done with standard HMG ammo.
All snipers are reloaders, it's one of the basic skill taught when you're doing the training.
>bad sniper cartridge
No one said that. Just that given it's size and bulk you could make better ones. But custom load custom bullets in .50 bmg works very well.
>All snipers are reloaders, it's one of the basic skill taught when you're doing the training.
I've never heard of this, at least in US doctrine the MoD just issues specialty ammo for snipers - reloading it yourself would be a pain in the ass and a real occupational hazard. Do you any sources on that?
Why does armor penetration matter within 500 yards? If you can shoot minute of angles you can reliably hit heads at that distance. Beyond that distance armor penetration is much less important, I've never heard of it being an issue for snipers. Even with .338 it's gonna be a significant emotional event.
What sort of business does a soldier have shooting someone 3,871yd away?
Sounds like some bullshit staged theatrics.