Introducing the Gizmag Store

World's longest sniper kill - 2.47km twice!

By

May 5, 2010

World's longest sniper kill - 2.47km twice!

World's longest sniper kill - 2.47km twice!

Image Gallery (10 images)

The sniper is without doubt the most feared combatant in any theater of war, the best of whom have an array of skills far beyond simply being able to hit human targets at a distance. Snipers are the most cost effective way of killing the enemy.

Individual snipers routinely account for more kills than entire battalions operating in the same place at the same time, hit the target almost every time, and each bullet costs around €2.

Whatsmore, snipers inflict a psychological terror on an enemy force that restricts its ability to operate effectively – when elite snipers are operating, they are invisible close up, and can strike from enormous distance, so nowhere is safe.

World's longest sniper kill - 2.47km twice!

Indeed, an elite sniper's skills cannot be assessed with a single measurement, so the “longest confirmed kill” record stands as the pseudo world championship for military combat riflemen, and as of now there's a new outright champion - using an Accuracy International L115A3, British Corporal Craig Harrison killed two Taliban with consecutive shots at a distance of 2.47 kilometres (8120 ft) in Helmand Province, Afghanistan last November (2009). He then fired a third shot and hit the Taliban's PKM machinegun in perhaps the most prodigious feat of marksmanship in military history.

World's longest sniper kill - 2.47km twice!

If you're wondering why it took so long for Harrison's kill to be made public, (it was made last November and only became commonly known in the last few days), understand that the publicity such a feat brings may not necessarily be wanted, or healthy, particularly if you are still "in theater". Harrison, who also survived a bullet passing through his helmet, and two broken arms from an IED explosion, has now finished his tour of duty and the story can be told.

World's longest sniper kill - 2.47km twice!

The previous longest kill by Canadian Army Corporal Rob Furlong had been spoken of by soldiers in hushed tones for five years before it fell upon the ears of a reporter and become public knowledge and his name revealed.

Harrison's feat is clearly the stuff of legend.

The previous record holder - Furlong - killed an al-Qaeda fighter from 2.43 km during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan in 2002. Furlong's shot was also legendary – he made military history. There would not be any military personnel in the world who would not be aware of Furlong's feat, and subsequently Harrison's, and who would not measure that distance off towards the horizon every day when they are in a combat zone.

World's longest sniper kill - 2.47km twice!

Harrison bested it TWICE – with consecutive shots – then fired at and hit the much smaller target of the gun the Taliban had been carrying. This is completely without parallel in military history.

The rifle used by Furlong for his previous record was the “Big Mac”, the McMillan Bros Tac-50 used by Canadian Special Forces and the best .50 sniper rifle in the world.

World's longest sniper kill - 2.47km twice!

Like Juan Manuel Fangio's car, Valentino Rossi's motorcycle or Sir Donald Bradman's bat, a varying proportion of the glory should also go to the champion's tool of choice – for snipers, the tool of choice is critical, with Harrison using an Accuracy International L115A3 Long-Range rifle – a rifle originally developed by an Olympic gold medalist target shooter which we wrote up two years ago in an article entitled – the best sniper rifle in the world.

World's longest sniper kill - 2.47km twice!

Craig Harrison's AI L115A3 cost the British Ministry of Defence GBP23,000 (US$34,000), weighs 6.8 kilograms, and fires an 8.59mm bullet which is heavier than the 7.62mm round of the previous L96 model and hence less likely to be deflected over extremely long ranges. The L115A3 has a five-round magazine, enabling the sniper to fire five rounds rapidly, though that would almost never happen.

The L115A3 has an adjustable cheek piece to comfortably align the shooter's eye with scope, and a folding stock so the rifle can be more easily carried in a backpack.

It comes with an adjustable bi-pod stand and a suppressor to reduce the flash and noise of the gun – once the enemy knows where a sniper is, he too becomes a target – and a scope, in this case a 25 X magnification S&B 5-25x56 day scope.

In extremely skilled hands, the L115A3 can hit a human-sized target from 1400 meters (even at that range, it hits harder than a .44 Magnum does in the same room), which means Harrison's shots put him in almost superhuman company, as he almost doubled that distance, in combat, and killed a first then second Taliban with consecutive shots, then took a third shot at the PKM machinegun they unfortunate pair had been carrying with the intention of disabling it – the gun was hit but damage could not be assessed.

World's longest sniper kill - 2.47km twice!

Firing one bullet with that accuracy over more than a mile and half, has never been recorded previously – Harrison did it three times running. Though the bullet leaves the barrel at three times the speed of sound, it still takes more than two and a half seconds to travel that distance. Though the day was clear and still and in thin mountain air, Harrison still had to aim six feet higher than the targets, and two feet to the left to allow for the gentlest of breezes and bullet fall.

While Harrison's feat is perhaps the most prodigious in the history of military marksmanship, the most common way of assessing the effectiveness of a sniper is the number of "kills" and by that measure, Finland's Simo Häyhä was the most deadly sniper in history.

During just 100 days of the Winter War (1939–1940), between Finland and the Soviet Union, Häyhä was credited with 505 confirmed kills of Soviet soldiers - that's five a day. He worked in white camouflage in temperatures between −40 and −20 degrees Celsius, and amassed the greatest sniper tally in history.

Besides his sniper kills he was credited with 200 from a Suomi KP/31 Submachine gun, topping off his total confirmed kills at 705.

If the world of the military sniper is intriguing to you, I can suggest an excellent new book on the subject written by Hans Halberstadt entitled “Trigger Men” I just spent seven and a half hours listening to the audio book though, go figure, exactly the same book is much cheaper in printed form, despite the cost of paper and printing and binding and schlepping and postage.

The book more than adequately kept my brain busy during an international flight and covers the exploits of the modern sniper with hours of anecdotes from Iraq and other recent wars. Halberstadt spoke with some of the most revered names in sniping history to put the book together – names such as Carlos Hathcock II, who recorded 93 kills, including one of 2.29 kilometers during the Vietnam war, and Sgt James Gilliland, who also pulled off one of the most remarkable kill shots ever recorded in a strong breeze. The role of the sniper has changed, and this book explains why.

About the Author
Mike Hanlon After Editing or Managing over 50 print publications primarily in the role of a Magazine Doctor, Mike embraced the internet full-time in 1995 and became a "start-up all-rounder" – quite a few start-ups later, he founded Gizmag in 2002. Now he can write again.   All articles by Mike Hanlon
Tags
56 Comments

I'm always so thrilled to read about our efficient killing machines. Why I bet that a consumer version of this sniper rifle would be a big hit.

Hey maybe we could have a reality based TV show where contestants try to make difficult kill shots....

DemonDuck
5th May, 2010 @ 05:55 am PDT

three hits in one target zone,, WOW ! proves it was not just a lucky shot

robinyatesuk2003
5th May, 2010 @ 06:52 am PDT

I don't think that killing people from a long distance is cause for celebration. It may be necessary, but killing people is always tragic.

Mickey
5th May, 2010 @ 07:34 am PDT

Wow. Some serious hype here.

The primary utility of a sniper is intelligence gathering--infiltration, scopes, radios and sat phones means lots of information for tactical planning. Killing is secondary, but useful if the opportunity presents itself, and doesn't hinder intelligence.

And no, they don't "routinely" kill more troops than entire battalions. Most snipers will have one or two kills in their entire career.

Iman Azol
5th May, 2010 @ 08:48 am PDT

Thank you very much for this information.

I was wondering if you could also provide updated information of cost effective top nuclear weapons?

I think, with all my respect, you should restrict your technology screen update to peace, wealth and sustainability oriented developments. We need urgently a shortcut to live in a better worl. So, please help the world, not the contrary.

THIS IS A WORLDWIDE DEMAND !!!!!

Got it ?

HOPEFULLY.

Gonzalo Villouta Stengl
5th May, 2010 @ 08:48 am PDT

Wonderful to see Gizmag celebrating murder in a foreign country - keep up the good work !...

Henri

mhenriday
5th May, 2010 @ 10:32 am PDT

Hats off to the snipers mentioned here for their prowess.

That being said, my sentimental favourite and personal 'Greatest of Them All' is SIno Hayha of Finland.

The fellow's credited with something like 500 confirmed kills and another 40-odd if unconfirmed ones are added. He's also credited with a couple 100 more, but those were machine-gun ones.

Even more amazing, he did this:

- in less than 100 days (!!!);

- during the 1939-40 Winter War against the Red Army when it invaded Finland;

- in minus 20 to minus 40 degree weather;

- on days where the Sun was up for short hours;

- he used 1930-40s technology ... and he used METAL sights rather than telescopic ones because the latter might reflect light that would reveal him to the enemy;

- to make him invisible as possible, he'd breathe out through his mouth, which he filled with snow ... the snow would prevent his breath from condensing outside of him and revealing his position.

Plus, he took a shot to the face and survived! Now, THAT is ONE tough farm boy!

Hail, Finland, HAIL! And viva Simo Hayha!

And no, I'm not Finnish.

Dread Zontar
5th May, 2010 @ 11:14 am PDT

I see noting exciting about a man that shots two other men, enemies or not.

Facebook User
5th May, 2010 @ 12:08 pm PDT

I easily see why this accomplishment is fascinating. The level of skill is impressing. The setting is severe, whatever definition of that word is used. The feeling of "showing them bad guys" something. And a lot more related thoughts.

But I assume that the guy who did achieve these extremely difficult kills, will think the attitude in this article is rather sickening. He's been in serious danger many times. He will have had PLENTY of time in bad places, contemplating the value of life, his own and any others. He will have thought about the possibility of roles being reversed, and that being as justified, and as real. Situations when reality in its gravest form is very close, make people realize a lot...

Treating kills as some sort of sports achievement, is very wrong. This piece of text is highly disrespectful of the situation. I would guess that Corporal Craig Harrison, given the chance, would like to slap the writer in the face, like you do when a kid has behaved really offensively, but mostly not meant badly. I think the writer has just not thought properly about it.

I see this type of writing a byproduct of a culture I dislike. It seems as this culture has a strong following in the US. The National Rifle Association, NRA, seems to be one breeding ground for extremely soft brains. I hope someone is offended by that. But more strongly I hope the writer was just sloppy with his style, and that the resemblance with people who think philosophy is a clothing brand, was a mishap.

Just to emphasise: I do not try to say that this topic should not be covered in Gizmag. But with such a serious and sensitive topic, a writer with a better sense of reality, and of what he's discussing, should be used. The mentioned killings did not take place in "Star Wars" or "Avatar". They were real killings. Yes shooting them probably was right, but that really is a choice between very bad and even worse. The two dead had parents, and probably kids and more. Many people now suffer. Most likely Corporal Craig Harrison is one of them. You never forget a kill. This is probably why it took so long to reach the public. None implied wanted this type of attention.

Seeing a war scene makes sure you know it's nowhere near a sport, an adventure or heroism. No winners. All loose. It's a very bad hell. Only that. Please remember this, out of respect for people involved, and out of respect for what type of attitudes can be tolerated in our society. Treating killings as sports is just NOT tolerable.

Stein
5th May, 2010 @ 06:33 pm PDT

Anyone watching Thai TV on any channel from 11th to about 15th April could witness a flag waving street protestor in the middle of a crowd being hit in the head by a sniper and the devastating effect thereof.

Its one thing to read a book about it but another to see this actually happen in front of your eyes in your home.

We were told later that the rifle used was from Israel and said to cost $150,000 with specialist training an extra cost. Also a photo in the local Thai paper recently shows a soldier on a pedestrian overpass sprawled behind a sniper rifle along with a spotter man checking targets below . I cannot identify if the weapon was one of those mentioned here.

Biggles
5th May, 2010 @ 09:45 pm PDT

In the amount of space any given article gets, I did not think it glorified killing people as much as it emphasized the amount of technology (or lack of), and innate skill it takes to pull off shots like that.

Not to mention the hours, probably days, maybe weeks, just to get position for the shot.

Then you have to get out!

Remember, every one of them were needed for a very specific job, at a very specific time, in a very specific place.

"Decisionmakers" sent them on their missions.

poolplayer
6th May, 2010 @ 03:41 am PDT

Of course an audio book costs more than a printed book! Printing costs for a standard run of books (5000 and up) are normally between 2-4% of the up-front (let alone overall) cost of production compared to other expenses (editing, marketing etc). Studio time, actor hire, mixing and mastering just one time, regularly costs far more and as less audio books are typically sold (even at the same price) a higer cost is needed to cover these expenses.

earlleonard
6th May, 2010 @ 04:36 pm PDT

Gonzala: Considering the number of wars currently ongoing (and throughout history), your "worldwide demand!" for peaceful commentary is laughingly rejected.

Though I believe any time terrorists agree to stop blowing up buses, police stations, hospitals, housing areas, rocketing farms and beheading hostages, civilized nations will be more than happy to bring our troops home and concentrate on earthquakes and other natural disasters.

To all the lusers ranting about, "Murder," you will not find any UN commission, International Court or any other body to entertain the notion that such term applies to soldiers operating within regulations to kill established threats or enemies. Grow up and stop whining.

Iman Azol
7th May, 2010 @ 04:49 am PDT

Bypassing for the moment the morality of snipers in a war situation where all parties are shooting, it seems extremely careless to give the names of these soldiers. I would not care to be them or their families now that you've painted a target on them all.

Gary Fisher
8th May, 2010 @ 11:12 am PDT

It's a cause for celebration when it's an American soldier who makes that kill. If a Taliban did it, I bet you there's gonna be a worldwide uproar.

Facebook User
8th May, 2010 @ 09:47 pm PDT

a nice record :)

Saami Matloob
9th May, 2010 @ 03:38 am PDT

Hoo-aah!

Craig Jennings
9th May, 2010 @ 08:46 pm PDT

the USA, the British and others are fighting a war in Afghanistan,how anyone can be critical of the legal shooting of two enemy combatants is beyond me.Was the machine gun the Taliban were carrying being used for shooting paper targets or a Western soldier ?, the answer is obvious. War is awful but a soldier is just doing his job whether shooting an enemy or repairing a bridge. The sniper involved must be given huge kudos for his unbelievable accuracy... RIP the two Taliban

robinyatesuk2003
10th May, 2010 @ 02:17 am PDT

Actually,

the USA, the British and others are occupying a country, Afghanistan. Afghanistan never invaded the US or Britain.

Aloysius
10th May, 2010 @ 05:04 pm PDT

It is truly a shame that so few of your readers recognize that snipers limit the carnage of war. Point in fact, the USA won their break from England via snipers specifically killing the officers and targeting the the enemy canon loaders. Granted, the French Navy did join in towards the end.

Having said that, it is long past time for the US to wake up to the fact that they are not the policemen of the world. Keep them and their dollars within their borders.

mildot
10th May, 2010 @ 05:24 pm PDT

Stay within their borders? Don't be policemen?

Yup... just like WWII, everyone should have waited for the enemy to come to them,

worked for the French, clean conscience that way right?

Craig Jennings
11th May, 2010 @ 03:21 am PDT

"I don't think that killing people from a long distance is cause for celebration. It may be necessary, but killing people is always tragic."

People die...stop crying like a baby. It happens. People kill, people murder, people die from old age....get use to it.

DxDark
12th May, 2010 @ 11:27 am PDT

This is what i call synergy between the bullet, the properties of the environment and the bio- energy field of the sharpshooter,... So the next logical move would be to have this kind of weapon but then with a high power pulse laser so you can shoot @ the speed of light,...

Vincent
13th May, 2010 @ 11:08 am PDT

I didn't know that there were so many idiots that read Gizmag. Sure, if everyone had their choice "world peace" would be nice but its just not an option. There is no peace without war. Murder? Are you kiding me? Murder is what happened on 9/11. The deaths to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are the consequence of those murders. Over the years it has been the American soldier that has bled and died so that you could have the freedom to be an idiot. Try going to China or N. Koria and bashing their leaders, you and your family would disapeer. Stop and thank a soldier for doing what you dont have the courage to do yourself. And yes you are correct it is cause for celebration when an American soldier rids this world of another worthless terrorist. On the topic of occupation, the US would be happy to get out of that God forsaken sand pit but the good people of those countries can not defend themselves yet. We leave, the terrorists take over and then we either have to go back or we end up fighting them on our own soil. I say take the war to their country. I am sure we will take out a loan from China to rebuild their country when its over. Half of you people could think your way out of a paper bag. Kudos to this and all US military soldiers. Keep up the good work and thank you for your service to this great country. "God Bless the US"

fox4hhhh
14th May, 2010 @ 07:44 am PDT

Let's all feast in the coming new weapondevelopments, the best killing machines are yet to be unveilied. Snipers will soon be rendered useless, or at least unecessary when drones come full force. So will all the useless eaters and overflowing biomass on tellus be rendered unwanted and a threat to security. By then you had better dug a whole in a mountain full of offgrid technology and security systems. If not you should learn to love being a slave for a dominant elite.

Jabelom
15th May, 2010 @ 04:29 pm PDT

Murder is ok, when it stabilizes failing coorporations.

Jabelom
15th May, 2010 @ 04:31 pm PDT

Americans of this "now" generation have little memory or understanding of the military. They should just be thankful that military people put their lives on the line so the current generation has the privilege of protesting, playing Xboxes, doing drugs, voting, ranting online and pursuing whatever they want.

Briconne
18th June, 2010 @ 07:15 pm PDT

Kudos to Iman Azol and Briconne, you couldn't have said it better. So many don't either know or want to acknowlege the importance or necessity of armed forces in the security of civilization. THANKS TO ALL OF AMERICA'S UNIFORMED MEN AND WOMEN.

Facebook User
4th July, 2010 @ 07:47 pm PDT

i understand that it must suck to have to kill someone and it must eat at you. but in self-defense or in a combat situation where its either him or me, im sorry, but...

I HAVE TO GO HOME TO SEE MY WIFE! IM GOING HOME A WINNER!!!

Brandon Ribergaard
12th July, 2010 @ 07:35 am PDT

Great article Mike. This achievement is a legendry feat witch combines both the cutting edge in manual weaponry, & the legionary technological & physical skills of it's user. To have a manual weapon achieve that accuracy over that distance is out standing. But for anyone to have the technical & physical skills to hit a target 2.47 KM away is legendary, & this feat will be told, taught & admired in armed forces institutions & colleges through out the world. What's more the setting of this achievement was certainly just. Two warring armed forces NATO against the Taliban {at war since 9/11}, a highly trained NATO sniper against a Taliban heavy machine gun nest with a PMK heavy machinegun, capable of firing 800 rounds a minute & a kill range of 1500M {this weapon has a major kill rate history}. Given the opportunity the machine gun crew would have inflicted far grater casualties on NATO forces.

This achievement has both technical & scientific accolades in weaponry, as well as human physical & technological excellence & absolutely deserves to be published in any media including Gizmag. Good on you Mike, great article.

CAMASAR
19th July, 2010 @ 09:56 pm PDT

In Australia motor vehicles & cigarettes kill tens of thousands of citizens more, than deaths in combat of all there armed forcers put together every single year. And might I add, many die in just as gruesome manner. But you don't hear any bleeding harts calling for the cancellation or scaling back of publication, promotion & advertisement of these indiscriminant killing machines & poisons. I would rather a sniper neutralize two hostiles entrenched in a PKM machinegun nest {PKM specs : 7,62x54R Caliber, 250 rounds belt, 800 rounds per minute, kill range 1500M} from 2.47 KM away, than to have them inflict major devastation on our troops on any field of battle. I say, both the weapon & its operator have achieved what was before unachievable & highly deserve accreditation in what is a legendary military feat. All be it a gruesome one. I find it disturbing some people ignore the massacring of thousands of innocent civilians by heavily armed military forcers around the world, & yet seam fit to condemn a single conflict between personal of two army's at war.

CAMASAR
20th July, 2010 @ 12:15 am PDT

It was a great job, unless he use the sniper pocket, no let me name it , THE SNIPPER FIELD CALCULATOR, tactical calculator designed to correct the accuracy,loaded with parabolic ecuations an a built in weather station.

i am not agree with that war, all was an invention to get the land and oil from the people who live there.

but it was a nice job, i will place a long range shooting camp.

Roberto Salvador Alvarez
15th September, 2010 @ 08:27 am PDT

We all make mistakes ... and today, GizMag, it's your turn.

Let's move on ..

tkj
12th November, 2010 @ 08:06 am PST

I agree with the fact that people my age in this country dont appreciate what the military does for us. Im proud to be an american, but i will admit that there is no way to feel what my father and grandfather went through. And when a terrorist comes into your country and decides to kill thousends of your people, you might understand why we did what we did in 2001. Yes death is tragic but its part of life, but if you are trying to kill some one in my family blood or otherwise, or you made a ball less attack on citizens may god of mercy on your soul cause i sure as hell wont show you any.

Joshua Goodey
7th March, 2011 @ 09:43 am PST

Camasar said it all

Joshua Goodey
7th March, 2011 @ 09:47 am PST

O' come on !...

one cant even see clearly at 1 mile let alone shoot at 1.53 miles, and twice or thrice.

And what's this "side wind" correction hype ?

how can one be sure about exact wind conditions thousands of meters between two places on earth ?

By all practicality, all sniper shots are flukes with a 50-50 chance. How do you know how many snipers fired and missed ? Its only when they hit that we know about 'em.

AnaDigiNano
26th April, 2011 @ 12:59 am PDT

Wow, the liberals are really getting their panties in a bundle over this article. Nicely done Gizmag!

JLR
30th June, 2011 @ 05:04 pm PDT

With a spotter, even a miss is calculated into getting the next shot accurately on target.

I don't think the writer was over bearing on the information the rest of us would like to know. This is military grade weapons, and what they will do to kill the enemy, if you don't like it, don't read the article! The writer can't very well explain the ins and outs of the product without giving us some information on what the weapon is capable of.

Maybe if you want to help just hop on a plane to Afghanistan and pass out flowers. And we will see if that helped, if you are still here to write about it.

Bluejeans
21st July, 2011 @ 08:20 pm PDT

Ok, and what about these 3 shots at 2520 yards in Future Waepons, using a Cheytac M200, by Richard "Mack" Machowicz ;)

Patrick Savalle
7th August, 2011 @ 05:04 am PDT

Half way through these comments everyone seems to revert back to anti US sentiment... He is a BRITISH soldier... (English guy comment)

He is a hero and he is doing his job in war in a very special way.

Christopher McBean
7th September, 2011 @ 07:59 am PDT

"I just spent seven and a half hours listening to the audio book though, go figure, exactly the same book is much cheaper in printed form, despite the cost of paper and printing and binding and schlepping and postage."

Do you have any idea of the amount of work involved in recording an audio book?

Or the rates charged by Voice Artists?

It would seem the "more kills than most battalions' gaff wasn't your last one.

Dave Walters
16th October, 2011 @ 06:46 am PDT

The technology is ripe to create sniper rifle with guided bullets so that any soldier can use the weapon effectively without a long and arduous training. There's already smart bomb and smart missile, why is there no smart bullet?

Maybe it's more satisfying to man a powerful rifle? Or perhaps the military will not fund such research because it could end their sniper division?

MrGadget
21st October, 2011 @ 07:23 pm PDT

The longest shots in Iraq were of similar range and killed two men installing a road side bomb at night. A tank crew using the main gun fired two rounds, each round hitting a torso without exploding. Warfare is neither glamorous nor a lark. Human nature being what it is, conflict is difficult to avoid. There is a world of difference between being a peacemaker and an anti-war activist.

Grant-53
16th January, 2012 @ 04:41 pm PST

You should write about Chris Kyle, America's deadliest sniper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kyle

Max6512
22nd May, 2012 @ 06:15 am PDT

I like the Cheytac with the 338 round.

Sonya Jones
22nd May, 2012 @ 11:02 am PDT

although the longest shot was by craig harrison, Rob furlong definitely had more skill. it took Craig Harrison 9 shots just to hit the first target and the second kill was easier because he already knew how much to compensate, the third hit was luck. none of his targets were moving. Rob Furlong made his kill (which was only 45 meters shorter) with only 3 shots (as opposed to 9), not to mention he hit a moving target.

kev254
22nd May, 2012 @ 08:56 pm PDT

For all you moralists out there (of which I am one) I heard Furlong talk about his shot. It took him two preliminary tries to get the compensation for the wind etc right and the dumb (or gutsy) Taliban guy who knew he was being targeted and was even hit in the pack on number 2, kept walking at the same pace. The third shot dropped him. I could see that Furlong was proud of his shot but not really reveling in the kill. On the other hand the bad guy was carrying an RPG and could have killed Allied soldiers. He was just doing his job.

Furlong also admitted there was a large measure of luck involved at these ranges, no matter how good the shooter is.

escher7
16th June, 2012 @ 11:57 pm PDT

So many decry the sniper.

Just what do you suppose the two Tali-ban were going to do with their machine gun?

Snipers very often save many more lives than they take because they make a large area unusable to the enemy who are certainly trying to kill people as well. It is a war, people fight and people die. So it has always been and it does not look like changing.

That machine gun may have killed many more humans, may have already killed many more humans than what the sniper did by taking them out

Good shooting I say

vblancer
1st August, 2012 @ 01:52 pm PDT

I'm sure many snipers do not glorify or relish their jobs. Killing is never a wholesome job.

James Yamaguchi
25th December, 2012 @ 10:01 am PST

you forgot to mention that Carlos Hathcock shot another sniper through his scope and into his head. Thats kinda a big deal

Zeroo Ragnarok
8th May, 2013 @ 09:00 pm PDT

Only one mention of CPO Chris Kyle and it was a comment. He was a legend as much as any of the other snipers listed in this article.

Trenton Bullard
24th May, 2013 @ 07:49 am PDT

People who hate war the most are those that have been there. It is not a pleasent duty, but something that at times, needs to be done. As I always said, we, the many, are greatful for all we have because of the brave few...

Thanks to all who wear the uniform and allowing me to do what I do in a safe and free country.

Thanks Gizmag for a great article. Those who do not like it should simply skip it. Don't read it and then complain....!

boxer
18th June, 2013 @ 11:21 am PDT

While I realize that some are offended by this article, if you love science at heart, then you'll realize that this is still a gigantic leap in terms of weapons capability, as well as human capability. Carlos Hathcock II held this record for a very, very long time. I still enjoy his feat the most, because it was said to have been done with a single shot. I don't say that to discount the new records. They're still beyond the capabilities of most shooters.

An interesting fact about Hathcocks shot is that it was made using a Browning .50 caliber heavy barreled machine gun. This machine gun has a single shot mode, and he had outfitted it with a makeshift optical mount, and an Unertyl scope. This machine gun is still the main heavy machine gun of the US military, even today. The story behind its creation is equally as impressive as its feats on the battlefield.

The teams that broke his record, were indeed using a TAC-50, but they were out of their own ammunition. They were offered supplemental .50 BMG ammunition from the US Special Forces team that they were operating with. They found that our rounds shot hotter (or farther) than their own. And that's one of the key factors that enabled them to make the shots at that incredible distance.

The fact that the current record was made by a rifle shooting .338 Lapua rounds just shows that we're finally progression beyond the capabilities of the .50 BMG round, and that we're only going to see this distance increase over time.

SGT G

US Army Master Gunner and Senior Small Arms Instructor

Bigolfishy
26th July, 2013 @ 10:10 pm PDT

I don't know what to say. Regardless of the controversial subject matter, it is a poorly written article. I felt like I was -re-reading entire paragraphs; such was the repetition and jumpcut editing between people and subject.

Whilst I realise snipers play an important part in war, it left a bad taste reading the author's enthralled celebration and gusto at the new record for a way in which another human was killed. Almost like how a sports fan might talk about an improbable goal in a football match.

I like gizmag for the tech news and whilst I realise the military are often the ones who drive innovation, let's not turn this into a gung-ho, far right, let's celebrate this new method of killing brown skinned people in far off lands. There I've said it.

Cue flaming from conservatives. Proceed.

Hundy
6th December, 2013 @ 04:10 am PST

Wow, looks like this topic hit a lot of raw nerves. For my part, I wonder how Harrison and all the others who fought in Afghanistan will feel in a couple of years when the Taliban have regained control of the country and all the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars will have been wasted in vain...

Politician's wars, always cloaked in patriotism, always a terrible waste of lives and treasure. We can all do without 'em.

JAT
7th December, 2013 @ 08:02 am PST

Keeping count of kills etc. might seems morbid, but by the same definition then any honour or medal bestowed on a person for feats against an enemy is morbid - which its not. Unfortunately war and conflict are part of the human condition, the best we can do is try and avoid and curb its excesses. Without armed forces we would all become slaves very quickly.

Keeping records like this serves three purposes -

It makes soldiers aware of when they are a risk

How skilled these operators are

and finally how brutal warfare is....

Brian M
25th February, 2014 @ 05:05 am PST
Post a Comment

Login with your gizmag account:

Or Login with Facebook:


Related Articles

Just enter your friends and your email address into the form below

For multiple addresses, separate each with a comma




Privacy is safe with us because we have a strict privacy policy.

Looking for something? Search our 26,548 articles