Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/26/2002 1:32:08 PM EDT
This was posted on the "Firing Line" : [b]New 1000 yd Service Rifle Record SSG Chris "Wild Bill" Hatcher shot a 200-7x to win and set a new Interservice 1000 yard service Rifle record. The old record was 199-7x. Since Interservice is not considered an NRA match, Hatcher's record is not an official NRA record; it is, however, to my knowledge the only 200 ever fired with a Service Rifle. ...BTW he did it with his AR15...[/b] I tried to confirm this, but I can't find any info on the Web. Anybody hear anything about this? Pretty damn impressive, at any rate. I believe the 10 ring is 20" in diameter (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) for a 1000 yd target. This means Hatcher put twenty shots inside 20" (with aperture sights) from the prone position! Sorry, M-14 guys. This is the rifle to beat. [;)]
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 1:57:29 PM EDT
It is if you consider using ammo that won't fit the magazine and must be single-loaded. How does the AR compare to the M-14 in competitions that require using mil-spec issue ammo - even "match" military ammo? At ranges 600 yards and beyond? Not to denigrate SSG Hatcher, he did an outstanding job. But he used a "service rifle" in name only.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 2:44:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: It is if you consider using ammo that won't fit the magazine and must be single-loaded. How does the AR compare to the M-14 in competitions that require using mil-spec issue ammo - even "match" military ammo? At ranges 600 yards and beyond? Not to denigrate SSG Hatcher, he did an outstanding job. But he used a "service rifle" in name only.
View Quote
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 2:57:56 PM EDT
Aren't M-14 allowed to be single loaded? I believe you can use any service (U.S.) rifle you want. I like the M-14, but it seems the M-16 is taking over in the competition circles. Am I wrong?
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 3:26:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/26/2002 3:29:10 PM EDT by Derek45]
Originally Posted By Mach1: Aren't M-14 allowed to be single loaded? I believe you can use any service (U.S.) rifle you want. I like the M-14, but it seems the M-16 is taking over in the competition circles. Am I wrong?
View Quote
The M16/AR15 is dominating setvice rifle because the shooters are allowed to shoot long(heavy) bullets that don't fit into the magazine. I imagine if the rules said the ammo had to fit into the mag, more guys would still be shooting the cranky but lovable M14 / M1A rifle. I'm not picking on the M16, I love both rifles. [:D][:D][:D]
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 3:31:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/26/2002 3:36:15 PM EDT by Gunner1X]
Originally Posted By Mach1: Aren't M-14 allowed to be single loaded? I believe you can use any service (U.S.) rifle you want. I like the M-14, but it seems the M-16 is taking over in the competition circles. Am I wrong?
View Quote
The point KBAKER is trying to make is that in order to reach the 1000 yard mark, competitors using the AR15 have to use very heavy (80 grn) custom bullets. These bullets are too long to fit inside the AR15 magazine so a special one round mag follower has to be inserted in the magazine which allows the single round to sit on top of the magazine. In other words, the AR15 rifle is basically a single shot weapon at this point. Some will argue that this makes the AR15 less than a "SERVICE" rifle. Kinda takes the fun out of it...don't it? I own both M14/M1A and AR rifles. I enjoy shooting both. But, If I'm shooting the distance, I'll take the M14/M1A. Just a matter of preference through personal experience.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 4:04:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: It is if you consider using ammo that won't fit the magazine and must be single-loaded. How does the AR compare to the M-14 in competitions that require using mil-spec issue ammo - even "match" military ammo? At ranges 600 yards and beyond? Not to denigrate SSG Hatcher, he did an outstanding job. But he used a "service rifle" in name only.
View Quote
This has been pointed out already, but the M14 "service rifles" used in those competitions are also worlds away from the M14's issued to troops in the early sixties. Also, most M14's and M1A's used in 1000 yard competitions also are single loaded with ammunition that WONT fit in the magazine. Among service people (not professional service sponsored competitors) armed with straight service rifles and straight service ammunition, you will see higher marksmanship scores among service people (assuming similar training) armed with the M16A2 than you will with the M14. That doesn't mean that in pure service trim one rifle or the other is more mechanically accurate, only that in practice, wqhen the government switched to the M16, marksmanship performance improved. Why? Because the M16 is easier to shoot. It is more ergonomically designed, it's weight is lower, it's recoil is lower and it controls that recoil better. None of this says anything about how hard it hits down range, but it seems to indicate that for the designed purpose of the rifles, the M16 is more efficient. Remember, the designed purpose of an infantry rifle is not to engage targets at 600 meters or more. Time and time again it has been proven that infantry don't tend to engage targets further than 150-200 meters away, leaving those targets to mortars, artillery, grenadiers and machinegunners. Here's another fact of life. Take two squads of infantry. Arm one squad with the usual complement of infantry weapons (M16 rifles, SAW's, M60 or 240, M203s and radios) Arm the other with the same kit except replace the M16's with M14's. Assume that each squad has equal access to artillery, mortars, close air support, etc. Neither has prepared defenses, they are both maneuvering through the terrain/patrolling at the time of contact. I guarantee you that the outcome will not hinge on riflery, but on tactical maneuver and effective use of fire support. And that's what counts in the real world. Military effectiveness as part of the total combat system. Sometimes a weapon that is superior in some respects to another weapon, is overlooked or rejected not on it's individual merits, but on how it fits in with the total system. Service Rifle competition is not the real world.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 4:12:26 PM EDT
" M16 is easier to shoot. ...it's weight is lower,... ar-15 service/match rifles are weighted up...often to 12-13 lbs.. my guess is that wild bill had a very calm day, wind wise, when he punched that paper. fine shooting, though...VERY fine shooting!
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 4:17:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By icemanat95: Service Rifle competition is not the real world.
View Quote
I agree.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 5:57:44 PM EDT
FWIW to everyone commenting about how his ammo won't fit the mag. This is a slow fire, prone match. [b]ALL[/b] rounds are loaded and fired one at a time regardless of what firearm is used. There is [b]nothing[/b] in the rules that would prohibit someone shooting an M1A/M14 from using longer, heavier, bullets that wouldn't fit in their mag either. NO ONE is using mil spec ammo. And I guarrantee that a M1A/M14 shooting mil spec ammo couldn't have done what he did with match ammo. No matter what kind of rifle or ammo someone uses, shooting a 200-7x at 1000 yards using a sling from the prone position with no other support is a heck of a display of marksmanship.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:12:02 PM EDT
Thank you pthfndr, WTF?Who the hell is takin shots at 1000 yard targets with ther gov.surplus ammo,fully loaded M14s anyway? I don't favor either rifle,but come on people.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:20:04 PM EDT
Shooting a 10 with any gun @ 1000 yds is fine marksmanship. Doing it 20 times in a row is incredible. All slow fire is one round load. Most of the AR shooters I know, and some M1a shooters use rounds that won't fit the magazine. Let's not let a preference for one rifle or another overshadow a fine shooting performance.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 7:07:37 PM EDT
excellent score, however, as mentioned.. putting rounds down range is one thing. Battle effectivity is another. [peep]
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 7:25:34 PM EDT
One of these days, just as soon as I get my gyro-stabilized underneath the handguards AR-15 gizmo running, they're gonna have to change the rules to something a little stricter than just "looks like an issue rifle in all external dimensions" Of course, this too could help: LUTRONIX 13627 Portofino Drive Del Mar, CA 92014 Phone: PI: Topic#: (619) 259-1006 Dr. Gary M. Lee ARMY 99-010 Title:30 Cal Smart Sniper Rifle Abstract:This is a proposal for the design, fabrication, and flight test for a 30 cal smart sniper "rifle." The smart bullet has a steering capability that allows it to correct for gravity and wind. The slow spinning bullet is optically tracked by the "rifle" and an optical communication system to the bullet provides guidance commands. The processor at the "rifle" estimates the bullet spin angle using a polarized laser illuminator and a polarized corner cube on the bullet. The bullet is steered using either canards, wings, fins, or aerospike control. Piezoceramic actuators drive the aerodynamic surfaces, providing wide bandwidth control with low weight, low volume, low cost, and high electrical efficiency. A 30 cal smart sniper rifle should weigh roughly 15 lb. Automatic target tracking and optical stabilization using micro gyros will be provided. Direct pointed accuracy of less than 10 cm at 2000 m range is achievable. BENEFITS: The proposed system will greatly increase the range of 30 cal weapons for both military and commercial hunting applications. This technology is applicable to much larger calibers and could be used for air-to-air combat, ship defense against sea skimming missiles, or a Bradley gun for defense against helicopters.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 7:51:56 PM EDT
Depending on just how outre' you make the 80gn loads, you CAN run 'em through a magazine. Derrick Martin's book lists two different highly customized magazines that handle extra-long 80gn bullets.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 8:25:41 PM EDT
[b]Originally Posted By byron2112: Thank you pthfndr, WTF?Who the hell is takin shots at 1000 yard targets with ther gov.surplus ammo,fully loaded M14s anyway?[/b] Actually, quiet a few people here in Texas are shooting with fully loaded mags from 500 to 1K. Match and Mil surplus ammo - M1A, Garands and others. Iron sights as well as glass. We have two 1K ranges within a 1.5 hour drive from Dallas. Nothing sounds better than the delayed ring of steel.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 9:43:03 PM EDT
My meaning was too achieve scores like this guy did,but I digress. That delayed action sounds like fun.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 10:04:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 7IDL: excellent score, however, as mentioned.. putting rounds down range is one thing. Battle effectivity is another. [peep]
View Quote
This thread wasn't about combat shooting, or the M-16 against the M-14 per se, rather a incredible feat of shooting skill. Still, the M-14 (as far as I know) has not achieved this level of accuracy in competition.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 10:23:01 PM EDT
When I started competing at CMP matches 5 years ago, in a line of 20 competitors, 4 had M1s, 10 had M1As, and 6 had ARs. Today, there might be one M1, three M1As, and 16 ARs. Now, my favorite rifle [i]is[/i] the M1A, but... I compete with an AR15.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 11:01:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mach1: This thread wasn't about combat shooting, or the M-16 against the M-14 per se, rather a incredible feat of shooting skill. Still, the M-14 (as far as I know) has not achieved this level of accuracy in competition.
View Quote
duh! My first two words were "excellent score".
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 12:03:39 AM EDT
I also agree with Mach1. This guy deserves a pat on the back no matter what he was shooting.
Top Top