My wife's 'Ah-ha!" moment

InigoM: interesting perspective! Today's purpose built 50's can be highly accurate but for match ammo you are going to pay $6-8 per shot (Hornady AMAX) unless you reload. Surplus ammo should be left for 'plinking'.
 
Brmfan: Oh, I'm quite aware. This is actually a topic I know a thing or three about. Once upon a time I used to run STANAG bullet impact tests for a living. It all came into clear focus when I had a customer who wanted a 2" pattern on his test item at 100 meters. It sounded easy enough..... It wasn't. I spent *months* trying to figure out what was wrong with my guns. It wasn't until I got some Amax bullets that I was able to definitively state that the problem was ammo and there was nothing wrong with the guns. The customer was simply going to have to take a "best effort" and keep his fingers crossed (the tests are required to use AP rounds).

Aside: IIRC we found that South African 50 BMG had better shot-to-shot consistency than anything made by the US defense industry.
 
Last edited:
I think the bigger limitation with big bore sniping equipment or extra-long range sniping in the past, with rifles made from .50 BMG barrels or anti-tank rifles was the relative scarcity of optical equipment. To an extent, that was even true of rifle caliber sniping equipment used by armies. To some outfit doing experiments and trying to put something together in the field (I'm speaking of Korea and earlier), coming up with a good scope to match the extended range (which was the whole point) of the rifle would have been a challenge.

It's also the sort of thing that lends itself to a stable front line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top