Weapons stretched to the limits

Ive always been obsessed with modified fire arms and ive featured the following so far.

rifles that fire harpoons
rifles that fire bigger rounds
high-high powerd handguns.

but the question is how far can i stretch these weapons

i wannna hear your say on this

Lets-see...

Handguns that fires rocket projectiles or mini-grenades in exchange of the usual round?

the gyrojet pistol fired mini rockets,it was a failure,the rockets were inaccurate due to poor manufacturing standards,it only worked at range as the round took time to build up speed ,so it was better used as a club at point blank ranges !
however it was almost completely silent and could be fired from under water !

The NAA .32 and the NAA .25 fit into the high high powered handgun.
For the NAA .32, it uses a .32 round on a necked down .38 casing. It produces a hypersonic round like that on some rifles, and it can penetrate light body amour. The same for the NAA .25, but it uses a .25 caliber round on a .32 necked down casing.

Thats why the Fernando/Rachel team uses the NAA .32 as their mission weapons.

ElfenMagix wrote:The NAA .32 and the NAA .25 fit into the high high powered handgun.
For the NAA .32, it uses a .32 round on a necked down .38 casing. It produces a hypersonic round like that on some rifles, and it can penetrate light body amour. The same for the NAA .25, but it uses a .25 caliber round on a .32 necked down casing.

Thats why the Fernando/Rachel team uses the NAA .32 as their mission weapons.

when i meant highpowered handgun im talking about the bullet going through it's victim's shoulder and causing the shoulder to involunatrily move in the same direction the bullet went

well, there's always the .600 nitro express handgun:

but for a more manageable weapon, there's always the .500S&W round:

West Nile wrote:

ElfenMagix wrote:The NAA .32 and the NAA .25 fit into the high high powered handgun.
For the NAA .32, it uses a .32 round on a necked down .38 casing. It produces a hypersonic round like that on some rifles, and it can penetrate light body amour. The same for the NAA .25, but it uses a .25 caliber round on a .32 necked down casing.

Thats why the Fernando/Rachel team uses the NAA .32 as their mission weapons.

when i meant highpowered handgun im talking about the bullet going through it's victim's shoulder and causing the shoulder to involunatrily move in the same direction the bullet went

The NAA's uses hollow point bullet specifically designed for the gun. But that does not limit the firepower's ability to do serious damage. If it can go through 4 layers of demin and another 8+ inches of Ballistic Gell, while openning up like hollow points do, what can it do to one's shoulder? It will take a chunk out of it, chunk respective to a .32 mushroomed bullet size, leaving a simillar sized hole to the person. The bullet is hypersonic, that is where its power lies. Most bullets are not hypersonic, relying on mass to do the damage. Thats why this little bullet can penetrate light body armour. I calculated that with repeated hits, it can penetrate heavier armour, but one would have to hit the same area of impact several times until penetration occurs. You cant say that about most rounds, you can about this one.

Thats why I put it up.

indeed, a bullet that blows up organs sounds cool. that should explain my "super gun" then

a bullet that blows up organs sounds cool

Organs as in a piano organ or a human organ?

It would be devastating, I couldn't agree less, but imagine the mess it makes...

...all those guts and intestines flying everywhere...isn't that war crime itself...?

Guts and intestines flying everywhere? A war crime?

Panzer, you're a funny guy.

Panzer, you're a funny guy.

Ahahahahaha...

I get it, I get it...

I mean, today in the modern world. Although guts and intestines do fly everywhere in war, but in public society...

...that's different.



don't make me mention the Japanese war crimes. No! DON'T! DON'T DON'T DON'T DON'T!! DON'T MAKE ME!!!!

West Nile wrote:indeed, a bullet that blows up organs sounds cool. that should explain my "super gun" then

Simple modification to hollow point bullets: Drop of Mercury into the cavity and cap it off in bee's wax.
Now you have an exploding shell in miniture. Furthermore, of the bullet or the expanding hollow point under extra force of fluid hammer dymanics does not kill you, the mercury will.

Problem with this is that bee's wax tend to muck up the advance and ejection chambers of automatics and are best used in revolvers. Even then, it will muck up a revolver too but not as bad.

These were used in the big drug wars of the 1990's and caused so much damaged that the justice system put to those criminals to death who using these bullets and other modified ammunitions in their crimes. NYS will not admit that they put anyone to death during these times, but it did happen. Now useof these bullets by the criminal element has seemed to have disappearedoff the statisitcal charts.

If you wanted to go sci-fi futuristic, there's the Warhammer 40,000 Bolt pistol.

Basically an exploding .75 magnum with a 10-round magazine (I think 10).


I came up with a magnificent sniper rifle. It used a .75 narrow. The barrel was 4 feet long though, and the user had to "disable" his eardrums to keep them from exploding. Over 60% of the gun's design was dedicated to reducing recoil.

As for a rifle firing harpoons, its a rather interesting idea. If crossbows can do it, I don't see why high-powered guns can't. You'll have to have a very strong rope though. If you're looking for something to peirce walls though, the Mythbusters have found this nigh impossible.

Ah, yes, bolt pistols Those are great... There's also plasma pistols, don't forget, and the Necrons have some wicked weapon I can't even describe

Sevis wrote:Ah, yes, bolt pistols Those are great... There's also plasma pistols, don't forget, and the Necrons have some wicked weapon I can't even describe

*Imagines Henrietta with a plasma gun*

Oooooh boy...

Threaten Jose now, losers!

A dreadnaught with Henrietta's head sticking out

Or Henrietta with a power claw and plasma pistol... *Watches closely*

You guys have never played/seen anyone play Dark Eldar, have you?

Dark Lance? Shredder? Splinter Cannon? All far more powerful than a bolt pistol, and all can be taken by troop choices

'Tis why DE rule!

Triela - "...phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range..."

Gunshop owner - "We just got in the Westinghouse M95A1. Perfect for home defense."

40 watts?
No am/fm radio?
Lame, buy a gun instead [/super old internet meme]

Wattage is a measurement of work, or energy over time. 1 watt = 1 joule per sec. 1 joule = The kinetic energy of a 2 kg mass moving at a velocity of 1 m/s. Now converting the energy a bullet strike into wattage isn't terribly easy, as the time is going to vary depending on the surface struck.

For simplicity sack though lets assume the average a 5.56 mm NATO takes a full second to transfer it's energy perfectly into it's target. Said bullet would have released 1,775 watts. Now again there is a lot of other qualifiers. Like the manner in which this energy is released. 40 watts can kill a man easy enough depending on what kind of work is being done.

The average 100 watt incandescent light bulb produces about 85 watts of heat. Plasma is a just ionized gas, and the only reasonable way to hurt someone with is it is to make it hot. So if someone is trying to sell me a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, I would be keen to just laugh.

Oh wait. You where telling a joke just now. FUCK. Pardon my nit picking ways...

Wileama wrote:Oh wait. You where telling a joke just now. FUCK. Pardon my nit picking ways...

No worries. I admit when Ahr-nold said that line in the original Terminator movie, I was going "say what? 40 watts for a plasma weapon?".

Maybe is has a varible setting of "Slow Roast" like on Capt'n Spiff's Ray Baster!

energy weapons?
How about a modified Winchester P94 Plasma Rifle with a hotwired plasma bolt chamber?
Or a Yuma Flats Energy Consortium YK42B Pulse Rifle (I don't even wanna guess at how much wattage that thing pushes, it can disintegrate people with electricity at about 100m)?
Or, for longer range applications, a Wattz 2000 Laser Rifle?
Then there's your crew-serve energy weapons... the only one that springs to mind is the H&K L30 Gatling Laser. Now that's cutting power.
I totally want a GLOCK 86, though. lol.
[/fallout references]

How about some old-school ass kicking!

With a sudden silent mention of, "I wonder...";

Alpha decides to jury-rig a rotating barrel onto a Steyr Mark 5 and update the delivery system to accommodate a faster drum-fed magazine.

The resulting experimentation is the prototype for future personal "vulcan cannons".

Perhaps somebody should write a Gunslinger Girl sci-fi parody in light of all this.

plasma weapons aren't as far fetched as they seem ,however it should be noted that at the current level of technology they are only available as artillery ,

Shiva Star was also used to develop an experimental weapon for the SDI effort between 1989 and 1995. The idea appears to have been to create "compact toroids" of high-density plasma that would be ejected from the device using a massive magnetic pulse.^[2] The plasma projectiles would be shot at a speed expected to be 3000 km/s in 1995 and 10,000 km/s (3% of the speed of light) by 2000. A shot has the energy of 5 pounds of TNT exploding; although it caused little or no physical damage, the energy would shower the interior of the target with high-energy x-rays that would potentially destroy the electronics inside. The tests cost a few million dollars a year.^[3] The project was scrapped at some time after 1995 because of problems keeping the plasma projectiles stable for the distances required by orbital weaponry.
Shiva Star was most recently revived for work in fusion research. A relatively new technique, magnetized target fusion, compresses a small plasma load with an imploding metal foil. Shiva Star's 10 MJ capacitor banks were perfect for this role, and starting in 2007 the new FRCHX experiment has been using Shiva Star with 1 mm thick aluminium foil that is accelerated to about 5 km/s.^[4]

In Solution's Resolution, on a bet, Fernando hit a target with his AA .45 ACP at 650m.
The effective killing maxium range of a .45 ACP from a 1911 or other variant hand gun is 100 yards.

How he did it? He aimed well above the head of the target and let the bullet's path arch downward to the body. Giving wind interference, Fernando hit the target in the shoulder.

Now, whether a .45 ACP is still lethal at this range from a handgun remains to be seen. From a Rifle, it is. But from a handgun? Who knows. At best it would be like if someone hit the target with a baseball bat in mid swing, as being hit by a bullet has been described by many surviving victims as a hard poke immediately followed by being hit by a baseball bat at full swing.

Henrietta verified that Fernando hit the target with her rifle scope. It was her target the bet was done on.

650 what? With what?

Do you know what MOA is? It's short for "minute of angle" and utilized to measure rifle accuracy, average, relatively perfect shots. This is done by shooting 3-5 shots at a target and measuring the average circle through each bullet for a diameter distance. My favored Remington 700 (.308 Win) sits at 1 MOA, which means that, if done relatively perfectly (no wind), the rifle is capable of getting 3-5 bullets into a target circle 6.5" diameter at 650 meters. To compare, the SVD (with the poor ammo available) is capable of 2 MOA (but heck, its not even designed to be a sniper rifle!), and good marksmen can do better than that.

I looked around for pistol MOA, but it just isn't measured for handguns, not even target pistols. Asking anyone and they'd laugh at you. I did find a few pistol scopes, and generally shooters can get 4 MOA with them. That means at 650 meters, a generally perfect 3-5 shots can get 27" diameter (drawing a line through the bullets in a perfect circle) without wind.

If that doesn't convince you, the standing world record for smallest MOA at 1,000 meters is 2.375 MOA with a sniper rifle (BMG .50).

The idea of aiming "over the head" of a target is a must rule for sniping (and shooting in general) because yes, bullets fall due to gravity. Anyone who actually aims at their target right on with a rifle at a decent distance (or even a pistol at long range) is an noob. But that's just barely the basics. This is a rocket science that I have barely scratched the surface of and only know of concepts and the difficulty of such a mathematical skill.

150 meters is pushing it, but I could believe it. Any further (especially without a scope) is impossible.

As for "effective maximum range", the definition is, "the maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result." -- or enough penetration for a kill. The 5.56x45mm NATO barely reaches 500 meters. I think being hit by a .45 ACP bullet (horizontially) at that distance might hurt, but I'm sure it couldn't even kill. I think my crotch is safe at 400 meters.

Is custom weapon included?

In the recent chapter of 'The Detective's Daughter', Frederick modified his StG44 to accommodate a silencer.

The effective killing range with a 1911 .45 ACP is 100M.
My statement in the story is that the character Fernando has practiced enough with his gun enough times to hit (and only hit, not for lethality) at ever increasing distances. Though with any hand gun, the longer the range, accuracy drops- thats a given. But once one gets used to their weapon, they can get a fair idea as to what it can do and improved hand/eye coordination.

I site the Sean Bell case in NYC, where several undercover cops panicked and end up shooting an innocent person while in his car. Strangely enough, 2 of the bullets recovered were misses, which somehow managed to travel 1000yds (990m about) and hit the following targets: a ground floor Subway Station entry door, and the bullet proof glass of the fare selling booth. Thus was from a Glock 9mm. The Camera Survailence of the station has the even recorded of both bullets. This is however, was a rare case.

However, I will also site the case of Frank Luke of WW1 Ace fame. On his last flight, which he was shot down on German Territory, he pulled out his 2 1911 .45ACPs and started shootting at the approaching Germany Army until he ran out of bullets from over 200yds. Though wounded, he fought on until they shot him dead. He manged to kill 12 or more out of tens of hundred who were approaching him (the number varies on the version of the story) .

In practicing for shooting far away targets, its not meant to kill, but more to scare away and create an oppertunity for escape. If it takes out a couple of targets, the better. But this takes practice as to learn what one's weapon can do, and understand what it cant do. A Lot Of Practice, something Fernando has done with his weapon.

Furthermore, even if one learns how to do this with their weapon, they can not do this same stunt with a different weapon. It is something that one can only do on a learned weapon. They can spend an emorous amount of time and learn on a second and third weapons but this is still limited to the weapons learned.

Air resistance plays a huge role in determining the range. A bullet will slow down approximately .5 - 1 ft/sec each foot travelled, initially. Also, the longer it travels, the greater the instability of the bullet. It begins to yaw and this makes it less aerodynamic and causes it to slow and change direction.

So, at a foot per second (considering the bulky and fat .45 ACP), across 4.3 football fields means a deacrease in speed by 4.3 feet per second? That's not too much, or is it an algorithim?

But air resistance isn't my concern so much as gravity. Bullets are fast, but they are also heavy. Like I said, at 650 meters, that bullet falls 45.5 inches. The amount of arc required to get the bullet to fall where you want is incredible: now you're shooting like you would with a bow and arrow.

Colonel Marksman wrote:The amount of arc required to get the bullet to fall where you want is incredible: now you're shooting like you would with a bow and arrow.

So in other words, we need the "English Long-Barrel .45"?

Kiskaloo wrote:

Colonel Marksman wrote:The amount of arc required to get the bullet to fall where you want is incredible: now you're shooting like you would with a bow and arrow.

So in other words, we need the "English Long-Barrel .45"?

I did say in my FF that I aimed well above the target's head, to allow the arc of the bullet's travel to follow through. From aiming above the head to striking the target on the shoulder, is quite a drop. With practice, you can figure out how much. But again, this can only be learned on the weapon one uses, and its not so easily ported over to another gun just like that.

In RL, I did (and will continue to do) target practice with guns and rifles, so I do know something of the science that is involved.

Kisk- in the days of the Wild West, there were some pretty strange guns out there... even a few cane riles (rifles made to look like a gentleman's cane) of that size...

I still don't think you understand. You can hardly see a human being as a spec 650 meters away. This is what Fernando would look like trying to make that kind of a shot:




Do you understand now? You can't simply "aim over the head" with that weapon or use any particular "feel for the gun". It simply is impossible. I made two replies about it, not sure if you saw the first one.

If you were running about 10 mph (16 kph) nonstop, it would take you an hour to reach your target.

4.3 football fields

Look up google maps and find where you live. You can zoom in to see 500 meters and see just how far it is.

And you're still clinging to wind resistance hitting his shoulder. I've turned to modern sniper calculations to explain to you how hard this would be. Let's say there is a 3 mph wind speed blowing straight across your line of fire.

I found some sniper mathematical calculations and discovered that at 600 meters, with a 1 MOA (at 600 meters mind you) the bullet will be deflected by 7 inches. Well the rounds (and gun) that Fernando is using is going to be, at best, 2 MOA.

If you forgot what MOA is, I'll remind you. MOA is "minute of angle" used to measure the accuracy of a rifle. It is the radius of a perfect circle drawn through a grouping of 3-5 bullets. 1 MOA means that the rifle in the hands of a moderate shooter can group 3-5 bullets 1 inch diameter at 100 meters of range. So, at 200 meters, the bullets are then grouped 2" diameter, and so on till 650 meters, meaning 6.5" around the target. The Marines back in the days my grandfather was there, to qualify to finish target training, you had to hit a target a certain number of times at a specific MOA at 300 meters with the ironsight of an M-16. The gentleman to his right was having difficulty with this!

The rounds Fernando is using are fat and very heavy, and at best will have 13 MOA (yes, a 13-inch diameter around the target). BUT, that is disregarding the curvature of the earth, wind, and various other calculations, and the fact that gravity won't pull down on the bullet.

So, taking that first calculation I gave in this post (7" per 1 MOA at 600 meters at 3 mph winds), with 13 MOA, means if Fernando aimed perfectly straight at his target, his bullet will curve 91" from its original designated path.

So, not only would Fernando have to keep a perfectly still (around) 90.5 degree angle arc aim with his gun against gravity, but if there were 3 mph windspeed from the left, he would have to aim 91" to his left. And all that IF Fernando's target were on perfectly flat level ground and the earth did not curve. But because you have something called blood flow and a pumping heart, your hand is not physically capable of keeping it straight perfectly enough, even with a benchpress.

Realistically speaking, if Fernando were as good with pistols as Annie Oakley were with rifles and shotguns, your story should have 65 feet not 650 meters. 65 feet is very, very good shooting with a .45ACP, and I'd put a bet against it (no scope to help).

don't forget spindrift !

....then after Fernando made the shot...

BOOM! HEADSHOT!!!

Awinnell wrote:don't forget spindrift !

Thank you, Awinnell... I knew I was missing something. I'd be a bad sniper.

But anyhow, would anyone be interested in some of the formulas I found?

600m is not that far.

In my terms:
1km (1000m) = .6 mile
1 Mile = 20 NYC (North/South Directional) Blocks. (its 8 East/West Directional Blocks, btw)
1km is about roughly 12 City Blocks

Despite my vision issue (acute sensitivity to light), I can see ppl at over a mile away.
The distance of 12 City Blocks is nothing.

Where I live, ppl have been hit by bullets shot from guns fired from over 1/2 a mile away. In a worst case this city have ever had, there are a few cases where bullets fired in Mahattan hit ppl in the Bronx- a few miles and a river away! So its not impossible that it can happen, it does happen- mostly by accident or mistake. This last summer some poor boy died after a bullet from a gang shoot out travelled 5 blocks (1/4 mile), though the brick wall of his house though the wooden frame of his bed and into the upper cranium of his head, and no one knew he was dead or how until he was found dead later in the morning and police using a laser pointer retraced the bullet's path to the gang fight so far away. Things like this happen all the time.

Though I would agree with you on the needing to arch the bullet to hit the target at further distances, I think you are missing the points as to what gun/rifle sites are for. I also know that from experience, the arching needed for various gun are not as great as you make it out to be.

Lastly, this is a thread about stretching a weapon to its limits, preferably in a fanfict, which I did. I'll draw my diagram when I have the time.

Have you ever shot a gun before? Where I live, anyone can go down to the local shooting range or ranch and shoot weapons however much they want. Also where I live, the feeling of distance is easily grasped. This is Texas, land of the flat plains. The Brookyln Bridge area over the water is shorter than 650 meters. So stand on the shoreline and look across and think about using a pistol to hit someone on the opposite shoreline.

It seems you live in New York, you have walked what seems to be 600 meters, but have you seen it? Probably without knowing it. But I decided to give you this picture anyway utilizing Google Maps. This is about 640-670 meters.





If Fernando were shooting with that round at that distance, with a 3 mph wind blowing from his left to right, his bullet is going to be blown off course by 91 inches (7 feet). If he felt 9 mph winds, and he tried shooting straight at someone 650 meters away, the bullet will blow 273" (22.75 feet) off course.

To arc the bullet to hit the target requirs a 90.5-degree arc pointing up in the air.This is because the 45 ACP has a bullet drop of 7" every 100 meters it travels. If I shot the gun (at my measly 5 feet of height from the shoulder), the bullet would hit the dirt 850 meters away because the bullet just falls that fast. That means it would be only 7" above the ground at 750, and 14" above the ground at 650 meters. That means I would have to aim at the sky to hit my target on the head.

That means if Fernando tried aiming his gun straight at the watertower, he has a 0% chance of hitting it.

I'm still on topic about stretching weapons to their limits. I am mathematically proving to you that this is exceeding physically possible limits.

But even that is all assuming perfectly flat ground and no curvature of the earth.

All the numeric figures I've given to you are mathematically calculated to the laws of physics, using Marine sniper formulas. They are not guessed.



The first gun I ever fired was a .357 magnum Coonan, but I've fired a 9mm XD and two 1911 Colt .45s as well. I myself own a .22LR rifle and have killed a rabbit and squirrel with it. If you squeeze the gun too hard, your shot will be off 6 o'clock by as much as 10". If you don't pull the trigger correctly, your bullet could fling 10" off 10 o'clock too much. That is shooting at 20 feet. If you exhale when you shoot a rifle, your shot could be off by over a foot at 300 meters.


Fernando's blood flow in the veins in his fingers will cause him to miss the shot from that distance.

mind you if the positions were reversed and Fernando was on top of the water Tower would that make a difference ?

Humm...with vantage point, I think it will...

...but considering gravity and wind, hitting a target that far is impossible

Colonel Marksman wrote:That means if Fernando tried aiming his gun straight at the watertower, he has a 0% chance of hitting it.

As I understand it, Fernando is not aiming right at the target. So he would not be aiming right for the water tower.

Instead, he is using his pistol like an artillery piece, firing it in a long ballistic arc, using the energy from the propellant in the case to allow the bullet to climb the front half of the parabola and then using gravity to drop the bullet back down the back half. So 325m of linear distance up and 325m of linear distance down (with whatever actual bullet travel distance along the arc).

I am assuming the bullet would expend all it's kinetic energy received from the gunpowder charge in climbing the initial side of the parabola, but it would then it would be under the acceleration of gravity when it started to descend the other side of the parabola. I am guessing that this acceleration would be insufficient to penetrate (at worse, I expect a bruise), since a .45 bullet is rounded or flat (depending on the type) and would likely wobble or tumble as it fell and therefore could hit sideways or backwards.

I know there was an episode of either CSI or CSI: Miami where somebody shot a pistol round into the air and it arced and came down a few blocks (?) a way and killed someone. But that's television, so...

But still, even if you did shoot in an arc--a very-very wide arc, its near-impossible to hear a target that far. Not to mention the wind that will shift the arc of the projectile.

That's why, ladies and gentlemen, the sniper rifle exists today. To get rid that pesky camper up that water tower!

Yeah... I think the big factor here is wind. Making that shot would be one hell of a stroke of luck. Telling which way the wind is going where you're standing is one thing, but it could very well be the opposite where your target is (not everywhere is like the flats of Texas, Colonel. Try shooting anywhere in the Pacific Coast Ranges some time. There's no telling wind at that distance).

We should send this one in to Mythbusters. Ask 'em to set up one indoors (probably hafta be in an aircraft hangar) and one outdoors, with the gun on their angle-adjustable stand. I'd imagine the end would be something like this:

"Well, at the indoor range it hit (sixty-ish) shots out of a hundred. Outdoors it hit (twenty-ish). so I'd call this one a little far-fetched... but plausible."
-That's a rough guess, btw. I have no numbers to back it up, just gut feeling backed by having fired a lot of .45s.

By the way, we're talking about a human silhouette target here, right?

LoC978 wrote:(not everywhere is like the flats of Texas, Colonel.

My point exactly. Try making that kind of shot in say, New York City or other places. Yoru visual range is severely limited -- only a runway or long, long stretches of road give you the full feel of such distances. But you are expanding on my point that the earth does curve (even here in Texas), and that the direction you face is important.

And Texas got its hills, winds, and mountains, however small they are.

By the way, we're talking about a human silhouette target here, right?

Yeah, in the rifle range.


Well, I don't doubt the lethality of the round at far distances, at least the ability to strike a human silhouette anyway. I doubt the possibility of hitting such a target.

Kishaloo wrote:Instead, he is using his pistol like an artillery piece, firing it in a long ballistic arc, using the energy from the propellant in the case to allow the bullet to climb the front half of the parabola and then using gravity to drop the bullet back down the back half. So 325m of linear distance up and 325m of linear distance down (with whatever actual bullet travel distance along the arc).

Did you see my formulas? It isn't that simple. Aiming an artillery piece is a lot harder than simply pointing the barrel in the direction of the target, aiming up and shooting. There's a math to it that take physics into account, that modern-day computers do for us. And the formulas I'm using are Marine sniper ones, far less sophisticated than those used to lob artilley shells.

My point about aiming at the watertower is that you can't even aim at that distance. If your hands cocked to the left by .1 inch when you pull the trigger, you miss. If the bloodflow in your veins pump blood through you fingers to tilt the gun and move it with pulsing, you will miss. If there is wind, forget it. Even if you get a benchpress and mechanical grip on the pistol to aim like that artillery peice, a 3 mph wind from the west of the shooter will blow the bullet off course by 7 feet. If there is a 9 mph wind, the shot will below off course by 22 feet to the right.


Fernando would look like this:


The picture on the far right is the best chance you have of hitting a target at that distance after the expense of 100 bullets. You would also want to have tracer rounds (if possible) to see the arcing curve of the bullet and better judge with the wind and breathing (and yes, I am facing the direction of the target).

But that's if things ar done outdoors, with 3-5 mph winds, and flat ground.

hhmm. From my experienc with firearms [I'm from Texas too]. I'd have to agree hitting a target with a .45 pistol at 150m is more a matter of luck than skill. As for the example for hits in NYC area, some of those seem to be happenstance rather than aimed shots. When you fire up, that bullets going to come down on something and consdering the poulation density in NYC area....

We need Wil in this thread. Stat.

Why? Colonel Marksman is doing a fairly good job of enforcing sanity. I didn't speak up earlier, because I really didn't feel like pointing out the obvious. Besides the Colonel, and I agreeing is just another sign of the apocalypse. I didn't want to worry the rest of you about the coming end of the world.

Oh don't give me that look Colonel, you know I'm just joking. mostly

Wileama wrote:Besides, the Colonel and I agreeing is just another sign of the apocalypse. I didn't want to worry the rest of you about the coming end of the world.

So are you hinting that I should be putting Jackie Chan, MacGuyver and Rorshach on my speed dial?