Are there any 1,000 yard or longer ranges from Roanoke west?

[gunderwood]

Since he did not articulate what his needs were - he merely said he wanted a 1000 yard range, not WHY (also, he said "between 500 and 1500 yards, one hell of a stretch) - there is no way to qualify what his needs were.

I misled no one. I said what I meant. I meant what I said.

Thank YOU for playing.

He doesn't know why because he is obviously NEW to the game. I know because I've been doing it for a few years now. I don't know everything and I still need a ton of practice to be "good" at it. That is why I knew that your answer was BS.

[wylde007]

My answer was not BS. It was qualified with caveats.

And now your feelings are hurt because you got called out for not being able to appreciate context.

Get over it.

[gunderwood]

My answer was not BS. It was qualified with caveats.

And now your feelings are hurt because you got called out for not being able to appreciate context.

Get over it.

The long range game is all about your caveats and has virtually nothing to do with your primary point. Psychological projection much?

[wylde007]

If that makes you feel better.

[gunderwood]

If that makes you feel better.

How about we settle this like men with a bet?

Choose any rifle you want with any load and I'll watch while you shoot at least a 5 shot group at <300 yards. Then you shoot a 5 shot group at 1k yards and lets see if it scales linearly. Let's see if scaling the target down linearly means jack diddle; let's see if your solution makes you a good long range shot. Of course we will need a third party arbitrator, so choose someone who is well known on the forums. If we go to PA, 1k is easy. If that is too far, I *might* be able to pull a few strings and get 900 yards within an hour or so of Fredericksburg, VA. Are you willing to put your money where you mouth is?

Edit: If you have no suitable rifle, I can provide one of several easily capable of that distance...you choice.

[wylde007]

I never said it would. Ever. Your argument is unnecessary and, frankly, disingenuous.

I made the points I meant to make with the specific qualifications that I felt were appropriate. You made implications beyond that of your own volition.

Your money's no good here, because you are arguing for argument's sake.

(P.S. do you think my 91/30 might do the trick? It's not scoped, but I need to get it sighted in anyhow.)

[shootergdv]

The White Horse Center in West by God Virginia has 1000 I think- they do allow camping too. Otherwise Quantico in VA, Butner is only a few hours away. I tried 1000 with an iron sighted M1A once, it was a learning experience. I felt like I held a 195, but what I got was a 170 ! Lotta WIDE shots and with the blade front, a "frame" hold was only way I could line up.
Fun as h-e-double l though !

[gunderwood]

I never said it would. Ever. Your argument is unnecessary and, frankly, disingenuous.

That is exactly what you said when you suggest he just shoot at a smaller target at shorter ranges. It's not my fault that you don't shoot long range and don't understand the math behind it and why what you suggested doesn't work to teach the necessary skills to be successful at that distance. Your caveats removed everything that makes long range shooting difficult. It's not just for arguments sake, it actually matters a whole lot because the OP and anyone else reading it needs to understand that point if they too wish to shoot at those distances. Suggesting the two are even remotely similar when you don't even do it is actually rather silly, is it not?

If someone posted some stupidity about how their "clip" was whatever, it would not be disingenuous argument to correct them...particularly when they are too stubborn to even learn about the subject. Your reply and subsequent stubbornness is a disservice to anyone who wants to learn about long range shooting. Since you know so much about it, please tell me what shooting a smaller target at a closer range teaches you? Why not just shoot without a scope (or a 1x) at 100 yards...that's got to be good training and will make you an expert 1k yard marksman with a 10x scope. After all the scale will be correct will it not? The sight picture looks exactly the same on a full size target/1x scope as it does on a 1/10th scale target/10x scope. The only problem is that besides basic mechanics, it doesn't teach you a thing about how to read the wind, trajectories, etc.

In other words, it doesn't teach you a damn thing about how to shoot a target at long ranges that you shouldn't already know from basic marksmanship...which you should have some idea about before ever considering long range shooting.


Edit: In case you also didn't know, the other primary reason that target scaling is done is for iron sights. For competitions with irons, the sights and targets are calibrated together so when you change distances you need to scale the target or else the sight doesn't work properly.

[zephyp]

If that makes you feel better.

How about we settle this like men with a bet?

Choose any rifle you want with any load and I'll watch while you shoot at least a 5 shot group at <300 yards. Then you shoot a 5 shot group at 1k yards and lets see if it scales linearly. Let's see if scaling the target down linearly means jack diddle; let's see if your solution makes you a good long range shot. Of course we will need a third party arbitrator, so choose someone who is well known on the forums. If we go to PA, 1k is easy. If that is too far, I *might* be able to pull a few strings and get 900 yards within an hour or so of Fredericksburg, VA. Are you willing to put your money where you mouth is?

Edit: If you have no suitable rifle, I can provide one of several easily capable of that distance...you choice.

Scaling the target down makes little difference. I can get the same shot groups at 100 yards with 3x or 12x on the scope if I shoot consistently. Consider that target spots are generally 1 or 3" diameter circles and most of us zero using those at 100 yards. Getting pie plate sized groups at 1000 yards is no where near and not even in the same discussion (IMHO) as achieving MOA at 100 yards. Far too many more variables involved.

Edit: Garrett I'll take up the bet...just so's I can shoot one o them fancy rifles of yore's...

[gunderwood]

Edit: Garrett I'll take up the bet...just so's I can shoot one o them fancy rifles of yore's...

If you are ever up for an all day trip to PA, let me know.

[wylde007]

That is exactly what you said when you suggest he just shoot at a smaller target at shorter ranges.

Wrong.

I said the following:

A man-size target at ½-mile is little over an eighth of an inch high, I think.

If you want to "practice" at that range of fire, reduce your target sizes relevant to distance.

Note the word "practice" in quotation marks. That could imply any number of things. In this instance it was meant to imply scaling at distance, nothing more. You implied all of the other assumptions on your own.

Then, immediately following I said:

You will lose some for sight , windage and "drop" errors by reducing true fire distance, but finding a public range to suit your needs is going to be tough.

Herein I acknowledged that my proposed solution was not perfect, nor necessarily ideal to the OP's requirements, particularly since I did not specifically know what they were.

It's not my fault that you don't shoot long range and don't understand the math behind it and why what you suggested doesn't work to teach the necessary skills to be successful at that distance.

It's not my fault you either can't read or your ability to appreciate context is lacking, at best.

Frankly, you have no idea what I do and do not know about shooting, distances, or anything else for that matter.

Your caveats removed everything that makes long range shooting difficult.

My caveats removed a large portion of what makes long-distance shooting a CHALLENGE. I guarantee you will have a better chance of hitting a building-size target at 1000 yds than you will a man-size target at the same distance.

Your reply and subsequent stubbornness is a disservice to anyone who wants to learn about long range shooting.

The same could be said about you continuing to argue against a point I was never intent on making.

Since you know so much about it, please tell me what shooting a smaller target at a closer range teaches you?

It could still help you with target acquisition, time-to-fire, scalability and sighting and pointing errors, which are all applicable at ANY DISTANCE.

The only problem is that besides basic mechanics, it doesn't teach you a thing about how to read the wind, trajectories, etc.

I acknowledged and stated such, verbatim, above.

In other words, it doesn't teach you a damn thing about how to shoot a target at long ranges that you shouldn't already know from basic marksmanship... which you should have some idea about before ever considering long range shooting.

I am not arguing that. You simply decided to create an argument where there was none.

For what reason, I am still completely in the dark.

Say, do also take into account for earth-curvature, elevation change, temperature, cartridge load, relative humidity and heat refraction?

You did not mention any of those things and yet they could be considered factors which make shooting at distance a more complicated exercise. Should I attempt to assassinate your character because you did not mention those? What end would that serve?

I gave the guy a suggestion: abandoned or private airfields. Find one. Go shoot. Bring back target pron.

[zephyp]

Edit: Garrett I'll take up the bet...just so's I can shoot one o them fancy rifles of yore's...

If you are ever up for an all day trip to PA, let me know.

Sounds good to me...and I be up for it.

[SgtBill]

And when it is all said and done it still comes down to the shooters ability to
1.Read the wind
2.Read the distance
3.Get the proper stock weld
4.Squeeze the trigger without dragging wood
5. Ride the recoil
6. Shoot between the heart beats

I have not shot at real long distance in many years and when I did there were no such things as the .50 Barret or the .338 Lupua. We had to use the .300 Win. Magnum or a wildcat cart.
I can't shoot long range anymore at my age and condition but I still wish that I could. I will also say that useing a reduced target to simulate distance shooting is bullshit it will never make a long range shooter out of anyone with handgun or rifle.
Bill

[dorminWS]

However, you did make it sound like target scaling was key, which it isn't.

Target scaling is A key.

.......................................... Oh, and the OP is a smart-alec.

I'll have you know I ain't merely a smart-alec. I'm a full-fledged smart-ass.

[wylde007]

I will also say that using a reduced target to simulate distance shooting is bullshit it will never make a long range shooter out of anyone with handgun or rifle.

I never said it was ideal. I offered it as a sort of compromise solution in the event that a range of the length the OP was searching for was unavailable or impractical

Would you agree that it would be better to shoot at reduced distances with scaled targets than it would be to not shoot at all?

I'll have you know I ain't merely a smart-alec. I'm a full-fledged smart-ass.

Indeed. Well said.

[gunderwood]

I will also say that using a reduced target to simulate distance shooting is bullshit it will never make a long range shooter out of anyone with handgun or rifle.

I never said it was ideal. I offered it as a sort of compromise solution in the event that a range of the length the OP was searching for was unavailable or impractical

What Bill said and I have said is that it isn't a compromise. It isn't useful at all because it exercises none of the skills which are unique to shooting long range...PERIOD. Shooting a 1/2" dot at 100 yards is not in the least like shooting a 5" dot at 1000. It just doesn't work that way. A compromise solution would execute some of the unique skills, but not all...yours does none.

For example, a compromise solution to shooting 1500 yards would be to use a less capable cartridge/bullet at a shorter, but still long range distance (so the non-linear effects are still significant). The less capable cartridge, lets say at 1000 since that can be had without too much trouble unlike 1500, would not shrug off the shooters wind, range errors, etc. as well as a more capable cartridge. Many of the same unique skills would be practiced and refined. It still isn't the same thing, but at least it is similar enough to practice the unique skills (not all) and force the shooter to make less/smaller errors. E.g. a wrong wind call which leads to a miss on a lesser cartridge may be something that 50BMG can shrug off with ease.

[SgtBill]

Nuff said Garret
Bill

[wylde007]

For example, a compromise solution to shooting 1500 yards would be to use a less capable cartridge/bullet at a shorter, but still long range distance (so the non-linear effects are still significant).

That's the first response you've made on the subject where you did not resort immediately to attacking ME, rather offered a solution to the OP's dilemma, which was all I was trying to do in the first place.

[gunderwood]

For example, a compromise solution to shooting 1500 yards would be to use a less capable cartridge/bullet at a shorter, but still long range distance (so the non-linear effects are still significant).

That's the first response you've made on the subject where you did not resort immediately to attacking ME, rather offered a solution to the OP's dilemma, which was all I was trying to do in the first place.

No, I was rather polite about it at first and only became more forceful after you continually insisted that it was a solution to the problem at hand. I quote my immediate replies.

It works, but it is no where near the same. Smaller targets is not the primary problem of long distance shooting. Skills like wind reading are far more important and reducing scale just doesn't cut it.

Nope, not attacking you.

You said you will loose some, but that is not at all true. The least of your worries is target size. The main point of the long range game is all of those other variables become critical. Estimate the wind wrong at that distance and you completely miss. Estimate range the range wrong and you will completely shoot over or under a man sized target at those ranges (the danger space shrinks considerably). You made it sound like you could effectively practice the 1000k+ game at 300 yards and nothing could be further from the truth. You can practice mechanics which carry over at any range.

The point is that the critical variables are non-linear with range so what is a 1" error at 100 yards is >>10" of error at 1000k yards. The skills you must master are compensating for non-linear variables so scaling is worth nothing.

Yet again, I didn't attack you. I did say what you said was wrong, but that's no different than correcting someone who calls a mag a clip.

I'm guessing you have never even attempted to shoot at those ranges. Anyways...


The OP asked about 1k and ranges in VA out to 300 aren't that hard to find so I did put that number in there. However, you did make it sound like target scaling was key, which it isn't. You said explicitly you will loose some, which again is incorrect. Here is an example of why linear scaling doesn't work at all except for basic mechanics which you can practice in your house with dry firing.

Danger space and wind shrinking non-linearly with range. I'm using this public calc so people can check the results. http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi

I'll use the .308Win 175SMK at 2650fps which is approximately what our military shoots today out of their sniper rifles. Steps to configure the calc.

1. Use drop down menu to choose the Sierra Match King 175gr (Litz)
2. Set muzzle velocity to 2650fps and distance to chrono to 0ft.
3. Leave wind speed at 10MPH, but change target speed to 0MPH.
4. The default is a 12" target, but lets change that to 24" which would represent a center of mass shot on a human sized target.
5. Click the include danger space checkbox and then calculate.

First, take a look at the drop. With a 100 yard zero, there is 4.2" of drop at 300 yards, but 412" (34+ ft) at 1000k. Despite the linear scaler only being 3.3x, the drop increased by nearly 100x. Another way to look at this is danger space. In lay mans terms, it tells you how far off your range estimate can be before you miss the target even with a perfect shoot. At 300 yards any range estimate of 178-370 yards will still allow you to hit a target of 24" which actually is at 300 yards despite your awful range estimate, if everything else is spot on. Of course you will be high or low depending on your error. That equates to roughly 40% error margin on the low end and 23% at the high. However, at 1000 yards your range call must be between 990 and 1010 yards or a scant +-1% error. Add in the fact that your ability to accurately call range decreases as the range increases and it is trivial to see that short range scaled practice just doesn't cut it.

Now let's look at the wind. What is a mere 7.1" at 300 yards is now a huge 108.5" at 1k. Again, much greater than a scaled 3.3x would have you believe if you were practicing at short range. Of course this ignores the fact that calling wind to <1MPH at 1k is nothing at all like doing it at a mere 300 yards. Short range is so, well short, that you can practically measure the wind speed at your location and assume it is true out to the target. However, at long range it is not uncommon to see winds completely shift direction. Calling that off of visual indicators is a whole different story.

There are things like spin drift that are barely measurable at short range, but add up into inches at 1k.

If you really want to learn the long range game you must be willing to drive or know people with lots of land. Scaling like you suggested just doesn't even come close to cutting it.

Most of the post is pure factual statements. The underlined section is questioning your probable lack of experience. That isn't attacking your character, but it is questioning how much experience you have at the long range game...really no different than questioning how much firearm experience someone has when they repeatedly and insist on calling a mag a clip. Clearly they are mistaken and when all they do is say their right and you're wrong with no other argument to show why, questioning the experience of the poster is probably a wise move. A less arrogant approach would ask me why I don't think it is a solution and explain why you think it is. Of course the problem with that is I already provided facts and even ran through an example which you either didn't read or didn't comprehend. If you had asked nicely I would have attempted to explain it a different way.


Let's quote your responses...

Didn't I follow up my statement with that exact information?

Yes. Yes I did.

Yes, rolly eyes convey so much respect and curiosity.

You made it sound like you could effectively practice the 1000k+ game at 300 yards

You put those words in my mouth.

I implied nothing.

Yet more defense of the incorrect statement, but completely void of facts or experience to back it up. I should have asked if you weren't implying that you could practice long range shooting at shorter distances with a scaled target, why did you even bother posting it in this thread? I kind of doubt that the OP was asking for a 1k+ rifle range so he could have a picnic or for bird watching. If your "solution" wasn't about how to practice the skills of long range shooting at a shorter distance effectively, what exactly was the purpose of it? If you weren't implying that, then your post has as much to do with this thread as the price of tea in China.

Target scaling is A key.

I mentioned windage. I mentioned drop. I mentioned sight error.

Yes, all of those things are multiplied/magnified when distance increases.

I sure don't know why you're picking a nit that has nothing to do with my point. But, if it makes you feel better.

And no, I have not yet shot "that" far. But I know places where I can if I want to... but it's probably not a good idea. Oh, and the OP is a smart-alec.

Ask a stupid question, I guess.

So you downplay all of the challenges which make long range shooting hard in an attempt to justify your "solution," but I point out that it still is devoid of any factual argument as to why target scaling is an issue let alone a critical issue for long range shooting. Then you do actually attack me and the OP personally (underlined). It still takes two more posts of this nonsense before I do anything more than question your experience and point out the factual misunderstanding. Two posts later I did get kind of smart alacky with the "Thank you for playing" comment.

[wylde007]

I provided qualifications for my statements and then you proceeded to say that I did not, followed by response after response of attempted assassination of my character for not being verbose enough for your liking.

You keep attempting to impugn me for "downplaying" or "omitting" facets of long-range shooting, like I was deliberately discounting them or ignoring them altogether, drawing the conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about because I did not present a masters dissertation on the subject when I offered my first response.

How about from now on you try not to assume you know what someone else does and does not know?

I should not have to defend an argument I never instigated nor intended to start and frankly, exists only in your head.