5 Taliban Killed In 28 Seconds At Over 1 Mile ! More "Sniper" B.S.

[billt]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ghanistan.html

"It took me nine rounds but I took him down with the ninth.

"Then the other four had moved closer, so I took them down as well.

"They were taken down in the next 28 seconds."

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying any of it. Certainly not in "28 seconds". Here is why. He said in his own words it took him 9 rounds to hit the first guy. Then, he "took the other 4 as well". Assuming he killed each one of the 4 with just one round, that would mean a total of 13 rounds were fired minimally in just 28 seconds at targets that were at least ONE MILE AWAY! 13 rounds in 28 seconds equals 2.15 seconds per shot! This from a .338 Lapua rifle that only holds 5 rounds.

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

"Calibre .338 Lapua Magnum (8.58x70mm) (L115 / AWM), 7,62x51mm NATO (L96 / AW) Weight 6.8 kg, Length 1,300 mm, Muzzle velocity 936 m/s, Feed 5-round box and Effective range 1,100 m plus."

So in order to fire 13 rounds in 28 seconds, he would have to not only shoot at the rate of one round every 2.15 seconds, but he would also have to RELOAD 3 TIMES! Even if he had an extended magazine that held 13 rounds, (which he didn't), there is no way you are going to accurately acquire man sized targets one mile away, fire, work the bolt, reacquire the target, and fire again in the small span of 2.15 seconds. You can see in the picture there in fact is no extended magazine in his rifle. They show it resting flat and being supported from the trigger guard forward. They also show him holding it, and the magazine is flush. So it is no more than a 5 round capacity. I'm calling complete and total B.S, Bill T.

[NikeBauer21]

Yea, very suspect claim... I guess, by some fate of chance, it could be true... but this is very unlikely. And if it is indeed "made up", why would you make it so unbelievable. I mean, 5 guys in 28 seconds at appx 1-mile? That isn't a very believable story, and will cause a LOT of scrutiny to your claim... Even if "all the stars were aligned" for your shot, that is still a very, very, very stretch of a claim...

[doc4020]

"It took me nine rounds but I took him down with the ninth.

"Then the other four had moved closer, so I took them down as well.

"They were taken down in the next 28 seconds."


...no, as it is written the remaining four were taken down in 28 seconds, not all thirteen shots and five kills in 28 seconds. so to do the four shots in 28 seconds he would not have had to reload.

[billt]

...no, as it is written the remaining four were taken down in 28 seconds, not all thirteen shots and five kills in 28 seconds. so to do the four shots in 28 seconds he would not have had to reload.

Yes. Sorry, you are wrong. The headline of the article said he took out 5 Taliban in 28 seconds, period. He himself said it took him 9 rounds to hit the first guy. He then "took out the other 4". All 5 were killed in 28 seconds per the headline. No matter how you cut it, he had to fire the rifle 13 times in 28 seconds, and kill 5 people in the process over 1 mile away.

All this from a rifle that only holds 5 rounds. No how, no way. Complete and total B.S. Bill T.

[billt]

as it is written the remaining four were taken down in 28 seconds, not all thirteen shots and five kills in 28 seconds.

It doesn't say that. It says "They were taken in 28 seconds". It mentions no number. The headline is very specific, it does. The whole thing is total nonsense if anyone applies common sense. Bill T.

[XD45]

Theres a big difference between a reporter not understanding what was said, and the sniper making an absurd claim.

per the quotes in the story, I gotta lead towards it being a dumb reporter.

[Pizza Bob]

Headlines are added by the local rag that picks-up the story off the wire. They, and you, have misread/misinterpreted what was said. He is quoted as saying the first one took nine rounds and the next four took 28 seconds. Do the math that is 7 seconds per shot, with no need to reload (assuming a reload after the first was down).

Adios,

Pizza Bob

[DennisH82]

Headlines are added by the local rag that picks-up the story off the wire. They, and you, have misread/misinterpreted what was said. He is quoted as saying the first one took nine rounds and the next four took 28 seconds. Do the math that is 7 seconds per shot, with no need to reload (assuming a reload after the first was down).

Adios,

Pizza Bob

Oh No! you injected common sense in reading a reporters BS about a field Soldier. There are some folks that take news reports as Gospel.

[billt]

Even if it was 4 targets in 28 seconds, (which the article does not say), they were all in the same general area. I don't know about you, but if 2 or 3 of the 5 people I was taking a smoke break with, started having their bodies get ripped apart i would NOT be hanging around, much less standing still enough to get a bead drawn on me. 28 seconds is a LONG time when you're receiving fire. Especially when you see 8 rounds hit near you before your buddy drops. And remember, we're talking OVER 1 MILE AWAY! No way. He also had to reload the rifle 3 times to fire 13 rounds. Bill T.

[DennisH82]

You know these folks are not the smartest gene pool swimmers in the first place. A few weeks ago some of these walking organ donors attempted to breach and FOB and continued to hide behind bushes as a Apache continued to pick them off with a chain gun as they huddled together thinking that becuase it was night time the bird couldn't see them... so it is very likely they stood there and got picked off one at a time without even knowing where the rounds were coming from. SGT York did something like that on a squad of Germans in a trench...