In the army in basic training, literally every single soldier is required to hit targets at 250 yards that pop up for a few seconds with no scope just iron sites in order to graduate.
These are not sniper shots 250 yards is a basic simple shot that literally millions of American soldiers from desk clerks to radiology techs to truck drivers plus your infantry and tank crews all train for... in less than a week of training.
It would take ANYONE two days training to hit a 200 yard headshot.
Thank you! Everyone keeps talking about how expertly the shot was fired. So many Americans are great with guns because we have a huge gun culture! 150 yards is not that much of a distance. 400-600 yards is the effective eange of an AR-15.
Example of Simo Häyhä's confirmed kills were at 150 meters, but he made most of his fired shots at 600+ meters and those could not be confirmed. That was in WWII, 600+ meters are the norm to this say.
Took my 308 to the range today to make sure she still pounds. I’ve fired a gun maybe 50 times in my life. I can hit a target the size of a cantaloupe 10 out of 10 times at 200 yards. I’m not a gun guy at all. I’d love to still not have guns, but I live in rural Texas and I’m surrounded by people who hate me for my beliefs.
Oswald was also literally a trained marine marksman, so the whole "no way he could shoot a guy sitting silhouetted in a slow moving car from closer than competition range" line of conspiracy has always struck me as even stupider than most.
People seem to forget that Lee Harvey Oswald was a US Marine and had extensively trained with the weapons very similar to the one he used to murder JFK.
This is also why people on here who think Trump faked getting shot are knuckle-draggers. And that was some dipshit with a red dot the size of Trump's whole body, at that range. Not even a scope.
There's a line in Full Metal Jacket where R. Lee Ermey points this out to his recruits. He also mention Charles Whitman, who killed people from a tower at the college in Austin
Yeah, the conspiracy theorists often say things like he had the lowest passing grade so he couldn't've made the shot(s), but they conveniently leave out they're talking about the lowest grade for a Marine marksmen, which is still a pretty decent qualification.
I thought he used a pretty low budget Carcano hunting rifle from a mail-order catalogue? It's not a million miles from what he would've trained with, but it's far from military hardware
"it's far from military hardware" <--- Eh? The rifle he used was literally produced in 1940 for use by Italy in WW2. It was sold as army surplus. "The C2766 rifle was included in a surplus lot sold by the Italian Army, through a tender, to the New York company Adam Consolidated Industries." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
Just about anyone with a moderate amount of training and a halfway decent rifle can hit a man-sized target at 200 yards. 200 yards is not as far as you think it is.
I'm pretty sure there are shots over 300 to 400 yards that don't look ridiculous in The Hurt Locker, American Sniper, Enemy at the Gates, Léon: The Professional, Shooter, The Wall, Wanted, Quigley Down Under, Jack Reacher, Day Of The Jackal, Jarhead, The American and every one of the eight movies in the Sniper series.
Hollywood performers also have clauses in their contracts demanding no obstruction of the actor's face by a gun stock or a helmet during these scenes...
Normal ass captions would be better. This sort of insta/tiktok style of erratic subtitles are actually very frustrating for hearing impaired people, such as my spouse.
Subtitles for the common man - half illiterate and too low of an attention span to keep track - so they have to be big, in the middle of the screen, and highlighting what's being said. I'll grant that having them higher might have to do with the vertical format (and I still hate that everything is being designed for that) but dead center? Completely unnecessary unless you're catering to the lowest common denominator.
As a hired hand on a farm in high school, I could easily hit a woodchuck in a hay field at 200 yards using a bolt action rifle. Pretty much every farm kid I grew up with could. No tripod, just leaning on the fender of a pickup or a tractor. The crazy claims that it had to be some military sniper of government agent is just insane.
Yeah, when I heard the numbers my first reaction was "Oh, it was someone that has used a rifle before. That narrows it down to roughly every single person living in Utah."
Yep. The movies make it seem like you're shooting for 10 minutes. Nope. Bam. Bam. Done.
Collateral was good about this. And Boondock Saints even made a joke about it. Another reason all those talking about a civil war aren't prepared for a majority of it. Ask how many actual combat vets want this civil war. Sure. There may be some. But a VAST majority wants nothing to do with it.
Fun movie. Not even a little realistic when it comes to the action. But neither are almost all action movies. And it's fine! It's fantasy! And moderatly intelligent people know this! Too bad we have a shortage of moderately intelligent people...
Yup, and somehow rifles are inaccurate as fuck and can't help but miss while pistols have pinpoint accuracy.
Also for those of you curious at home, no, bullets don't bounce off of things making little sparks (frequently seen during car chases), they go straight through that shit.
The stuff that blocks bullets in movies always makes me laugh. I had to turn Rebel Moon off when a wooden table stopped their space guns. Same goes for regular guns in movies and tv. Car door? Unless it hits the frame it's going through like it's made of paper. Wooden door?
my brother was talking about the weapons that were at checkpoints in Iraq one time and said, that if a truck tried to run a checkpoint, even though they had signs in every common language saying not to or you will be shot, they would shoot at the driver. The bullet goes through the windshield, through the driver, through the seat, through the back seat, through the tailgate/back door, and directly into the ground. The rounds they used were almost never found in the vehicle.
Yeah, little kids have been killed because gang members have shot bullets that went through siding and walls. Meanwhile in shows, people are ducking behind sofas which are mainly just cushions and fabric over thin frames to get shielded from automatic weapons fire.
aaaaaaaakchually! Depending on the fill (padding), A couch cushion could make FAR BETTER protection than your average wood frame construction exterior grade wall. Big chunks of foam aren't much help, but if it's something more like "polyester fiber filling"... I used a teddy bear as a target once and it caught DOZENS of 9mm, 45mm and 357 before anything got through.
Yeah, it depends. I've just seen a lot of altercations where there were no wrestling bits, just a punch and a guy on the floor. Though often it's one drunkenly missed punch and *then* the rebuttal from the less drunk guy that ends with the more drunk guy on the floor.
Free Fire, one of the best films of all time and directed by Ben Wheatley, originated from him studying reports from shootouts and realizing how often people miss, even at close range. "5 shooters, over 100 rounds shot, and only one graze?"
But also, there is the other side of a coin. You can do crazy trickshots by pure accident, hit someone right in the eye while aiming at other guy 10 metres from him or just die by warning shot someone shot in the air miles from you. This one actually pissed me off yesterday, was rewatching Iron Man 2 and theres minigun on War Machine shooting wildly for like 2 minutes straight while flying through the city. Never hitting the good guy once but there would be shitton dead people
Any time someone asks what a shootout is REALLY like, I link them to the scene from Wind River, in which roughly a dozen or so people stand within nigh spitting distance of one-another and STILL somehow manage to miss almost every shot.
Yeah, that's not really the realistic part. Your body with plates is pretty good about absorbing the kinetic force applied to less than half a pound of ballistics even with extroardinary muzzle velocity invested in shortening lifespans.
What follows, that being the full exchange between the numerous shooters, is usually what I refer to regarding realistic exchanges - even at some of the most seemingly "I can get them from here" ranges, most shooters miss. A lot.
Fight director here. Our job is not to be realistic and it never will be. Our job is to create an entertaining and dramatic fight that fulfills the director's vision of the scene, and which doesn't get anybody injured. "Be realistic" is, like, 14th, on our checklist of 13 essential items for making our job happen. It's fun and great when it happens; but it almost *never* lines up with the director's vision of the scene, or with being entertaining or dramatic.
Indeed. And most people get that. Fights in movies are for entertainment, not education (usually). And that's totally fine. It's what I paid to see. If I wanted to be educated I'd watch a documentary or take a course or something. Not watch action movies.
Without any formal training, just practice, I can use my iron sights to hit a 4 inch target at 150 yards with 5.56 rounds. Beyond that I need a scope, because my eyesight is not what it used to be.
With a proper scope I can easily hit a target at 300+ yards using the same rounds. I'm sure the kinetic energy of that round at 300+ yards isn't very good, but I can still tag it.
Or he got lucky. While I don't disagree - he looks familiar enough with firearms - we also have a sample size of 1. When you're sighting in you don't shoot one and adjust: you shoot 3 or 5, and then move the center of the group. One shot is a data point, not a pattern - and the biggest difference pro and amateur is going to be consistency... which we just don't have the data to establish.
Trained at that distance in the military using the H&K AG3 with ironsights. If you set your sights right it will even out at 30 meters and 200 meters, which means you don't have to account for the drop at all at those ranges.
He was shot in the chest and the bullet ricochet'd around so much then came back out of the neck. Either he was aiming for the head and the bullet dropped or he hit where he aimed. Most people aim for the chest as it is the bigger target
I figured he was going for the chest since the tent was in the way, but hit high since he was sitting at a downward angle and he probably practiced at a range on level ground?
Pacific Rim is 100% cool as shit stuff happening that in no way makes sense. Their only requirement is “does it fucking rule?”
I used to tell people “this is a movie where a giant robot uses an oil tanker as a club to hit a giant mutant gorilla. If you’re not convinced the movie rules based on that, fuck you, you don’t deserve to watch the movie”
Aside from deliberately subsonic rounds for suppressed shooting, all rifle bullets are supersonic. Hence the saying you don't hear the shot that kills you.
those extremely long distance sniper shots are done with .50 anti-material rifles, muzzle velocity is like 2.5x the speed of sound...even while that bullet might slow down significantly it probably hit the guy at least 5 seconds before the sound wave arrived...
Holy shit. So, it's not walking around with your buddy and suddenly he clutches his chest and falls over. You're walking around with your buddy and suddenly he fucking explodes, right?
nah, those weapons still fire normal rounds, just big ones, the bullets dont explode...its just a big hole in your buddies chest and he probably wont even be able to clutch anything and just collapse on the spot, depending on how well placed the hit was...
Most bullets move much faster than the speed of sound, even after long distances, so yes - at any range that a bullet can feasibly hit a target, the bullet will hit before the sound wave hits. That's true whether the target is 10 yards away, 100 yards away or 1,000 yards away. The 2.5 mile shot was a .50 cal bullet that probably had an initial velocity close to 3000 feet/sec. Sound moves at ~1,100 feet/sec.
Bruh... That happens at ANY distance unless you're using subsonic rounds, which are not something you generally use unless you're firing with a suppressor or some varieties of handgun. Supersonic bullets always arrive before the sound does. Distance is just a matter of how long before.
If you were the target, anyone around you would hear the wet SLAP of the bullet impacting. Probably would not hear the discharge at all at that distance.
Oh that's an interesting physics question. Bullets start out at supersonic speeds but slowly lose speed with air resistance, so when would a bullet fall below supersonic speeds? Oh but then it would be, when would the bullet slow enough for the sound/shockwave to catch up and pass the bullet? Also, would humidity levels affect the speeds?
I've developed a recent following of people who d/v my comments automatically because I ask too many questions. But anyways, I wish I knew more math/physics to actually figure this out. Well and had more energy. haha
Basically all rifles, and many handguns are supersonic. The transition from super- to sub- sonic is chaotic, and generally de-stabilizes the bullet. Once you have a good optic and decent barrel, the 'practical' range of a rifle is generally the point at which bullet velocity hits trans-sonic. Up til that point, they basically fly in a straight ballistic arc. Past that all bets are off. Any decent long range shooter (600y+) can tell you exactly when that is *for their specific gun*. Mine, eg -
is just under 1300y (about 1290) for my barrel length, muzzle velocity and ballistic coefficient on my long-range gun. Almost certainly the drop means the bullet would impact ground before the muzzle report caught up, unless you aimed for a very long arc...
At 2.5 miles, you may not even hear the shot depending on terrain. The bullet hitting before the sound wave being heard with a perceptible difference occurs at about 400 meters or about 1200 feet, or a quarter of a mile. Compared to a standard 5.56 rifle round moving at almost 3300 feet per second at the muzzle, the speed of sound is slow at 1,125 feet per second.
He's right. When I was in the military we used to train on human sized targets at 200 meters, using the H&K AG3 which was the standard for the Norwegian military at the time. This was with ironsights by the way. Now, I was not an expert shooter by any stretch of the imagination, but my best score at that range was 94 points, which means that I could probably have made the shot that killed Charlie Kirk.
Finnish conscript army practices 300 meters as standard with iron sights on the RK62 aka AK47 platform... And everyone hits the 30cm target after some 10-20 rounds reliably, even those who have never operated a gun before. I believe you Norwegians have about the same system we have, as Swedes, Danes and Baltics do. The bestest friends of ours! This is why i honestly believe the attempt on Trump, it was staged. With good shooter, you can stage stuff reliably at distances less than 200 meters.
I absolutely think Trumps "assassination attempt" was rigged. Trump wore a band-aid for two weeks and then his bullet hole went away without a trace. Ear injuries don't just disappear. Take Evander Holyfield as an example. In the meantime, Trump got a bruise on his hand around February of 2025 and he still has a bruise 7 months later. Not exactly a quick healer. I assume fake blood was used, and that the "shooter" probably was assured he would be taken alive.
The AG3F2 with the M4 red dot made 200m shots waaay easier. Even with the stock AG3, it's not difficult by any means to hit a static target at that range.
Yup! As a Cadet, I first learned to shoot a very elderly war surplus SMLE .303 at 250 metres and keep it within a 6" circle. Within six months I was shooting a FN C1-A1 at 500 metres and keeping it in a 4" circle. And, it's important to note that the shooter may not have hit point of aim. A higher chest shot or a low head shot could have produced the same results
As an American who lived in a gun obsessed part of the country, I would go shooting relatively often, and I have made a shot from 200m and hit a target the size of a water bottle. It's not difficult if you've even practiced a little.
Even with my 1943 Mosin you could easily hit a man sized target at 200 yards with iron sights. Might be center mass, but still nasty. 100 or under I think most folks could hit a 6" circle with very little practice. Far easier to hit stuff than a pistol any day, but it's like a mile long.
Let's say the front iron sight is 2.5 ft away from the shooters' eye. An object 400 ft away would look 160 times smaller than that front post. So, a 6 foot man would appear ~1/2 inch tall and 1/8 inch wide at 400ft compared to the 1/8 inch wide sight. Essentially, the front post would cover the entire target. I don't know how someone could be confident to hit center mass on the first shot with iron sights only. Remember, you probably only get one try before the target begins moving.
Your math doesn't math. The formula is: Angle (in degrees) ≈ Object height divided by distance multiplied by 57.3. 57.3 is the conversion factor from radians to degrees.
When you punch in the numbers a 6' tall person (1.83m) standing 400' away (122m) would appear to be about 0.71 inches (1,8cm). Which is considerably larger than the pin on an iron sight.
Yes, the target would be slightly taller than the sight, but not wider. That is what I meant; seems too easy to miss to left or right, though not as hard to hit the window from top of bottom.
If we're talking a normal build person, they should be between 0.5 - 1.0 cm wide. Look, I've shot at human size targets at 200 m (about 650 feet) range, and I could definitely see the target around the pin of my ironsights.
I guess I'll just take your word for it. I have not, and am going off of estimates and calculations I found from different sources online about how large objects would appear at certain distances compared to a front sight post. What I concluded is the width of a target would be equal or a little more narrow than the width of the sight post at that range. Maybe not. I doubt I will ever get a chance to see for myself.
Every single soldier in the us army is required to hit shots on a 250 meter target that pops up for a couple seconds, with less than a week of weapons training, with iron sites.
every year 50,000 new soldiers are trained. millions have gone through that same training over the last few decades.
Im not saying you need military training for that, im saying, ANYONE can hit a headshot on a mostly stationary target from 250M/800 feet with a few days of practice.
Pretty sure you'd take that back if you saw me shoot. Good thing I never enlisted then. I supposedly have 20/20 vision, but apparently that doesn't count for much when shooting. Just target shooting at ~50 yards with a .22LR tells me I'd have no chance at something 250m away.
While I was in the Marine Corps, I first qualified on the rifle range with an M16A2, with iron sights, and we were hitting human sized upper torso outlines at 500 yards. Those of us that qualified expert would hit those shots in tight groups, and Marines, to qualify, would have to hit that target in the black at least 5 of 10 times.
Yap . I trained with the same weapon in the Portuguese army and could it the torso at 400 meters but we and a guy in my platoon that could consistently hit the head at 600 metes wich is almost the range of the rifle
It is. And 200 meters isn't as far as the news make it out to be. With a decent rifle, that's practically close combat. I guess it just sounds cooler to say "expert shooter" than "any half decent moron with a rifle".
In military assault rifles that have adjustable iron sights 300 meters is as low as they go. Everything below is basically "don't worry about bullet drop off".
yep at 200 or so odd yards wind and bullet drop will not even be a factor beyond where on the penny you hit (the bullet build quality is going to be a bigger factor). we presume the person is not using a under powered pistol like I dont know (quick googling) some gun using 8mm Nambu famously underpowered even for a pistol bullet(insert correct terminology)... did have low recoil but thats about it. or a really bad weapon and I dont mean like a Nagant but more like a gun whit poor build quality.
100% I regularly make shots at 100m with a PISTOL, iron sights. (Stationary steel targets). 200m with a rifle is cake, especially w an “ok” scope. I could teach anyone w decent vision to hit a standard silhouette at 200m in an afternoon.
Same, M16 with ironsights for me though. I would have qualified expert if the piece of shit hadn't jammed on me but it is what it is. These shots are nothing special on stationary targets. Even the shittiest of us at the ranges pass eventually.
At least in the Norwegian military, the M16 had a reputation for not being all that reliable. Loved the AG3 though, and the punch of that 7.62 mm was very satisfying.
Almost every time I’ve seen a jam with the M16/M4, it was because of the shitty magazines they’d issue, and even that could be fixed for a while if you opened them up and stretched out the spring every so often.
I’ve shot a G3 and liked it alright, but for something I had to carry around all the time, it was nice having a lighter rifle and lighter ammunition on long marches.
I did a pretty good clear on it and still got sharpshooter. I cleaned and oiled that thing like a delicate lady the day before, too. Hard to tell with those trainers though, they go through some ROUGH stuff.
Damn straight. I've hit a target the size of a coffee cup at 200 meters with a converted Kar98K rifle, and that was without any form of a scope or sight attached. Granted, the K98K rifles are damn accurate, and this was at a range with essentially zero wind or other interference, prone position... basically, as ideal circumstances for shooting as you can get outdoors.
...but the point is, I don't even have military training, and I popped that target thanks to the extreme precision of the rifle.
It better have been a latter-half of the war production rifle... ruining a rifle from the late 1930s by "sporterizing" the stock should be a fuckin' crime in and of itself!
Anyone thinking modern day firearms (depending on the type of course) are hard to hit with have simply never fired a proper precision rifle in their life. A measly 80 yards? Bitch please. I could do that with a decently accurate handgun, let alone a rifle.
(And just to give all y'all yanks some context: 200m would be about 220 yards, so NEARLY THRICE the range the dude was talking about in the video above.)
Relatedly, there's a saying I'm fond of when it comes to precision rifles: If you miss the first five shots with a rifle, get a different rifle. If you miss the first five shots with the second rifle, get a different shooter.
A lot of weapons are that precise (as in does the same thing every time). The accuracy is mostly the user until quite a distance for the typical rifle.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The rifle provides the precision, the shooter provides the accuracy. (With some leeway for shitty rifles that negatively affect accuracy, obviously)
I do understand, its the first line where he said that movies are lying to you. Thats the "gotcha" line that keeps people watching, which is hilariously stupid IMHO.
If you understand, why are you focusing on movies when it’s also a popular perception outside of movies - such as the news, or in conspiracy theories, which is what this post is about?
Nobody was saying movies aren’t real like that’s a revelation. It’s detailed information to combat a specific narrative outside of fiction.
I felt I should explain all of this to you because you still didn’t seem to understand the post.
I understand, the general population is ignorant when it comes to firearms and their capabilities. As a Combat Systems Navy Vet I understand this, I also find it hilarious that he tried to do that whole "movies are lying to you" bit which is hilarious IMHO. Something to mock because, thats like saying cold is cold or hot is hot.
You're really stuck on a very inconsequential part of the video friend. I get it. It's clickbaity, but it's so far from the point it's not a great look to suggest that was your whole takeaway from the video in your first comment.
I'm gonna ask you a question, which movie is sentient? The movies he references in the beginning, the ones he claims have sentience and can lie to you? Again, not an essay on the topic. I am focusing on how stupid that line was, because it was stupid. Did you know that untrue things are untrue?
The commonly understood meaning of saying a piece of media (writing, film, music, whatever) "lied" is that it contained incorrect factual information in a manner that is likely to mislead someone. It does not imply intent or consciousness on the part of the media itself. While it would be more precise to say the individuals responsible for this misinformation lied, the exact responsible party is often unclear, especially with large projects like big-budget movies.
Your comment is lying to me. Does that mean that I literally think your comment is sentient and lying to me? Or that it's a kind of figure of speech and that I actually mean the person that wrote your comment?
I'm not doing that. I didn't write a dissertation on the video, I made a short comment about how dumb the tag line was to bring people in. You don't need to do this, you want to do this because you want to feel special but you don't need to do this.
bl0ke
Yeah, the accuracy of top-tier snipers is measured in kilometres for a reason.
LordHosk
In the army in basic training, literally every single soldier is required to hit targets at 250 yards that pop up for a few seconds with no scope just iron sites in order to graduate.
These are not sniper shots 250 yards is a basic simple shot that literally millions of American soldiers from desk clerks to radiology techs to truck drivers plus your infantry and tank crews all train for... in less than a week of training.
It would take ANYONE two days training to hit a 200 yard headshot.
Yellowchopsticks
Wait, hold on, you mean planes and helicopters don't have to get with swatting distance of Godzilla to attack?
Nocturnalswitch
That was such a dumb part of skull Island too
kuscheck
VictusVonGuyver
Thank you! Everyone keeps talking about how expertly the shot was fired. So many Americans are great with guns because we have a huge gun culture! 150 yards is not that much of a distance. 400-600 yards is the effective eange of an AR-15.
Example of Simo Häyhä's confirmed kills were at 150 meters, but he made most of his fired shots at 600+ meters and those could not be confirmed. That was in WWII, 600+ meters are the norm to this say.
ChipDontDoIt
Took my 308 to the range today to make sure she still pounds. I’ve fired a gun maybe 50 times in my life. I can hit a target the size of a cantaloupe 10 out of 10 times at 200 yards. I’m not a gun guy at all. I’d love to still not have guns, but I live in rural Texas and I’m surrounded by people who hate me for my beliefs.
Bunnies007
When I saw that he had been shot in the neck, my first thought was that it was a failed headshot that nonetheless achieved the desired purpose.
wadatahmydamie
That’s one of the craziest things about this story. It’s like shooting at a beach ball and hitting a straw
Gerokeymaster
Oswald was also literally a trained marine marksman, so the whole "no way he could shoot a guy sitting silhouetted in a slow moving car from closer than competition range" line of conspiracy has always struck me as even stupider than most.
SomeDetroitGuy
People seem to forget that Lee Harvey Oswald was a US Marine and had extensively trained with the weapons very similar to the one he used to murder JFK.
Metallica93
This is also why people on here who think Trump faked getting shot are knuckle-draggers. And that was some dipshit with a red dot the size of Trump's whole body, at that range. Not even a scope.
FairfaxJack
There's a line in Full Metal Jacket where R. Lee Ermey points this out to his recruits. He also mention Charles Whitman, who killed people from a tower at the college in Austin
ardtay
amp99
Yeah, the conspiracy theorists often say things like he had the lowest passing grade so he couldn't've made the shot(s), but they conveniently leave out they're talking about the lowest grade for a Marine marksmen, which is still a pretty decent qualification.
MyRespectableAlterEgo
I thought he used a pretty low budget Carcano hunting rifle from a mail-order catalogue? It's not a million miles from what he would've trained with, but it's far from military hardware
mushuporky
Military hardware is made by the lowest bidder...
amp99
"it's far from military hardware" <--- Eh? The rifle he used was literally produced in 1940 for use by Italy in WW2. It was sold as army surplus. "The C2766 rifle was included in a surplus lot sold by the Italian Army, through a tender, to the New York company Adam Consolidated Industries." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
MyRespectableAlterEgo
How foolish of me.
ScrippyChan
I direct you to the M3 submachine gun, just as an off-hand example. "Military-grade" is not a phrase indicative of craftsmanship. Not by a long shot.
nintendolunchbox
A few weeks in army basic training is a few hours at the range gets you to that accuracy
Nofeelingisfinalfantasy
I did not know this
AtmaDarkwolf
CENTER-OF-SCREEN-SUBTITLES-MUST-FUCKING-GO. Message is worth seeing but god damn PLLLLEEEASE stop with these fucking obnoxious style of subtitling.
unluckyandbored
Just about anyone with a moderate amount of training and a halfway decent rifle can hit a man-sized target at 200 yards. 200 yards is not as far as you think it is.
marthafarquar
I'm pretty sure there are shots over 300 to 400 yards that don't look ridiculous in The Hurt Locker, American Sniper, Enemy at the Gates, Léon: The Professional, Shooter, The Wall, Wanted, Quigley Down Under, Jack Reacher, Day Of The Jackal, Jarhead, The American and every one of the eight movies in the Sniper series.
ZoBrightlance
"A sniper rifle! He shot a guy from the helicopter! With a sniper rifle!"
All machismo and US-centric cheese aside, the first couple Sniper movies are pretty fun to watch.
ApostleOfMalum
So the guy that took a pop at Trump was really bad?
wadatahmydamie
Yes, for multiple reasons
jebstat59365
Hollywood performers also have clauses in their contracts demanding no obstruction of the actor's face by a gun stock or a helmet during these scenes...
badkluster04
I hate that these are the standard subtitles now for everything
someuser
To be fair to Top Gun, they were specifically training for super close quarters stuff
Harm
And the chosen picture depicts a scene of formation flying,not any of the combat sequences.
rebelft
Wasnt there recently a confirmed hit of an Ukrainian sniper from over 4km away?
SergeyPrkl
Yes.
rebelft
*confirmed kill I should have said
ravenousj
Ghost. Kill at 4,000 m.
TheCriticsWereConciseItOnlyTookFourLines
Whose idea was the red highlighting of each word in the closed captioning and have they repented yet?
wadatahmydamie
Instagram is trash, but if it helps the deaf, great. I legitimately don’t know if it’s helpful or if it’s a brain hack thing
lozeldatkm
Normal ass captions would be better. This sort of insta/tiktok style of erratic subtitles are actually very frustrating for hearing impaired people, such as my spouse.
wadatahmydamie
Thank you, must be a trick to keep eyes on a video then. What a pain in the ass.
Navrodel
Subtitles for the common man - half illiterate and too low of an attention span to keep track - so they have to be big, in the middle of the screen, and highlighting what's being said.
I'll grant that having them higher might have to do with the vertical format (and I still hate that everything is being designed for that) but dead center? Completely unnecessary unless you're catering to the lowest common denominator.
delecti
If they're much lower, they conflict with the UI of Instagram and TikTok.
Wobbleding
All the more reason to despise those shitty, braindead sites...
icannotthinkofanyrationalname
As a hired hand on a farm in high school, I could easily hit a woodchuck in a hay field at 200 yards using a bolt action rifle. Pretty much every farm kid I grew up with could. No tripod, just leaning on the fender of a pickup or a tractor. The crazy claims that it had to be some military sniper of government agent is just insane.
Zunderfeuer
Yeah but did you learn how much wood a woodchuck chucked in the woods?
icannotthinkofanyrationalname
How many nuns could a nunchuck chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns?
Zunderfeuer
Hoch many chucks could Chuck Norris chuck?
NSander
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home"
grandfalloon
I like how everyone glosses over "they're not much bigger than two meters." Dude... Beggar's Canyon is full of seven fucking foot rats?!?
theomni
Yeah, when I heard the numbers my first reaction was "Oh, it was someone that has used a rifle before. That narrows it down to roughly every single person living in Utah."
VitaminJay
Gunfights in movies are just dance routines. Actual gunfights are both terrifying and hilariously banal.
Comet260
Does anyone remember this? The Kehoe brothers shootout: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G3WSwOQD0k
Ac1dBurn72
Yep. The movies make it seem like you're shooting for 10 minutes. Nope. Bam. Bam. Done.
Collateral was good about this. And Boondock Saints even made a joke about it. Another reason all those talking about a civil war aren't prepared for a majority of it. Ask how many actual combat vets want this civil war. Sure. There may be some. But a VAST majority wants nothing to do with it.
FermentTheRich3000
The ones that do want it were not likely in combat. Truck drivers and parade boys.
SocoFox
Long periods of boredom interspersed with short bursts of terror.
Gestalt7
BrokenAnimal
Fun movie. Not even a little realistic when it comes to the action. But neither are almost all action movies. And it's fine! It's fantasy! And moderatly intelligent people know this! Too bad we have a shortage of moderately intelligent people...
Soggybathroomsock
But that shit was absolute gas though.
ChareAndFlaff
You seem to be implying that this documentary footage is somehow unbelievable.
Molotovbliss
Chilichunks
Cleric Preston ran so John Wick could walk.
PickleRiiiiiiiiiiiiick
Gun-kata is best
Nostradamuswaswrong
Yup, and somehow rifles are inaccurate as fuck and can't help but miss while pistols have pinpoint accuracy.
Also for those of you curious at home, no, bullets don't bounce off of things making little sparks (frequently seen during car chases), they go straight through that shit.
Lampmonster
The stuff that blocks bullets in movies always makes me laugh. I had to turn Rebel Moon off when a wooden table stopped their space guns. Same goes for regular guns in movies and tv. Car door? Unless it hits the frame it's going through like it's made of paper. Wooden door?
jayman0123
my brother was talking about the weapons that were at checkpoints in Iraq one time and said, that if a truck tried to run a checkpoint, even though they had signs in every common language saying not to or you will be shot, they would shoot at the driver. The bullet goes through the windshield, through the driver, through the seat, through the back seat, through the tailgate/back door, and directly into the ground. The rounds they used were almost never found in the vehicle.
SadToSay
Yeah, little kids have been killed because gang members have shot bullets that went through siding and walls. Meanwhile in shows, people are ducking behind sofas which are mainly just cushions and fabric over thin frames to get shielded from automatic weapons fire.
polarpurple
aaaaaaaakchually! Depending on the fill (padding), A couch cushion could make FAR BETTER protection than your average wood frame construction exterior grade wall. Big chunks of foam aren't much help, but if it's something more like "polyester fiber filling"... I used a teddy bear as a target once and it caught DOZENS of 9mm, 45mm and 357 before anything got through.
ZackWester
does not help that the US builds its homes out of cardboard/drywall and not thick bricks and concrete (something that actually can stop a bullets).
SortaSordid
As are fistfights in films. Actual fights are generally a bunch of shit talk followed by 30 seconds of actual violence.
VitaminJay
Everyone's plans go to pot when their nose is broken. The one that third first is often the winner.
FetteredJuvenescence
30 seconds is on the long side, too. Lot of fights start and end with the first hit.
SortaSordid
I'm giving a bit of time for the wrestling bits, but omitted the pre-fight shoves which I consider to be in the shit talking phase.
FetteredJuvenescence
Yeah, it depends. I've just seen a lot of altercations where there were no wrestling bits, just a punch and a guy on the floor. Though often it's one drunkenly missed punch and *then* the rebuttal from the less drunk guy that ends with the more drunk guy on the floor.
HaberdasherInGold
Free Fire, one of the best films of all time and directed by Ben Wheatley, originated from him studying reports from shootouts and realizing how often people miss, even at close range. "5 shooters, over 100 rounds shot, and only one graze?"
VitaminJay
Heist, the Mammet film, also depicts a gunfight stupidly well. Everyone packs heat, no one knows how to use them when it's go time.
CardeasIV
But also, there is the other side of a coin. You can do crazy trickshots by pure accident, hit someone right in the eye while aiming at other guy 10 metres from him or just die by warning shot someone shot in the air miles from you. This one actually pissed me off yesterday, was rewatching Iron Man 2 and theres minigun on War Machine shooting wildly for like 2 minutes straight while flying through the city. Never hitting the good guy once but there would be shitton dead people
anerdwithaknife
No the people dodged
CardeasIV
Understandable, my bad
WriteorWrong
Any time someone asks what a shootout is REALLY like, I link them to the scene from Wind River, in which roughly a dozen or so people stand within nigh spitting distance of one-another and STILL somehow manage to miss almost every shot.
https://youtu.be/ZIz79C-FCA0?si=fu_kDwQqHbYIUXpE
Adrenaline is one hell of force when it comes to skewing your aim.
dffksh
Guy flying about a meter backwards and upwards from rifle hit is a bit of a stretch...
WriteorWrong
Yeah, that's not really the realistic part. Your body with plates is pretty good about absorbing the kinetic force applied to less than half a pound of ballistics even with extroardinary muzzle velocity invested in shortening lifespans.
What follows, that being the full exchange between the numerous shooters, is usually what I refer to regarding realistic exchanges - even at some of the most seemingly "I can get them from here" ranges, most shooters miss. A lot.
Frostedjakes
Shotgun*
Swordguy
Fight director here. Our job is not to be realistic and it never will be. Our job is to create an entertaining and dramatic fight that fulfills the director's vision of the scene, and which doesn't get anybody injured. "Be realistic" is, like, 14th, on our checklist of 13 essential items for making our job happen. It's fun and great when it happens; but it almost *never* lines up with the director's vision of the scene, or with being entertaining or dramatic.
Good video OP.
BrokenAnimal
Indeed. And most people get that. Fights in movies are for entertainment, not education (usually). And that's totally fine. It's what I paid to see. If I wanted to be educated I'd watch a documentary or take a course or something. Not watch action movies.
wadatahmydamie
Any thoughts on Lioness? That “feels” realistic but I don’t know shit about fuck
SploogeMcDuck316
Yeah often "realistic" is boring.
Mikesane
Quality equipment and the skill to dial in a scope are the basics. Then practice.
Him pulling off what he did with only one round shows he was pretty in tune with his pew pew
TheAnswerWasAlwaysMoreLube
Writing 4chan memes from 2015 also supports this.
CallMeCourierSix
Without any formal training, just practice, I can use my iron sights to hit a 4 inch target at 150 yards with 5.56 rounds. Beyond that I need a scope, because my eyesight is not what it used to be.
With a proper scope I can easily hit a target at 300+ yards using the same rounds. I'm sure the kinetic energy of that round at 300+ yards isn't very good, but I can still tag it.
SgtKashim
Or he got lucky. While I don't disagree - he looks familiar enough with firearms - we also have a sample size of 1. When you're sighting in you don't shoot one and adjust: you shoot 3 or 5, and then move the center of the group. One shot is a data point, not a pattern - and the biggest difference pro and amateur is going to be consistency... which we just don't have the data to establish.
wadatahmydamie
Sorta. He missed his target but still got the result he wanted. The type of round he was firing would drop by 5-7 inches over that distance
BrokenAnimal
Trained at that distance in the military using the H&K AG3 with ironsights.
If you set your sights right it will even out at 30 meters and 200 meters, which means you don't have to account for the drop at all at those ranges.
wadatahmydamie
I’m speculating on why he was shot in the neck, rather than in the head. Appreciate the insight!
IDontUnderstandWhatIsHappening
He was shot in the chest and the bullet ricochet'd around so much then came back out of the neck. Either he was aiming for the head and the bullet dropped or he hit where he aimed. Most people aim for the chest as it is the bigger target
Evenmoreuselessname
I figured he was going for the chest since the tent was in the way, but hit high since he was sitting at a downward angle and he probably practiced at a range on level ground?
DickGenie
That jet fighter comment was actually my pet peeve with Pacific Rim (2013). Looks mega cool but really idiotic
wadatahmydamie
Pacific Rim is 100% cool as shit stuff happening that in no way makes sense. Their only requirement is “does it fucking rule?”
I used to tell people “this is a movie where a giant robot uses an oil tanker as a club to hit a giant mutant gorilla. If you’re not convinced the movie rules based on that, fuck you, you don’t deserve to watch the movie”
kerrigan778
I just immediately objected to there being two guns on an F22
Bleppo
Incidentally, Jason Pargin is also known as David Wong, author of John Dies at the End
Nathanyel
well THANKS for reminding me that I keep forgetting to buy that book, or watch the movie!
wadatahmydamie
His books are legitimately unsettling in a way Stephen King’s stuff never was for me.
His sci-fi ones are just funny
Nathanyel
oh and he also wrote that thing about the Monkeysphere: (sadly most accompanying images are gone/broken by now) https://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
wadatahmydamie
I used the internet archive for old articles.
I recommend his newest book. It feels like his Monkeysphere stuff as a frame for an excellent story
LespritDeLescalier22
At 2.5 miles away, would the bullet reach the target before the sound wave of the discharge?
JohnSatclaire
Aside from deliberately subsonic rounds for suppressed shooting, all rifle bullets are supersonic. Hence the saying you don't hear the shot that kills you.
RecurringNightmare
those extremely long distance sniper shots are done with .50 anti-material rifles, muzzle velocity is like 2.5x the speed of sound...even while that bullet might slow down significantly it probably hit the guy at least 5 seconds before the sound wave arrived...
grandfalloon
Holy shit. So, it's not walking around with your buddy and suddenly he clutches his chest and falls over. You're walking around with your buddy and suddenly he fucking explodes, right?
RecurringNightmare
nah, those weapons still fire normal rounds, just big ones, the bullets dont explode...its just a big hole in your buddies chest and he probably wont even be able to clutch anything and just collapse on the spot, depending on how well placed the hit was...
pangolinx
Most bullets move much faster than the speed of sound, even after long distances, so yes - at any range that a bullet can feasibly hit a target, the bullet will hit before the sound wave hits. That's true whether the target is 10 yards away, 100 yards away or 1,000 yards away. The 2.5 mile shot was a .50 cal bullet that probably had an initial velocity close to 3000 feet/sec. Sound moves at ~1,100 feet/sec.
FetteredJuvenescence
Bruh... That happens at ANY distance unless you're using subsonic rounds, which are not something you generally use unless you're firing with a suppressor or some varieties of handgun. Supersonic bullets always arrive before the sound does. Distance is just a matter of how long before.
tenzip
If you were the target, anyone around you would hear the wet SLAP of the bullet impacting. Probably would not hear the discharge at all at that distance.
tenzip
For a little more context, you can hear the bullet impact, say, a deer, if you are a couple-three hundred yards away when you shoot it.
freshthrowaway1138
Oh that's an interesting physics question. Bullets start out at supersonic speeds but slowly lose speed with air resistance, so when would a bullet fall below supersonic speeds? Oh but then it would be, when would the bullet slow enough for the sound/shockwave to catch up and pass the bullet? Also, would humidity levels affect the speeds?
LespritDeLescalier22
I have no understanding why your comment was downvoted. These are all great questions. To me. But I don’t know shit about guns other than pew pew
freshthrowaway1138
I've developed a recent following of people who d/v my comments automatically because I ask too many questions. But anyways, I wish I knew more math/physics to actually figure this out. Well and had more energy. haha
LespritDeLescalier22
Asking questions is the way one learns and gets to know other people, and conversely, ourselves in the process. Keep it up. You are wiser than most.
freshthrowaway1138
I'd go with annoying more than wise. haha
SgtKashim
Basically all rifles, and many handguns are supersonic. The transition from super- to sub- sonic is chaotic, and generally de-stabilizes the bullet. Once you have a good optic and decent barrel, the 'practical' range of a rifle is generally the point at which bullet velocity hits trans-sonic. Up til that point, they basically fly in a straight ballistic arc. Past that all bets are off. Any decent long range shooter (600y+) can tell you exactly when that is *for their specific gun*. Mine, eg -
SgtKashim
is just under 1300y (about 1290) for my barrel length, muzzle velocity and ballistic coefficient on my long-range gun. Almost certainly the drop means the bullet would impact ground before the muzzle report caught up, unless you aimed for a very long arc...
DamnYourePretty
At 2.5 miles, you may not even hear the shot depending on terrain. The bullet hitting before the sound wave being heard with a perceptible difference occurs at about 400 meters or about 1200 feet, or a quarter of a mile. Compared to a standard 5.56 rifle round moving at almost 3300 feet per second at the muzzle, the speed of sound is slow at 1,125 feet per second.
BrokenAnimal
He's right.
When I was in the military we used to train on human sized targets at 200 meters, using the H&K AG3 which was the standard for the Norwegian military at the time. This was with ironsights by the way.
Now, I was not an expert shooter by any stretch of the imagination, but my best score at that range was 94 points, which means that I could probably have made the shot that killed Charlie Kirk.
SergeyPrkl
Finnish conscript army practices 300 meters as standard with iron sights on the RK62 aka AK47 platform... And everyone hits the 30cm target after some 10-20 rounds reliably, even those who have never operated a gun before. I believe you Norwegians have about the same system we have, as Swedes, Danes and Baltics do. The bestest friends of ours! This is why i honestly believe the attempt on Trump, it was staged. With good shooter, you can stage stuff reliably at distances less than 200 meters.
MYBR549
I absolutely think Trumps "assassination attempt" was rigged. Trump wore a band-aid for two weeks and then his bullet hole went away without a trace. Ear injuries don't just disappear. Take Evander Holyfield as an example. In the meantime, Trump got a bruise on his hand around February of 2025 and he still has a bruise 7 months later. Not exactly a quick healer. I assume fake blood was used, and that the "shooter" probably was assured he would be taken alive.
b0stark
The AG3F2 with the M4 red dot made 200m shots waaay easier. Even with the stock AG3, it's not difficult by any means to hit a static target at that range.
barbarian818
Yup! As a Cadet, I first learned to shoot a very elderly war surplus SMLE .303 at 250 metres and keep it within a 6" circle. Within six months I was shooting a FN C1-A1 at 500 metres and keeping it in a 4" circle. And, it's important to note that the shooter may not have hit point of aim. A higher chest shot or a low head shot could have produced the same results
CharlesMontgomeryBurns
As an American who lived in a gun obsessed part of the country, I would go shooting relatively often, and I have made a shot from 200m and hit a target the size of a water bottle. It's not difficult if you've even practiced a little.
Gibleteousjack
Even with my 1943 Mosin you could easily hit a man sized target at 200 yards with iron sights. Might be center mass, but still nasty. 100 or under I think most folks could hit a 6" circle with very little practice. Far easier to hit stuff than a pistol any day, but it's like a mile long.
Sfingks
Agreed, as a kid I frequently made 200 meter shots with an SKS with iron sights. It wasn’t an outrageous feat.
hyperchondriac
Let's say the front iron sight is 2.5 ft away from the shooters' eye. An object 400 ft away would look 160 times smaller than that front post. So, a 6 foot man would appear ~1/2 inch tall and 1/8 inch wide at 400ft compared to the 1/8 inch wide sight. Essentially, the front post would cover the entire target. I don't know how someone could be confident to hit center mass on the first shot with iron sights only. Remember, you probably only get one try before the target begins moving.
BrokenAnimal
Your math doesn't math.
The formula is: Angle (in degrees) ≈ Object height divided by distance multiplied by 57.3.
57.3 is the conversion factor from radians to degrees.
When you punch in the numbers a 6' tall person (1.83m) standing 400' away (122m) would appear to be about 0.71 inches (1,8cm). Which is considerably larger than the pin on an iron sight.
hyperchondriac
Yes, the target would be slightly taller than the sight, but not wider. That is what I meant; seems too easy to miss to left or right, though not as hard to hit the window from top of bottom.
BrokenAnimal
If we're talking a normal build person, they should be between 0.5 - 1.0 cm wide.
Look, I've shot at human size targets at 200 m (about 650 feet) range, and I could definitely see the target around the pin of my ironsights.
hyperchondriac
I guess I'll just take your word for it. I have not, and am going off of estimates and calculations I found from different sources online about how large objects would appear at certain distances compared to a front sight post. What I concluded is the width of a target would be equal or a little more narrow than the width of the sight post at that range. Maybe not. I doubt I will ever get a chance to see for myself.
LordHosk
Every single soldier in the us army is required to hit shots on a 250 meter target that pops up for a couple seconds, with less than a week of weapons training, with iron sites.
every year 50,000 new soldiers are trained. millions have gone through that same training over the last few decades.
Im not saying you need military training for that, im saying, ANYONE can hit a headshot on a mostly stationary target from 250M/800 feet with a few days of practice.
hyperchondriac
Pretty sure you'd take that back if you saw me shoot. Good thing I never enlisted then. I supposedly have 20/20 vision, but apparently that doesn't count for much when shooting. Just target shooting at ~50 yards with a .22LR tells me I'd have no chance at something 250m away.
rgraz65
While I was in the Marine Corps, I first qualified on the rifle range with an M16A2, with iron sights, and we were hitting human sized upper torso outlines at 500 yards. Those of us that qualified expert would hit those shots in tight groups, and Marines, to qualify, would have to hit that target in the black at least 5 of 10 times.
gtollie
Where were you on the afternoon on Sept 10th ? /s
BrokenAnimal
At work. In Norway.
Well, at least as far as anyone knows...
FetteredJuvenescence
Ah, so it was a *Norwegian* op!
thechelonianshelmet
There's Norway you can prove it, I'll see myself out.
Noahbalboa82
It's ok, we like Aussies here
amp99
Meandme2
Yap . I trained with the same weapon in the Portuguese army and could it the torso at 400 meters but we and a guy in my platoon that could consistently hit the head at 600 metes wich is almost the range of the rifle
JerBearington
Right? And he was a stationary target. I’m no marksman but given some practice it seems relatively easy to achieve
BrokenAnimal
It is.
And 200 meters isn't as far as the news make it out to be.
With a decent rifle, that's practically close combat.
I guess it just sounds cooler to say "expert shooter" than "any half decent moron with a rifle".
justfiguredoutimc4azyanddumbb
If i got a rest I can hit paper plates with my henry .22 at 150-200max
SalmonTheWise
In military assault rifles that have adjustable iron sights 300 meters is as low as they go. Everything below is basically "don't worry about bullet drop off".
Rubblebubble
What's more, it was actually <200yrds, more like 140 so more than 25% closer
ZackWester
yep at 200 or so odd yards wind and bullet drop will not even be a factor beyond where on the penny you hit (the bullet build quality is going to be a bigger factor). we presume the person is not using a under powered pistol like I dont know (quick googling) some gun using 8mm Nambu famously underpowered even for a pistol bullet(insert correct terminology)... did have low recoil but thats about it. or a really bad weapon and I dont mean like a Nagant but more like a gun whit poor build quality.
elbowdeepinagoose
100%
I regularly make shots at 100m with a PISTOL, iron sights. (Stationary steel targets). 200m with a rifle is cake, especially w an “ok” scope. I could teach anyone w decent vision to hit a standard silhouette at 200m in an afternoon.
Pardoned
Same, M16 with ironsights for me though. I would have qualified expert if the piece of shit hadn't jammed on me but it is what it is. These shots are nothing special on stationary targets. Even the shittiest of us at the ranges pass eventually.
BrokenAnimal
At least in the Norwegian military, the M16 had a reputation for not being all that reliable. Loved the AG3 though, and the punch of that 7.62 mm was very satisfying.
Somnophobe
Almost every time I’ve seen a jam with the M16/M4, it was because of the shitty magazines they’d issue, and even that could be fixed for a while if you opened them up and stretched out the spring every so often.
I’ve shot a G3 and liked it alright, but for something I had to carry around all the time, it was nice having a lighter rifle and lighter ammunition on long marches.
Pardoned
I did a pretty good clear on it and still got sharpshooter. I cleaned and oiled that thing like a delicate lady the day before, too. Hard to tell with those trainers though, they go through some ROUGH stuff.
thelegendofthetwistednavigator
If you go to the Lorraine Motel, MLK's assassin was across the car park from the balcony where he was shot.
He could have hit him with a baseball fairly easily.
No pro shooter would have missed a headshot on Charlie Kirk, they'd be doing trick shots
Wobbleding
Damn straight. I've hit a target the size of a coffee cup at 200 meters with a converted Kar98K rifle, and that was without any form of a scope or sight attached. Granted, the K98K rifles are damn accurate, and this was at a range with essentially zero wind or other interference, prone position... basically, as ideal circumstances for shooting as you can get outdoors.
...but the point is, I don't even have military training, and I popped that target thanks to the extreme precision of the rifle.
SalmonTheWise
Coincidentally the shooter used a Mauser hunting rifle that's basically Kar98k with sporterized stock.
Wobbleding
It better have been a latter-half of the war production rifle... ruining a rifle from the late 1930s by "sporterizing" the stock should be a fuckin' crime in and of itself!
SalmonTheWise
Mauser still exists and makes rifles, it was new production. But the design is the same, aside from making it easier to mount a scope on it.
Wobbleding
Well good. Seriously, those 1930s production Kar98Ks should borderline be considered historical artifacts at this point.
Wobbleding
Anyone thinking modern day firearms (depending on the type of course) are hard to hit with have simply never fired a proper precision rifle in their life. A measly 80 yards? Bitch please. I could do that with a decently accurate handgun, let alone a rifle.
(And just to give all y'all yanks some context: 200m would be about 220 yards, so NEARLY THRICE the range the dude was talking about in the video above.)
Wobbleding
Relatedly, there's a saying I'm fond of when it comes to precision rifles: If you miss the first five shots with a rifle, get a different rifle. If you miss the first five shots with the second rifle, get a different shooter.
Frederf
A lot of weapons are that precise (as in does the same thing every time). The accuracy is mostly the user until quite a distance for the typical rifle.
Wobbleding
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The rifle provides the precision, the shooter provides the accuracy. (With some leeway for shitty rifles that negatively affect accuracy, obviously)
zifnabthewizard
He looks just like the guy who wrote "John Dies At the End"
wadatahmydamie
Nah, that’s David Wong. This is the guy who wrote Zoey Punches the Future in the Dick
Zeladar
Same person
wadatahmydamie
That’s the joke
ardtay
“if one possessed the skill to craft sufficiently elaborate and convincing lies, then no other skills were really necessary.”
smolduck
Didn't even know he was an author (and I've watched him before), much less the one who wrote that book. Sweet, but I preferred the prequel.
SisyphusRollin
Fictional stories are fictional?
wadatahmydamie
If you don’t understand what the post is about, that’s okay
SisyphusRollin
I do understand, its the first line where he said that movies are lying to you. Thats the "gotcha" line that keeps people watching, which is hilariously stupid IMHO.
wadatahmydamie
If you understand, why are you focusing on movies when it’s also a popular perception outside of movies - such as the news, or in conspiracy theories, which is what this post is about?
Nobody was saying movies aren’t real like that’s a revelation. It’s detailed information to combat a specific narrative outside of fiction.
I felt I should explain all of this to you because you still didn’t seem to understand the post.
SisyphusRollin
I understand, the general population is ignorant when it comes to firearms and their capabilities. As a Combat Systems Navy Vet I understand this, I also find it hilarious that he tried to do that whole "movies are lying to you" bit which is hilarious IMHO. Something to mock because, thats like saying cold is cold or hot is hot.
Selfawerewolf
You're really stuck on a very inconsequential part of the video friend. I get it. It's clickbaity, but it's so far from the point it's not a great look to suggest that was your whole takeaway from the video in your first comment.
SisyphusRollin
I'm gonna ask you a question, which movie is sentient? The movies he references in the beginning, the ones he claims have sentience and can lie to you? Again, not an essay on the topic. I am focusing on how stupid that line was, because it was stupid. Did you know that untrue things are untrue?
Revicus
The commonly understood meaning of saying a piece of media (writing, film, music, whatever) "lied" is that it contained incorrect factual information in a manner that is likely to mislead someone. It does not imply intent or consciousness on the part of the media itself. While it would be more precise to say the individuals responsible for this misinformation lied, the exact responsible party is often unclear, especially with large projects like big-budget movies.
GoldenSun3DS
Your comment is lying to me. Does that mean that I literally think your comment is sentient and lying to me? Or that it's a kind of figure of speech and that I actually mean the person that wrote your comment?
SisyphusRollin
I'm not doing that. I didn't write a dissertation on the video, I made a short comment about how dumb the tag line was to bring people in. You don't need to do this, you want to do this because you want to feel special but you don't need to do this.
Multipew
Are you autistic? or are you just too far into the argument and unable to do anything other than keep digging?
wadatahmydamie
You made a short comment that missed the point entirely.