It hardly matters. He set up the shots, pulled the trigger, and made 3 direct hits. Coincidence or not, that’s what happened, and he deserves the record.
The issue of skill is, to me, separate from the morality of the circumstances.
I think luck plays a role in most records.
Hmmm…possibly because I dislike the idea of glorifying the killing of another human being from the furthest distance possible.
The issue of skill disappeared the moment he took shots almost double the rifle’s range limits.
That’s like saying that I have the same chance of getting a hole-in-one as Tiger Woods.
Concur.
Can we drag the Nazis into this one? Or can we settle for evil pre-War Japanese?
So, if he’d been hitting paper targets, you’d have no objection to giving him the record?
I suspect that if you or a family member were the person about to be killed by that human being’s machine gun, you’d be a little more comfortable with the idea.
There is nothing wrong with admiring extraordinary acheivement, especially when it exists to save lives.
No disrespect intended, partner, but that’s an absolutely irrational statement.
Also, the ability to have someone you can put into place and rely on to make very accurate shots under difficult circumstances, while remaining undetected, is much too valuable to ever eliminate. A good sniper is a significant advantage both tactically and strategically. Thus, in any military organization involving foot troops and ranged weapons, the existence of a sniper is necessary and inevitable.
Given that, I see no moral difficulties in acknowledging skill that sets one marksman even higher than others. It’s a skill that exists at the furthest extreme of concentration and physical human abilities, is remarkable in itself, and deserves to be acknowledged.
I’d have less objection about him claiming it.
And had he missed because he was pushing the limits of his skillset, and my family member had died, should I then blame it on bad luck?
There’s got to be something morally wrong with celebrating something that involves the death of another human being, surely?
As I’ve already pointed out, not according to the rifle manufacturer.
Damn three seconds lag time means you are aiming over 120 feet above your target. That’s just absurd.
That’s a good point. Wouldn’t that mean that, at some point, the line of sight, even through a scope, would coincide with the position of the your barrel? In other words, wouldn’t your barrel (especially a long barrel with the added bulk of a suppressor on the end) intrude upon the reticle?
Or do you not change your scope position that much, and simply aim at a point, through the sight, 120 feet above your target (aim at empty air, IOW)?
There’s always some luck involved. Yes, of course people get credit for a lucky shot. And frankly, the fact that he did it three times in a row means that either 1) he was astronomically lucky, or 2) they’re all just being humble about it, and it was really a remarkable display of pure skill.
I vote the latter, because he has the argument of intent to support him. IOW, he did exactly what he intended and prepared to do. If someone does that, especially several times in a row, I call it skill. Occam’s Razor and all that.
Let me guess: you’re Canadian, aren’t you, ivan? 
Part of the luck is with the 3 second lag, it is easy for the target to move away from your shot.
Part of the luck is a stray bit of breeze.
Part of the luck is the round you are firing (even from the factory, not all rounds are created equal).
However, lining it up, calculating the drop, raising the elevation, and making all other adjustments - well done. I have no problem celebrating that shot the same way we celebrate flying aces. While I would love to not live a world to celebrate this, as long as we have war we will have snipers - and we might as well recognize them.
Of course, this is coming from someone whose son wrote his biography report on Carlos Hathcock, so I might be a little biased.
As my scattergun (heh) approach to this thread continues (I’m in and out, mowing the lawn, etc.), I would also point out that he accomplished this feat while protecting his comrades from being ambushed and killed, which, IMO, lends a decisive moral positive to an incident which, again, IMO, needed none anyway.
You aim at empty air. You set your scope for a specific distance (mine are set to 300 feet only). However, my scope sits higher than the barrel, so by doing that I am shooting at a angle. At 100 yards / 300 feet my scope and the bullet path link up. After that, the round keeps rising then starts to drop as it loses velocity. Before that, it will hit below my aim.
Scopes have all those extra lines in them so that you can aim high or low as needed.
VERY interesting, and complicated stuff. You can get an iPhone App to help you though!
Good drills, that man!