Well, there are well over one hundred Golgo 13 books, each containing several stories. In pretty much each one of them G13 whacks someone from a great distance and/or under difficult situations. It’s a cartoon after all, though on the more realistic side of the genre.
One story I’ve read recently finished with the man himself blowing the brains out of an arms dealer. Judging from the drawings, I’ll conservatively estimate his distance at, say, 600 yards. The target was sitting on the back seat of a car driving on the highway. At night. Having read your (as usual) enlightened responses, I very much doubt someone could pull a hit like that in real life. As I wrote in the op, 1k shots are easy for him. It seemed a lot, but reading the thread, it’s not nearly as unrealistic as I thought it was - that is, for someone who has the reputation of being “the bes in the world.” By a long shot. (Pun intended.)
The problem with the realism of Golgo 13 is that, as a hit man, his “trademark” is a bullet between the eyes. I’ve read episodes where he made exception to his rule, but he seems to go for the head most of the time.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m under the impression that real snipers aim for the torso, as it’s a larger target. Going for the head would be somewhat “unprofessional”.
There are so many variables possible in every scenario…
i.e., is it a hostage situation? if so, where is the hostage located?
is the target wearing body armor? and so on…
"The longest shot ever recorded in South Viet Nam was in 1967.
The weapon was the Remington Model 700 w/Redfield 3x9 scope
The distance was 1900 meters, distance and KIA was confirmed by a Marine 1st Lieutenant 1/5" http://www.5th-marine-snipers.com/Longest_shot.htm
BTW, I read ‘sniper’ comes from the word ‘snipe’ a kind of bird tricky to catch.
I think it’s been fairly well established the Canadian sniper in Afghanistan broke that record. Of course, he likely had the benefit of a laser rangefinder to assist in plugging his victim.
You can easily compensate for gravity, and with a little more difficulty compensate for wind. But one thing you can’t compensate for is movement of your target, if they’re moving in a way that’s at all unpredictable. At extreme ranges, it takes several seconds for a bullet to reach its target, and in that time the target can easily move more than the body’s width (implying that any shot that would have hit the first location would miss the second). Now, if the target is moving in a straight line at constant speed, you can lead them (aim at where they will be), but not all movement is in a straight line at constant speed: If they stop or turn, then you’ll again miss them.
I don’t think world record distances for sharp shooters are really relevant in answering the question as posed; unless I’m mistaken distance records of actual military kill shots are one-offs, meaning there’s no way to know if the shooter could pull off that same shot 5 or 10 times or however you’d define “consistently” under those same conditions. They also don’t include how many 2,000 or 3,000+ m shots were missed; for all we know shooters might miss 99% of the time at such distances.
Assuming someone with a very good shot could perfectly compensate for all the variables (wind, gravity, humidity… how the hell do you compensate for humidity?), then the max accurate distance comes down to factors not in the shooters control (bullet defects, barrel temp, and others mentioned). You should be able to figure out the precision and accuracy of any given rifle at a certain distance by clamping it down and shooting at a target under controlled conditions. That would tell you the maximum range that you could consistently hit a target of a given size with no other variables… and rifle manufacturers must do this all the time.
If you have a case where a shooter hit a target beyond this distance, you’d really have no choice but to chalk it up to luck.
Also don’t forget at those distances, curviture of the earth AND rotation of the earth become non-trivial factors.
More math.
Extreme long distance shots are MUCH more than luck. When you consider the variables and challenges, the chances of a random successful hit fall into the range of one round in thousands - possibly tens of thousands. But long-distance shooters routinely break those odds. Multi-thousand yard shots are rare, but they happen to highly-skilled shooters WELL above the realm of probability.
Coriolis force … seriously … it really is useful in some situations and sharp-shooters do have to adjust for this … at these ranges your bullet will deflect … you’d be aiming in a rotating frame of reference …
Obviously for the most extreme shots, you need both skill and luck. If you just pointed the gun in the right general direction, closed your eyes, and pulled the trigger, you’d probably never have anyone hit the target, in all of the history of warfare. And there are a lot of variables that a skilled shooter can account for. But they still can’t account for everything.
To go back to my moving target example, if the shooter sees how fast the target is moving and determines from that precisely how much to lead the target, that’s in the shooter’s control, and so is skill. But if the target then changes course abruptly, that’s outside of the shooter’s control, and so is luck.
I wouldn’t call compensating for gravity easy. It requires you to aim for a spot in the sky approximately ten meters above your target. That’s pretty tricky.
And as you note, compensating for wind is more difficult. Unlike gravity, wind effects are variable. You have to figure out how strong the wind is and in what direction it’s moving. You have to figure out what the wind is like where you’re at, where your target is at, and along the path in between you and your target. You have to figure out how the wind is changing from moment to moment so you can anticipate how it will change as the bullet is moving. And you have to do all this judgment of something which is invisible so you can only sense it by its effects on other objects.
Specifically, the wind may be moving at multiple speeds over the course of the shot, and even in multiple directions. But it’s not entirely true that the wind is invisible - look for the ‘mirage’ and you can sometime see the wind directly as it moves the heat waves in the air.
Compensating for wind is high art, and something that requires a huge degree of developed skill.
As for beating the odds, in the case of the Corporal of Horse that took out the machinegunner at 2400 meters, and If I Recall Correctly, he fired four shots before scoring his kill - The first was slightly short, the second was long, the third less long, and the fourth hit the gunners personal gear - while the gunner was prone, presenting the minimum possible target. i.e. at 2400 meters, the shot passed literally fractions of an inch of his head. The fifth shot did for him.
That’s five shots, only two of which could be mechanically predicted. The next three shots were all developed skill outside of the theoretical mechanical accuracy of the rfle, and two of those shots were within inches of dead-center. 60% of the shots in that engagement exceeded the theoretical limits of the rifle’s known capability, and 40% were within a standard chest-sized target. That violates the odds in a radical manner. That’s not luck - or not entirely - that’s mostly knowing your weapon, knowing your ammunition, knowing your skills, and successfulling integrating every thing you know with everything you think you know to produce a result.
Obviously, as more sophisticated knowledge about the art of sniping grows, the longer and longer these shots will reach out, and the more of them will happen. Tools and knowledge are expanding an a break-neck pace. It’s not very difficult for a relatively mediocre shooter, with support, a skilled spotter, and the right tools, to claim a thousand yard shot these days. That used to be the Gold Standard. It’s more of a Bronze Standard, now.
I think for precision kills going forward, material science is only going to affect the weight of the weapon and the sensor technology (includes guided rounds). The round itself, only has enough space for a certain amount of grains of powder. To consistently go further, your going to need a bigger weapon.