The longest shot

[Carronade]

Of course we don't know how many times people took long shots and missed! History only remembers when they make the shot.

 

[Rio Bravo]

At Chattanooga, U.S. Sharpshooters silenced a Confederate Battery at 700 yards using Sharps' Rifles.

 

[Dave Wilma]

At Chattanooga, U.S. Sharpshooters silenced a Confederate Battery at 700 yards using Sharps' Rifles.

I can accept that, several shooters, 700 yards, firing at a crew servicing a gun or even an entire battery. You don't have to hit a gunner to make the crews get their heads out of the game.

 

[Rio Bravo]

Benjamin Person Thorp (1844-1914), a Sharpshooter with the 55th North Carolina, Co K, claimed to be the one who shot Gen.Reynolds at Gettysburg with a 900 yard shot from the top of a Cherry Tree. His first shot was sighted for 700 yards and it fell short, but he re-sighted for 900 yards and got him with his second shot !

 

[Specster]

At Chattanooga, U.S. Sharpshooters silenced a Confederate Battery at 700 yards using Sharps' Rifles.

Sedgwick was hit allegedly at 700 yards with a Whitworth but he was by no means alone either. Their is a post which appears on this forum frequently about Jack Hinson killing soldiers at 1000 yards using a Kentucky long rifle. I think like any other story the distances grow as the years do. Dixons shot would have been well over twice 700 yards.

The reenactors for Dixons shot took pains to try in replicate Dixons variables but I dont think they actually do that at the end of the day. The rifle they used is a modern replica, among other variations. I think they set out to prove the shot could be made and I fully believe they did that.

There are articles on making 1000 yards shots in Field and Stream but that doesnt mean people are making them routinely. With modern rifles of all kinds people are claiming to make 1000 yard shots but I think alot of that is talk. I know people have made 2500- 2700 yard shots but they were using very different weapons than what was avaiable in the late 1800s.

If you shoot black powder and iron sites I think you have an appreciation for a 1000 yard shot even if you arent using a Sharps rifle. There is a You Tube video of a man trying to make 5 torso sized shots at 1000 yards using a scoped Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle used by a famous Russian sniper during WW2. The guy in the video has modified the rifle to make it more accurate and he's shooting from a bench. In the video the have the bullet path magnified 80x. The arc is incredible. The best he can do in groups of 5 is 3 hits but he doesnt appear to do that often. I know there are much better weapons out there today but there is no escaping physics. These shots 700 yards plus, are difficult.

 

[Miles Krisman]

Sedgwick was hit allegedly at 700 yards with a Whitworth but he was by no means alone either. Their is a post which appears on this forum frequently about Jack Hinson killing soldiers at 1000 yards using a Kentucky long rifle. I think like any other story the distances grow as the years do. Dixons shot would have been well over twice 700 yards.

The reenactors for Dixons shot took pains to try in replicate Dixons variables but I dont think they actually do that at the end of the day. The rifle they used is a modern replica, among other variations. I think they set out to prove the shot could be made and I fully believe they did that.

There are articles on making 1000 yards shots in Field and Stream but that doesnt mean people are making them routinely. With modern rifles of all kinds people are claiming to make 1000 yard shots but I think alot of that is talk. I know people have made 2500- 2700 yard shots but they were using very different weapons than what was avaiable in the late 1800s.

If you shoot black powder and iron sites I think you have an appreciation for a 1000 yard shot even if you arent using a Sharps rifle. There is a You Tube video of a man trying to make 5 torso sized shots at 1000 yards using a scoped Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle used by a famous Russian sniper during WW2. The guy in the video has modified the rifle to make it more accurate and he's shooting from a bench. In the video the have the bullet path magnified 80x. The arc is incredible. The best he can do in groups of 5 is 3 hits but he doesnt appear to do that often. I know there are much better weapons out there today but there is no escaping physics. These shots 700 yards plus, are difficult.

There is an account of the death of General John Sedgwick in the book "Shock Troops of the Confederacy - The Sharpshooter Battalions of the Army of Northern Virginia" by Fred L. Ray, pages 118-119, which indicates that it was at least the third shot of the Confederate shooter that finally hit its' mark.

 

[rpkennedy]

Benjamin Person Thorp (1844-1914), a Sharpshooter with the 55th North Carolina, Co K, claimed to be the one who shot Gen.Reynolds at Gettysburg with a 900 yard shot from the top of a Cherry Tree. His first shot was sighted for 700 yards and it fell short, but he re-sighted for 900 yards and got him with his second shot !

That story is almost certainly not true. The evidence just doesn't support a sharpshooter firing from the north being the one who downed Reynolds.

R

 

[Blockaderunner]

Several posts have echoed what I have often believed. Most long shots were not a one shot one hit. They usually came during a sustained bout of sharpshooting. When Sedgewick was hit, Confederate sharpshooters had been active most of the morning. When inspecting artillery positions, the gunners were behind cover or lying down. He prodded an artillery sergeant with his boot, made his famous comment, then thought it was so funny he walked away and began to say it again. He got about as far as 'at this dist...' before a bullet struck him just below the left eye. Or so the story goes on the information boards at the battlefield shelter near the spot. The sharpshooters were probably firing from Laurel Hill. This position had a commanding view over the Union positions. The distance from Laurel Hill to the Sedgewick monument is not great. A marksman with a Springfield or Enfield would have a decent chance of a hit.

On another note, now I have mentioned Laurel. Waterloo 50, you have the best avatar on the forum.

 

[kholland]

Gentleman (and ladies). This is a very interesting and informative thread we have going. Let's not change the temper of it with off color jokes and videos.

*posted as moderator*

 

[frankconrad]

I have read that Billy's shot ,I don,t know where,that it was later measured by army engineers.

 

[Eagle eye]

On 5 December 1864, an unknown Confederate soldier stationed at Ft. Sumter, Charleston, South Carolina, saw a Union soldier walking about Battery Gregg, a distance of 1,390 yards away. He raised his rifle (probably a Whitworth) and fired killing the soldier. That is longer than any confirmed sniper kill of WWI or WWII, and only 400 yards from making the modern top 10 list. It is listed as the 14th longest sniper kill in history.

---------------------------
TinCan… I'm not calling you out on this but what is your source for your longest sniper shots? Are these all confirmed kills?
Thanks,
Ee

 

[TinCan]

---------------------------
TinCan… I'm not calling you out on this but what is your source for your longest sniper shots? Are these all confirmed kills?
Thanks,
Ee

E,
The story of the shot from Ft. Sumter to Morris Island is taken from a story in the Charleston Courier of 6 December 1864' According to Wikipedia (and other stories who used the info) this shot is the 14th longest confirmed sniper kill.

 

[Waterloo50]

I have read that Billy's shot ,I don,t know where,that it was later measured by army engineers.

Later, the Army sent a team to verify the distance. It was 1,538 yards–7/8 of a mile. Years later, Dixon admitted it was a lucky shot. But he was also quoted as saying, "I was not without confidence in my marksmanship."

I think the army found traces of blood where Dixon had alleged that he hit the target, eye witnesses claim that the bullet hit the victim in the shoulder. True West magazine is currently running an article on Billy Dixon.

 

[Waterloo50]

I found the story of Jack Hinson fascinating, I haven't found any reports on the sort of distance he was shooting over but he was able to pick off men when they were moving targets. Pretty impressive stuff considering the rifle he was using.

Old Jack Hinson Sniper.

Expired Image Removed

A deadly record with a long trail of blood-letting by a civilian Confederate-sympathizing West Tennessee sniper who waged "vengeance kills" on Yankee soldiers stemming from the decapitated heads of two of his sons left hanging grotesquely on gateposts at their prosperous Benton County farm.

What triggered Old Jack's hatred of Yankees?

"Jack Hinson's neutrality was shattered the day Union patrols moved in on his land, captured two of his sons, accused them of being 'bushwhackers,' and executed them on the roadside. The soldiers furthered the abuse by decapitating the Hinson boys, and placing their heads on the gateposts of the family estate," known as Bubbling Hills. When the lifeless bodies of his two boys were placed beneath the sod, the old father (age 57) took down his trusty rifle and swore that as long as he lived, he intended to kill every man that wore a blue uniform that came within range of his gun,"

"Acquainted with every road and bridle path, he would lie in ambush, pick off his man from Federal foraging and scouting parties, and disappear as completely as though the earth had swallowed him, when the rivers were would rise in depth enough for Yankee gunboats to navigate, Hinson would fashion temporary "blinds" overlooking the streams, behind these, he waited. "Transport after transport could safely pass him, but if a man in blue appeared upon the guards or on deck then, his un-erring rifle was brought into play. "Officers and mariners on gunboats were the targets he always sought, and judging from the 36 distinct and uniform marks (notched ringlets) upon the barrel of his gun, he lived to reap a terrible vengeance for the execution of his two boys.

"Old Jack Hinson's sniper rifle was never meant for firing from the shoulder, "It was always mounted on an iron tripod or rested on the limb of a tree for long-range firing. The rifle has two triggers, one for cocking, and a delicate hair-trigger for pinpoint long-distance accuracy.

Although the weapon is notched with 36 "kills," it's been estimated the rifle and it's huge-bore .50-caliber flesh-tearing bullets ended the lives of more than 80 Yankee blue-uniformed soldiers, mariners and officers from ambush, mostly along the Tennessee River in Benton and Stewart counties during the War Between the States.

Source:
WHITTLE: Civil War sniper rifle dealt death to Yankees

 

[Specster]

I can accept that, several shooters, 700 yards, firing at a crew servicing a gun or even an entire battery. You don't have to hit a gunner to make the crews get their heads out of the game.

I am almost finished reading "The conquering Tide" about the WW2 Battle for the Pacific. Often, the Japanese would make audacious claims that they had (in 43-45), down enormous numbers of planes and ships when they in fact had been defeated without metering out much damage. Early on, the US aviators also thought they had killed more enemy than was later found to be true. Some of this is propaganda and some of it is wishful thinking. Eventually, the US fixed cameras on their fighters to confirm kills. People in battle tend to estimate high when it comes to kills. I dont blame them. If I put my neck on the line, I would propably want to put the best spin on the event without being thought a fool. This is just human nature. Once those cameras went on the planes, the confirmed kills fell off substantially.

I imagine things have been similar for 1000s of years.

 

[Waterloo50]

I am almost finished reading "The conquering Tide" about the WW2 Battle for the Pacific. Often, the Japanese would make audacious claims that they had (in 43-45), down enormous numbers of planes and ships when they in fact had been defeated without metering out much damage. Early on, the US aviators also thought they had killed more enemy than was later found to be true. Some of this is propaganda and some of it is wishful thinking. Eventually, the US fixed cameras on their fighters to confirm kills. People in battle tend to estimate high when it comes to kills. I dont blame them. If I put my neck on the line, I would propably want to put the best spin on the event without being thought a fool. This is just human nature. Once those cameras went on the planes, the confirmed kills fell off substantially.

I imagine things have been similar for 1000s of years.

The same thing happened during the Battle of Britain, wild claims were made by both the Germans and the British about the number of downed aircraft, it wasn't until well after the war that the true number of losses came to light, both sides had exaggerated the numbers but that was mostly due to propaganda rather than the pilots themselves making wild claims.
We had one pilot called John Cats Eyes Cunningham, he could shoot down enemy aircraft at night, rather than let the Germans know that we had radar, the Air Ministry put out the story that Cats Eyes Cunningham lived on a diet of carrots which enabled him to see in the dark, it just goes to show that its not always the men themselves that exaggerate the stories.

 

[Dave Wilma]

I am almost finished reading "The conquering Tide" about the WW2 Battle for the Pacific. Often, the Japanese would make audacious claims that they had (in 43-45), down enormous numbers of planes and ships when they in fact had been defeated without metering out much damage. Early on, the US aviators also thought they had killed more enemy than was later found to be true. Some of this is propaganda and some of it is wishful thinking.

Daniel Ford tried to use Japanese loss data to dispel the claims of the American Volunteer Group, the Flying Tigers. He took so much stuff from Flying Tiger partisans for trashing their mystique, but his work looks pretty sound. The Tigers didn't shoot down nearly as many enemy aircraft credited—and paid for with Chinese gold.

 

[War Horse]

I hear bishop Polk was in pieces over that one lol

Poor old Polk. What were the odds.

 

[Waterloo50]

Of course we don't know how many times people took long shots and missed! History only remembers when they make the shot.

What about the long shots that went unnoticed but made kills, I'm sure that happened.

 

[Specster]

The same thing happened during the Battle of Britain, wild claims were made by both the Germans and the British about the number of downed aircraft, it wasn't until well after the war that the true number of losses came to light, both sides had exaggerated the numbers but that was mostly due to propaganda rather than the pilots themselves making wild claims.
We had one pilot called John Cats Eyes Cunningham, he could shoot down enemy aircraft at night, rather than let the Germans know that we had radar, the Air Ministry put out the story that Cats Eyes Cunningham lived on a diet of carrots which enabled him to see in the dark, it just goes to show that its not always the men themselves that exaggerate the stories.

Absolutely, it is very evident, in retrospect, that the propaganda ministry made wild claims until first hand sources and general conditions revealed their lies. But occasionally, men in the field, without at onset, trying to deceive anyone, make claims that arn't true. I would think it is part and parcel of the "fog of war."