Impossible shot - Quigley Down Under (1990) Discussion

.
.. an M-16 ? LOL! That piece of crap ?
Try a REAL rifle, like a Springfield '03!!

reply

Hitting that bucket as shown is clearly another piece of Hollywood fiction especially since it was shown as being done OFFHAND! From a rest and with a telescopic sight - maybe, but offhand...NO WAY!

reply

[–] f-ascaso 14 years ago

Buffalo hunter, Bill Dixon shot an Indian off his horse with a "big fifty" (Sharps 50/90) at 1000 yards, with open sights.

There are shooting competitions (one I believe called the Quigley challenge) in which they replicate Dixon's shot, and the Quigley shots in this film with Sharps rifles and similar.

Not Hollyweird fiction at all.

"if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now." Hank Hill

reply

[–] sonofagun 14 years ago

So you think, however I have been a student and practitioner of marksmanship for over 50 years and know something about the subject.

What's your experience?

reply

[–] f-ascaso 14 years ago

Evidently, not as much as you think you do.

"if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now." Hank Hill

reply

[–] sonofagun 14 years ago

From your non-answer, we must conclude you have no experience.

reply

[–] f-ascaso 14 years ago

You do realize that not everything is on the net or can be found via a search engine?

I bow to your expertise, WTF do I know? Lowly me has actually shot a Shiloh Quigley Model in .45-110 caliber built by Bob Bryan (some peon at Shiloh.)
Even a guy like me, who as you so aptly assumed, has no experience (I did hold a water gun once when I was a kid, but I squirted a kids eye out.) At 900 yards (that's what the fancy schmancy range finder read) took about 5 shots to get a sight setting, after that inexperienced me and my even more clueless friends, were flattening 525 grain bullets off a buffalo silhouette with regularity all day long. Just imagine what could have been done with such a firearm in the hands of a real shooter like yourself!

It's actually called the "Quigley Competition", and it IS on the net. Maybe you can go there and grace these clueless guys with all your knowledge. Stay away from those BB guns, you'll shoot your eye out, Ralphie.

http://quiggly.webs.com/

"if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now." Hank Hill

reply

[–] sonofagun 14 years ago

Thanks for the link. I went there and found exactly what I had expected. All the shooting is done using a rest or from a bench. In some cases, wind flags are being used also.

The movie shows Quigley (Selleck) hitting the bucket while shooting OFFHAND! That's what I find and say is Hollywood fiction.

There's a big difference in hitting something when shooting offhand (standing w/o any rest) or shooting using a rest to steady the rifle. Anybody who's familiar with basic marksmanship knows this.

Thanks for bowing to my expertise. Appreciate the complement.

reply

[–] sonofagun 14 years ago

Go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBZfbHIFEaM&feature=related

to see what REAL shooting (at long range) is like. Mind you this is a modern rifle and cartridge significantly better overall than the Sharps and by a marksman using a rest AND a telescopic sight.

Note he misses the target more than he hits it. Changing/swirling wind currents and mirage can make it very difficult hitting small targets with most any gun.

reply

[–] paganize 14 years ago

Doesn't mean it can't be done.

When this movie first came out, relatively soon afterwords me and my dad were Squirrel hunting in the woods next to my house. He hadn't brought a gun, so while I was using a Marlin .22 with a scope, he decided to try "barking" some with the M-14 rifle I had just got him for Christmas, no scope.

He was telling me how he thought the M1 was more accurate, as he had used one as a marksman in the marines; I suggested he try it out. we were about a half a mile from the house, and I took a look towards the house, and saw one of our roosters sitting on top of the chicken house, and pointed it out to him. without the scope I could sort of just see a white speck.

He looked for a second, looked down at the gun, adjusted the rear site, then brought it up and shot it one motion. the chicken essentially exploded.

I measured it out, 850 yards.

Of course, I'm talking about a guy who was a marine AND army sharpshooter, who was raised in KY shooting for the table, with pretty amazing vision, and a very nice 7.62

If I hadn't seen him do something similar to a goose on the fly with a frikking .22lr, i would have thought it was a fluke.

reply

[–] mcmikel61-220-874341 12 years ago

Actually, you can buy a very close copy of Quigley's rifle for under $1,500 any day of the week from Cabella's. And it is just as accurate as the movie gun. That's its whole purpose: hit the target at very, very long range.

reply

[–] sonofagun 14 years ago

"Buffalo hunter, Bill Dixon shot an Indian off his horse with a "big fifty" (Sharps 50/90) at 1000 yards, with open sights."

This alleged feat is discussed here:

http://www.levergun.com/articles/bdixon.htm

As it points out, the reason he hit something is he was firing into a group of 15 on horseback!

"There are shooting competitions (one I believe called the Quigley challenge) in which they replicate Dixon's shot, and the Quigley shots in this film with Sharps rifles and similar."

Yeah? Just did a search for "Quigley Challenge" and found out it was by guys using air (pellet) guns to do the equivalent (in their imagination) at short ranges - not like what was shown in the movie at all. Doesn't prove a thing.

see: http://www.airgunsofarizona.com/blog/2009/06/uj-quigley-bucket-challenge.html

Read the article. Especially where Hesam1
says:

"Point: Quigley is just Hollywood camera tricks.
In real life a great shooter can hit a bucket with Sharp's 3 times in a row at 200 yards with iron sights."

Maybe. The bucket flying into the air every time it was hit was a bit of hollywood fiction too.

BTW I was doing high powered target shooting at 13!

reply

[–] c-huddleston 14 years ago

Interesting discussion but I think some people believe Hollywood more than they do physics and for that matter the people who actually know, sonofagun.

I live in the UK and shooting is basically verboten these days, so all I can do is read up on the subject. But even I understand that firing offhand is just about the least stable platform for firing a weapon and could easily take a sub-moa rifle and turn it into a 12 minute rifle or worse!

reply

[–] theoldmedic-1 14 years ago

I routinely shot at 600 and 1000 meters while in the Army. I did this with both the M-1 and the M-14.

I also shot at a 1000 and 1500 yard range with an M-2 .50 Caliber Machine Gun.

It is not that difficult, if you have normal vision.

Marines routinely have to qualify with the M-16 at 600 years. And that is with the very small caliber weapon that is the M-16.

Maybe you were just a lousy shot!

reply

[–] f-ascaso 14 years ago

Looks like you brought the thread back from the dead. It's better to just let sleeping dogs lie when you get a know it all who's never actually shot the firearm in question relating second hand info from a google search.

About the only thing a real Marine marksman can't do with a 50 is make the bullet go around corners. I think there are a few out there who can do this with a 700, but it's a military secret.

A couple of years ago a Canuck beat gunny Carlos Hathcocks kill shot record of 2500 yards, beating Hathcocks distance by almost 200 meters, it was done with a 50 in Afghanistan. It did take 2 shots though, the first one being off about a foot from the aimpoint at 7 oclock, probably would have done it in one if the target wasn't moving.

"if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now." Hank Hill

reply

[–] c-huddleston 14 years ago

And does a "real Marine marksman" overcome physics? No. They use a stable platform.

They take the shot lying down, not standing upright, or they'd miss their target and be a dead Marine.

Hand tremor cannot physically be eliminated and becomes a real issue over any distance. It's easy enough to prove: even wavering less than one millimetre would cause a wildly inaccurate shot. Maybe some of the boasts here are more to do with telling their girls that this _______________________ is six inches.

reply

[–] me-17 13 years ago

I assure you that it is possible. Whether that rifle, fired offhand, with that ammo was capable of that shot, is another matter. However, shooting at 1000 yards with open sights... just go to Camp Perry for the national rifle matches in July and August. You'll see MANY shooter who are capable of hitting targets of that size at 1000 yards.

I myself am capable of hitting 3 shots in a 'bucket' sized group at 1000, granted aiming at a slightly larger target. But I personally know people who could do it with that sized target as well.

On the other side of things, I own a .45/70 (not the .45/110 as Quigley had, but similar) and while I can't shoot groups with that gun of that accuracy, have no trouble hitting a buffalo sized target with them at 1000 yards either.

The challenge there would be accurately estimating distance and wind with no known references and holding the gun steady enough in offhand. I would say I could put 1/10 on that target at 1000 yards myself if I knew this, and with the right gun and shooter, assure you, it's possible.

reply

[–] bruno-costa 12 years ago

Perfect me-17.
I practice sportive shooting myself, and i already saw people hitting the head of a lamb silhouette in 500 mt, with rifles and even carbines - sharp was a carbine, but i don't know if in USA people consider carbines and rifles in different groups.
Anyway, two things about the capability to see the target:
First, some people have huge vision capability.
Second, the major problem is to see the target inside sights. But without, we can see further. So, you just have to choose visual references. In the lamb, who shoots in 500 meters don't see the head in sights, but see the body out of it and know where the head is.
So, is a possible shoot.

reply

[–] mcmikel61-220-874341 12 years ago

Give it a break. It's a movie. Besides, the shot IS entirely possible. Ever fire a Ma Duece (M-2 .50 cal designed by John Moses Browning almost 100 years ago)? Guidance on that back in the '60s when I used one was if you could see it, you could hit it. And boy howdy, did we ever.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] f-ascaso 11 years ago

Why? Shooting either smokeless or black power will give similar results, actually better results accuracy wise for firearms orginally made for black power. Firing with smokeless means using filler to make up for the volume difference in the case.

My personal experience firing smokeless and black powder in the same firearm (originally designed for black powder) resulted in more accuracy with black powder. The firearms were Colt's, but I can't see why other brands would be different.

"if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now." Hank Hill

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] f-ascaso 11 years ago

"I don't think anyone would shoot like that in the standing position, regardless of weapon."

Quigly wasn't just anyone.

"if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now." Hank Hill

reply

[–] freemanpatrick7 11 years ago

Clearly, yamavstar1, if you only shot effectively out to 300 meters you were not a Marine as every Marine is a rifleman and is required to test out to 500 yards effectively. But hey, we can't all be Marines now can we?

That being said, I thought the shooting through Marston's advertisement flier at 900 yards more improbable for two reasons. 1) Paper certainly wouldn't have been visible at that distance and 2) The bullet holes were too clean. Anyone who has ever shot at paper targets knows it doesn't leave clean holes like that.

reply

[–] FairlyAnonymous 11 years ago

No for a brief second you see how far away the bucket is from the fence post (which is only about 20 feet or so in front of Quigley) and the bucket is quite visible. It is really far away, but it is visible from the fence post so it should be visible to Quigley. If you watch videos on youtube you can see people do similar stuff to what he did.

reply

[–] sonofagun 11 years ago

Yawn - sure is a lot of horse hockey being played here!

Go to YouTube and watch some of the many videos on basic rifle marksmanship or long range shooting. You'll learn a lot about the subject, primary ingredient of accurate shooting is firing the gun from a supported, steady rest - NOT OFFHAND!

Sure some are capable of impressive shooting offhand, but not at small targets at long ranges - hitting anything that way is mostly luck, e.g. ten misses for every hit!

reply

[–] Lakewind-writing 9 years ago

Well, I dispute the 1,000 yards flat out.

The horseman rides for exactly 45 seconds before placing the bucket. Simple math indicates that this would give the horse a speed of 45 mph. While a few exceptional horses have been able to run that fast in absolutely perfect conditions, that was not a top 1% horse, or a top 1% horseman, and the ground is far from ideal.

Let's say the horse was moving at 15 to 20 mph for most of the ride.

At 15 mph, that would put the bucket 330 yards away.

At 20 mph, the bucket is 440 yards away.

A compromise figure would be 385 yards. Even that, I think, is a bit far, and would guess (just on a gut feeling of the horse's speed) that the bucket was about 350 yards away.

Unless the guy was mounted on a cheetah, there's no way that bucket was 1,000 yards distant.

reply

[–] pufnstuff 8 years ago

My father killed a pronghorn antelope during a hunt in Wyoming at 1000 yards. And it was moving at the time. I don't think it's impossible.

That would have been in the late 70's.

This signature really brings the room together, Does It Not?

reply

[–] bheadher 8 years ago

I agree, it would be an extreme shot even with a scope...however, if you look at the placement of the bucket, it is on a slight rise, which would tend to silhouette the bucket...

Small silhouette, to be sure, but perhaps "seeable"...

reply