Super Sniper

[Gromnir]

dunno... these kinda super distance shots is not surprising from a statistics pov. after all, at such ranges you is no longer genuine distinguishing success from failure w/o a healthy dose o' luck. is kinda like a pro golfer making a hole-in-one, while blind-folded, and after he has been spun in circles a half-dozen times. sure, given enough attempts somebody is bound to make the successful shot, but is it a matter o' skill? make same shot on even 3 of 10 attempts and we would concede skill, but that just isn't the way things work. is the pro more likely to make such a shot than is the tyro? probably, but am still hesitant to identify it as a matter o' skill.

 

the majority o' movement due to windage occurs within the first 20ft, no? but even so, at such a distance you gots potential for multiple different cross-winds and the drift due to windage gets multiplied the further the bullet travels. likelihood of first shot hitting target is minimal even with best luck. spotter helping you out is no doubt key, but seems unlikely that even a world-class spotter could follow trajectory of a bullet at such a distance... gotta simply hope that first shot hits or is near enough target so that spotter can be o' any use to the sniper. the sniper can account for temp and distance and any number o' factors, but is there any way to genuine account for windage at such distances?

 

regardless, this is one feat o' marksmanship we ain't never been particular impressed by as it seems to depend on luck more than anything else. if is skill then you can replicate, no?

 

...

 

or maybe we is just jealous... not jealous of successful killing a man at that distance, but as one o' those cliche Americans who were raised with a rifle in his crib, we got appreciation for feats o' marksmanship.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 4, 2010 by Gromnir

[Humodour]

Somebody have a think about what it means to have personally killed 700 of your fellow human beings, especially in the world wars, where they weren't barbaric terrorists but simply on the opposite side. Somebody who does that is different to us. They would see humans as farmers see cattle.

[Gromnir]

Somebody have a think about what it means to have personally killed 700 of your fellow human beings, especially in the world wars, where they weren't barbaric terrorists but simply on the opposite side. Somebody who does that is different to us. They would see humans as farmers see cattle.

 

am gonna disagree. am thinking that the frightening thing is learning that many such people is little different than the rest of us. we has met snipers and members o' the special forces. they got families. they complain that their wife wants them to cut the grass on a Sunday afternoon during a Bears playoff game. they have bad/good taste in movies and they like/dislike rap music. see 'em five or ten years after they is no longer in the military, and they gots beer guts and receding hairlines. ex special forces guy gets cut off in traffic by some clown who not use proper signals and their first reaction is to swear or give the negligent driver the bird... is no suppressed desire to kill.

 

put some 45 year old ex-marine sniper in a lineup with 20 other regular joes and we doubt you can pick out the sniper... 'less he kept the haircut.

 

...

 

am doubting that most o' those famous & successful snipers saw people as cattle... though perhaps some were indeed psychopaths. more likely those snipers were able to distinguish people from enemies; killing a person is morally reprehensible, but killing an enemy is acceptable and maybe even praiseworthy. maybe such thinking is specious or even delusional, but being able to distinguish enemies from people is a very human quality that literally millions of soldiers has exhibited over the centuries.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

Hang on. These kill tallies don't seem to say anywhere all the shots were at monster distances.

[Gromnir]

Hang on. These kill tallies don't seem to say anywhere all the shots were at monster distances.

 

so?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

Hang on. These kill tallies don't seem to say anywhere all the shots were at monster distances.

 

so?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

So I thought you said chance had to come in. if 80% of these targets were at say 300 yards, a good sniper is not going to need luck to hit them.

[Raithe]

The news report that started this thread was the monster distance.. which while it was probably helped by a dose of luck, the sniper made a point of saying that it was one of those perfect days condition wise with non-existant wind and such... What impressed me on it , was that with consecutive shots he hit #1 taliban, #2 taliban, and then hit the machine gun they were trying to use...

 

A single shot can get put down to pure fluke. But a second follow-up shot to a guy stood next to the first target.. and then a third to the weapon.. That has to be much more of a combination of skill and luck.

[Gromnir]

Hang on. These kill tallies don't seem to say anywhere all the shots were at monster distances.

 

so?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

So I thought you said chance had to come in. if 80% of these targets were at say 300 yards, a good sniper is not going to need luck to hit them.

 

in regards to skill, we were only discussing the monster distances. the extreme distances is the ones where luck clearly supersedes skill as the most important factor in achieving success. we never suggested that high number of kills were based on luck.

 

sorry raithe, but you got wrong. ever seen how snipers work? is almost always in teams of two: 1 spotter and 1 sniper. if your first shot is lucky enough to hit where your spotter may identify (even if you missed target) you can make adjustments to second or third shot. where you see genuine skill is if same sniper can do on tuesday and friday... or next week.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 4, 2010 by Gromnir

[Walsingham]

My bad.

 

Howeverwhile I accept that 'luck' comes in (variances in wind, and bullet manufacture etc) those same variances affect every shooter, so in terms of skill in being able to limit enough to get a bullet anywhere close must surely be worthwhile.

[Gromnir]

My bad.

 

Howeverwhile I accept that 'luck' comes in (variances in wind, and bullet manufacture etc) those same variances affect every shooter, so in terms of skill in being able to limit enough to get a bullet anywhere close must surely be worthwhile.

 

that is the point. given the distance we are talking about, slight change in windage can result in being off-target by many (Many) meters. the likelihood of your spotter being able to actually identify where your first shot hit is similar to finding the proverbial needle in a haystack... unless you happens to get very lucky and your first shot actually lands in the immediate vicinity of the target.

 

...

 

have these snipers go out to some mountain range or hills with similar conditions to afghanistan... have 'em simply practice hitting a target under similar conditions. you is gonna see these guys waste a great deal of ammo hitting shrubbery and rocks, and the worst part is that the spotters won't even be able to identify the rocks and shrubbery that was hit. these distances is way beyond what anybody trains, 'cause even the best sniper in the world is probably gonna be missing virtual every time... and missing by more than enough to make second and third shot adjustments.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 4, 2010 by Gromnir

[Walsingham]

I think you're waaaay overstepping the mark, Gromnir. I'd want to sit down and work out the variation in shot before I accused anyone who was clearly top of their game - let alone a professional sniper - of being nothing more than a jammy sod. Have a little fething respect.

[Gromnir]

I think you're waaaay overstepping the mark, Gromnir. I'd want to sit down and work out the variation in shot before I accused anyone who was clearly top of their game - let alone a professional sniper - of being nothing more than a jammy sod. Have a little fething respect.

 

am not even close to overstepping. the internet is not the best source for such info, but no doubt you may find sources that relate to snipers attempting to replicate these long range shots with targets rather than people. is not pretty.

 

am gonna extend the golf analogy. let us again take the hole-in-one example. does you really think that hole-in-one shots is a valid measure o' golfer skill? it is indeed true that pro golfers is far more likely to makes a successful hole-in-one shot than a tyro, but do you think that, if tracked, tiger woods, jack nicklaus, and arnold palmer would have mostest holes-in-one? of course the extreme range sniper shot is even more extreme... is more akin to the hole-in-one on a par 4. again, am betting that pro golfers far more likely to successfully makes a hole-in-one on a par 4 than their amateur counterparts, but does you honestly thinks that such shots is indicative of the golfer's skill.

 

*shrug*

 

is not about lack o' respect... is about having seen folks (military snipers) attempt to recreate these shots. you is waaaaayy overestimating sniper skills.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

Somebody have a think about what it means to have personally killed 700 of your fellow human beings, especially in the world wars, where they weren't barbaric terrorists but simply on the opposite side. Somebody who does that is different to us. They would see humans as farmers see cattle.

 

He was defending his country from an invading force. It's not like he just travelled around the world shooting folks.

[Orogun01]

is not about lack o' respect... is about having seen folks (military snipers) attempt to recreate these shots. you is waaaaayy overestimating sniper skills.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Sometimes they do. There was this show here a few months back where they showed the most famous sniper shots made during the modern era and tried to recreate them. Most of them successfully recreated them.

 

That Canadian dude failed, but in his defense it was a hell of a shot eve if it was chance.

[Gromnir]

is not about lack o' respect... is about having seen folks (military snipers) attempt to recreate these shots. you is waaaaayy overestimating sniper skills.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Sometimes they do. There was this show here a few months back where they showed the most famous sniper shots made during the modern era and tried to recreate them. Most of them successfully recreated them.

 

That Canadian dude failed, but in his defense it was a hell of a shot eve if it was chance.

 

that were our point though. the super Long range shots is near impossible to replicate. we specifically only mentioned the long range stuff as we has seen snipers make some shots we would typical believe were impossible if not for fact that we had done the Doubting Thomas routine and pretty much probed God's wounds for our self. the physics is really against the sniper trying to make successful kills at the distances described.

 

still, you is right that it were a hell of a shot... just as we is amazed by a hole-in-one on a par 4.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Monte Carlo]

Sorry Grom, I'm not buying into the hole-in-one analogy. I've never seen anybody, Arnold Palmer onwards, score three hole-in-ones consecutively. Even in perfect conditions.

 

Cpl. of Horse Harrison did. Tango one, Tango two then the crew mounted weapon. Bang bang bang. He's modest about it and had a good spotter, but it's still an epic achievement.

 

On a par with the US Navy SEAL marksman who slotted the Somali pirates-in-a-lifeboat bobbing up and down in the sea with a hostage next to them.

 

Like the man said, the harder I work, the luckier I get.

 

Cheers

MC

[Gromnir]

the three-in-a-row is not analogous for the reasons discussed above... come back on three different days is what would be difficult 'cause of having to account for different wind, temp, etc. if shot 1 hits, or is near enough to hit that your spotter can help, then immediately subsequent long range shots becomes far easier... but at the distances being described, the likelihood of shot 1 being anywhere in the neighborhood o' the target is so damned unlikely. at such distances it is not uncommon for a highly skilled sniper to miss targets by many meters... which makes it almost impossible for the sniper or spoter to correct subsequent shots.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

Basically, what Monte and I are getting at is that an average shooter at that range would have a shot dispersion so wide that their luck would need to be millions to one to hit the guy. Ramp up the skill to even one in a hundred and you're talking about control gun side that is almost superhuman.

 

What's next? Are you going to belittle olympic gold medallists for benefiting from luck in performing in certain humidities? You must be a right laugh on a night out...

[Monte Carlo]

I've no doubt that the likes of Cpl. of Horse H spend many, many hours on the range and send thousands of rounds down them to achieve the kind of skill that allows this type of luck to flourish. Knowing what the weapon can and can't do, the effects of the terrain and wind etc. I'm sure his spotter had one of those crazy sniper watches that allow you to do the math on the fly, these guys are basically replicating with 8.59mm rounds what artillery or mortar guys do with indirect fire pieces.

 

And remember, this guy isn't an infantryman - he's a cavalry soldier. His speciality is light armoured recce.

 

I concede that the three-hits-in-a-row is suggestive of incredible luck - but if you read the story he even hit target one in the stomach - i.e. in the central kill-zone that a marksman would aim for at that range. Shot one on it's own is astonishing, what happened next is borderline John Woo territory.

 

Cheers

MC

[Gromnir]

Basically, what Monte and I are getting at is that an average shooter at that range would have a shot dispersion so wide that their luck would need to be millions to one to hit the guy. Ramp up the skill to even one in a hundred and you're talking about control gun side that is almost superhuman.

 

What's next? Are you going to belittle olympic gold medallists for benefiting from luck in performing in certain humidities? You must be a right laugh on a night out...

 

the Olympic medalist must replicate his feet of skill many times, regardless of the event. these distance records is never repeated.

 

maybe this is some kinda misplaced patriotism that makes you fight so hard to defend. *shrug* lord knows we ain't claiming that the average guy at the range could pull off such a shot. what we is saying is that these wacky distance shots that the sniper is unable to reproduce under far less demanding conditions, is hardly indicative of some kinda high achievement among snipers. am not comparing to average guy at the range. if is a one in 1,000 shot for a sniper it is probably a 1 in 100,000 shot for freddie windershins from chelsea.

 

again, if Tiger Woods sinks a hole in one on a par 4 we ooh and ahh like the rest of you... but we do not point to that single shot as being representative of his skill as a golfer. even for Tiger such a thing is a 1 in a thousand shot.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Monte Carlo]

Misplaced patriotism? Hardly. I likened it to the shot taken by the US Navy SEAL sniper about six posts or so ago. I'm not American.

[Walsingham]

I'll readily put my hands up to reckless patriotism. But that doesn't alter my central point, which I feel you aren't addressing. To hit a target at that range with less than national lottery winner odds IS the definition of a top flight shooter. Or are you actualy suggesting any top class shooter would be able to make these shots given a few weeks of attempts?

[Monte Carlo]

Grom is trapped in a spiralling vortex of his own contrarianism. Probably.

[Walsingham]

Grom is trapped in a spiralling vortex of his own contrarianism. Probably.

 

You, sir are quite correct. Beer is best.

[Gfted1]

The Barrett M82 has an effective range of 1800 meters while the brand new M200 has an effective range of 2500 yards. Coupled with a handheld ballistic computer, these long range shot become much more common.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Gfted1