Natural ability over technology?

[ColoSwiss]

Nice joke about the Air Force training on the M-16, Lynn! 

[Lichtbote]

This "Group sniper = dedicated Marksman" is nothing i know for sure, i just found it on the net somewhere when searching for differencies between what i´ve learned and what we see in todays movies. So i can´t really compare what´s needed to qualify, and if there any differencies in training/work between a GS and an DM.

Qualifying in shooting was needed first, but we also had to get the required skills in finding the best place for securing our group and the free fireline to the enemy, without being to obvisiously. Building a shooters nest (camouflaged position with free firing range and still hiding the muzzle flash). And (something i never understood) additional training in orientation and marching with hand drawn maps and compass - when starting the sniper education we all already were trained paratroopers, so we all were able to do that. But you don´t argue with the training sarge, that gives no good.

[jerseydevil]

There was also sniping in the US Civil War. Sedgewick was killed by a Confederate sniper at the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House.

I was going to mention John Sedgwick.  On May 9, 1864, at the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, Major General Sedgwick commanded the Union VI Corps, on the right flank.  His units were probing Confederate skirmish lines to their front, and Sedgwick was directing the positioning of his Corps artillery, right on his front line.  The rebel lines were about a thousand yards from his position, and there was some sniper fire from enemy soldiers armed with the .45 caliber Whitworth rifle.  Seeing members of his staff flinching under the long-range fire, "Uncle John" laughed and said, "What!  Men dodging this way from single bullets?  What will you do when they open fire along the line?  I am ashamed of you.  They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"  He had barely finished the sentence when a Whitworth bullet hit him under the left eye.  John Sedgwick was the highest-ranking Union officer to be killed in action during the Civil War.

[jzmtl]

I thought the reason he didn't use optics was because they weren't reliable enough and fogs up all the time.

I'm a crappy marksman but scopes made me a little less crappy. Maybe it doesn't matter if you are top of the top, but technology will make 95% of the people better.

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

I had wondered that as I know it was a big problem in the first world war, and maybe they still hasn't figured out a way of sealing them in such horrendous conditions yet?

Sent from the astropathic choir.

[jzmtl]

Not sure if it's the same guy, but I remember reading about one of the Scandinavian sniper saying he prefer iron sight over scope because it's more reliable in the field.

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

I think that must be true given the brutal climate out there!

Sent from the astropathic choir.

[Grant Lamontagne]

I haven't fired a rifle in years, but the last time I did I was always pretty good with one.  I think the last time was in Las Vegas, and I think it was an SKS, although to be honest I don't really consider that real shooting as you can't help but be accurate shooting a rifle at a pistol range.   

I haven't fired a real rifle in an outdoor "real" setting in a lot longer. 

I used to be horrid with pistols (too much pull, not enough squeeze, anticipating the recoil etc) but I have gotten a lot better over the years.  At least enough to make it look like I have a vague idea of what I'm doing when we go shooting nowadays!

Def

[kkokkolis]

I have enormous amount of respect for snipers.

But Gurkha's on the other hand take it to whole new level, awed, amazed and inspired are the words I would use after working along side them.

Oh and then using this site again http://www.badassoftheweek.com/shrestha.html

Enough said I think 

Gurkhas, Zuaves, Kozacs, Zulus, Azteks, Apachees, Moores, Vietkongs, Maoris, Boxers etc have always ruined the white supremacy silliness. What whites had that helped them finally rule between the 16th and the 20th centuries (in the 21st Asians are taking over) were better scientists and engineers, never better men and soldiers. It all started here, in Marathon. Greeks won the Persians, the ultimate war machine of their time, because they had better fighting techniques, better armament and, in essence, better thinkers (philosophers) and attitudes (Democratic free men against low motivation slaves).  Greeks of the time admitted that Persians were insanely brave, Romans said the same for Gauls and Brittons etc. So, technology, science and engineering prevails over personal or tribal characteristics. History proves it all the time.

[Lynn LeFey]

I used to be horrid with pistols (too much pull, not enough squeeze, anticipating the recoil etc) but I have gotten a lot better over the years.  At least enough to make it look like I have a vague idea of what I'm doing when we go shooting nowadays!

Shooting pistols always humbles me. 
I think Rifles are much easier to shoot, even at considerably greater ranges.

Then again, my eyes are going, and soon, I won't be able to see anythign closer than 8 inches, and further than 15 inches. Which means, I should probably switch to a heavy rick instead of a balistic weapon. 

[Grant Lamontagne]

My mother had that problem and I imagine I'll start showing signs of it soon too. She calls it Longarm Disease. Her eyes aren't bad, it's that her arms aren't long enough any more.

Def

Sent from my smurfing hunk of techno sorcery

[kkokkolis]

There's a saying here about this. "Who reads in his #&*@, *€&@ with his eyes". Presuming you read downwards.
I had a problem with the M1. When shooting from laying down position, my eyesight was over my glasses, so I was almost blind.  The FN was better. But I wasn't a great shooter and I don't mind since I hate hunting.
I red that book http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/377287.Sniper_on_the_Eastern_Front, a great read and not that Nazi as the Stuka pilot one. It reflects foot soldiers' feelings for snipers. Recommended.

[ColoSwiss]

Lynn and Grant,

You can always get a 12 gauge or 20 gauge pump-action shot gun and load it with bird shot. Very effective at close range, but won't carry a long ways or penetrate at a distance.

[Grant Lamontagne]

I love shotguns.  Simple point and click interface....

Def

[ducttapetech]

Lynn and Grant,

You can always get a 12 gauge or 20 gauge pump-action shot gun and load it with bird shot. Very effective at close range, but won't carry a long ways or penetrate at a distance.

00 helps a lot Shugs will get you a farther down range, but start lose accuracy after a 120 yards. Some do pretty good at 150. Still, not like a rifle.

[ducttapetech]

I love shotguns.  Simple point and click interface....

Def

Me too, love my side by side and auto shotgun.

[ColoSwiss]

Lynn and Grant,

You can always get a 12 gauge or 20 gauge pump-action shot gun and load it with bird shot. Very effective at close range, but won't carry a long ways or penetrate at a distance.

00 helps a lot Shugs will get you a farther down range, but start lose accuracy after a 120 yards. Some do pretty good at 150. Still, not like a rifle.

I was recommending a short range solution when they couldn't see far down range and might be worried about over penetration.

Back when I had a couple of shotguns I was a big fan of #4 buck. As with the rifles, they're long gone. The shoulder and back can't handle the recoil any more.

[Grant Lamontagne]

I am going to have the opposite problem I think.  My mother can't focus close up but can read a newspaper from across the room. 

Def

Sent from my smurfing hunk of techno sorcery

[ducttapetech]

Lynn and Grant,

You can always get a 12 gauge or 20 gauge pump-action shot gun and load it with bird shot. Very effective at close range, but won't carry a long ways or penetrate at a distance.

00 helps a lot Shugs will get you a farther down range, but start lose accuracy after a 120 yards. Some do pretty good at 150. Still, not like a rifle.

I was recommending a short range solution when they couldn't see far down range and might be worried about over penetration.

Back when I had a couple of shotguns I was a big fan of #4 buck. As with the rifles, they're long gone. The shoulder and back can't handle the recoil any more.

Get a good .22 rifle. Fun to shoot, and no recoil at all.

[ColoSwiss]

Lynn and Grant,

You can always get a 12 gauge or 20 gauge pump-action shot gun and load it with bird shot. Very effective at close range, but won't carry a long ways or penetrate at a distance.

00 helps a lot Shugs will get you a farther down range, but start lose accuracy after a 120 yards. Some do pretty good at 150. Still, not like a rifle.

I was recommending a short range solution when they couldn't see far down range and might be worried about over penetration.

Back when I had a couple of shotguns I was a big fan of #4 buck. As with the rifles, they're long gone. The shoulder and back can't handle the recoil any more.

Get a good .22 rifle. Fun to shoot, and no recoil at all.

Keep thinking about picking up another one, but I always end up shooting the pistols more.

[Lynn LeFey]

I've been eyeing a number of .22 rifles for some time, even down to the humble Cricket, which is apparently SUPER accurate for it's pricetag of just over $100.

[ducttapetech]

I like the Ruger Black Hawks myself. I have one in .22 Cal. Sweet shooter.

[ColoSwiss]

I have a S&W 617 stainless K-22 target revolver in .22LR. One of the older versions with 6 shot cylinder rather than the current 10 shot.

Had a number of .22 target autos over the years, but never had one that was accurate AND reliable AND easy to take apart for cleaning. The 617 is more accurate than I am, 100% reliable, and easy to clean. Nirvana!

[Lynn LeFey]

I have a Beretta Neos that IS accurate, reliable, and easy to take apart. The only negative I had was finding the front sites (black) against the back sites (also black), so I just painted the front sites. Problem solved. And it's a very affordable pistol.

I have repeatedly (twice now) shot one ragged hole at 7 yards with it, using bulk ammo. A ragged hole group with a .22 is, to me, impressive accuracy. I'm sorely tempted to put a scope on it, and run my targets out to 25 yards to see how I could do.

[ColoSwiss]

I have a Beretta Neos that IS accurate, reliable, and easy to take apart. The only negative I had was finding the front sites (black) against the back sites (also black), so I just painted the front sites. Problem solved. And it's a very affordable pistol.

I have repeatedly (twice now) shot one ragged hole at 7 yards with it, using bulk ammo. A ragged hole group with a .22 is, to me, impressive accuracy. I'm sorely tempted to put a scope on it, and run my targets out to 25 yards to see how I could do.

Beretta does some very nice stuff. I had a couple of their earlier target pistols (79 and 101 if I recall). Didn't care for their mushy triggers or their grips. Also one of them required you to unbolt the muzzle weight before you could disassemble the pistol. Basically they were trying to make a target piece out of a pocket pistol. The pocket pistols were great; 1948, 70, 87.

Glad the NEO is working out for you. Also sounds like your shooting is a lot better than mine! (neither the eyes or the reflexes are what they used to be) 

[Lynn LeFey]

Both of my ragged hole groups were shot from a bench, braced. So, I'm not any kind of superhuman shooter. However, Offhand, I've still shot groups just a hair over an inch, and that's usually due to one or two flyers.

[ColoSwiss]

This was 50 rounds of 9mm from an HK USP at 25 feet, Weaver stance. A fairly good day. On my most recent outing the groups were about twice that size. Lousy breath control. (At least I'm still breathing  )

[jerseydevil]

The first time I shot a rifle at Boy Scout camp, I asked the rangemaster if it was possible to sight in the rifle I'd be using to shoot on record for my Rifle merit badge.  He told me there was no need to, that he sighted each rifle in at the beginning of the camping season.    That didn't make too much sense to me, but I said OK and shot my first target.  I put five rounds from an open-sighted .22 into a hole that could be covered by a penny.  The hole was very low and to the right of the bull's eye.  After I retrieved my target, I handed it to the guy with a wink and said, "I think those sights are a bit off."    I was allowed to sight the sucker in each time I visited the range from that point on........

[zoidberg]

This was 50 rounds of 9mm from an HK USP at 25 feet, Weaver stance. A fairly good day. On my most recent outing the groups were about twice that size. Lousy breath control. (At least I'm still breathing  )

For a second there I thought you had shot the SAK!! Must be time for coffee.

[ColoSwiss]

No one can sight in a rifle for someone else. Too many variables. At least he let you resight the rifle; too many instructors wouldn't have.