History's Sniper show

[Buffalobob]

and here I was afraid this thread had pettered out.

No worries. Buffalobob has now taken a commanding lead, and has a solid 'lock' on first place.

I don't mind you saying that. Those of us who are RVN vets are very used to things like that being said to us.

Your treatment of RS2G was deplorable and pretty much proved my point that some people came up on the thread with only the intent to denigrate the skills of snipers and it seems anyone who actually has combat experience.

RS2G in his last sentence hits one of the major differences between a combat sniper (and really a combat anything) and benchrest shooting/longrange hunting. That is the need to remain calm and 100 percent mentally functional in the midst of chaotic conditions and personal danger. Different people start off with different levels of ability to stay calm and focused and for most of them, they can be trained to be even more calm and focused. It is one of the skills that has to be sharpened in most people. Within 3 weeks of taking over my first combat command I had to relieve my platoon sergeant from duty because he simply was not calm and functional during a crises and I simply was unwilling to risk the lives of my men while I tried to train him.

 

[Buffalobob]

One last question BB --]

Because according to you he did this with zero error.

Find where I said that and post it up in quotes. Or at least have the courage and integrity to edit your post to the point that it is truthful.

 

[Chas1]

The sniper's use of the word luck is a reflection of him being humble-That's my perception.

The use of the word luck by some that have posted here was flippit and driven by a need to nurture one or more of a variety of internal emotion/s.-That's my perception.

Try as some did to put the poker face on, you knew when they new they had the weaker debate....the instant it got personal.-That's my perception.

Like it or not perception is reality for those that wrote and those that read it....Some saw the glass full while others saw it half empty.

Most here are not snipers so I wouldn't get to worked up about their writings.

On another post Kirby wrote "Those that can hunt, do. Those that can't, bitch.
Fitting for this post. Those that can snipe do and those that can't bitch.

I admire those snipers, their skills and kills. I am greatful for their service.

 

[bwaites]

In rereading this entire thread I am amazed at the lack of understanding exhibited by some of the members here in what comprises "luck" vs. a planned shot.

There were certainly elements of chance involved with these shots, there are elements of chance in all shots over point blank.

However, to qualify the shots as "lucky" is simply wrong. I have stated before that "luck" means that there was NO input from the shooter. That is wrong.

The shooter controlled multiple variables, and could not control others. However, after making the initial shot, he adjusted, and then made another shot. Yes, there were still uncontrolled components, but he made adjustments based on his knowledge and ability.

If a shot is "lucky" because the uncontrolled variables can be adjusted for, then EVERY shot is lucky!

In retrospect, reading my posts might lead some to believe that I am discounting the elements of chance involved with these shots, I am not.

However, I do not believe that these shots were "lucky", since the shooter made the necessary adjustments based on conditions, and then made the shots.

Bill

 

[Chas1]

bwaites, I really hesitated to say anymore but, I feel for you and can't help but let you know "Your trying to push a rope uphill". Some folks use lucky to describe these kind of shots they haven't or can't make but, never their own...those are all planned shots-that's their perception.

 

[bwaites]

bwaites, I really hesitated to say anymore but, I feel for you and can't help but let you know "Your trying to push a rope uphill". Some folks use lucky to describe these kind of shots they haven't or can't make but, never their own...those are all planned shots-that's their perception.

Fair point, and I was just trying to clarify my previous posts.

Bill

 

[Pdvdh]

I don't mind you saying that. Those of us who are RVN vets are very used to things like that being said to us.

Your treatment of RS2G was deplorable and pretty much proved my point that some people came up on the thread with only the intent to denigrate the skills of snipers and it seems anyone who actually has combat experience.

You cast judgement at will.

Accusations of denigration can serve a person well, from the throne of judgement. A member states that luck (no matter how finely one tries to tweak the definition of luck) played a benefit-added role in connecting at 1 1/2 miles. You equate such a statement to denigration directed to you, your son, fellow RVN vets? Is this example typical of how RVN vets determine negative things are being said about them?

We're all entitled to our opinion. We have no entitlement to accusation.

How about tolerance? We aren't all snipers. Doesn't mean we're the enemy. Doesn't mean we're lesser human beings. Doesn't mean we denigrate snipers, current or former, because we don't respond to the History channel Sniper show like a trained sniper responds.

Snipers play a valuable role in combat. I don't have to be one to recognize the ever-present fear that trained snipers could inflict on the enemy. Never a moment of secure peace or rest. Takes a special type to be good at it and I trust our military has determined how to select the creme of the crop. I have no problem or hesitation in typing with all sincerity, I value and appreciate a sniper's duty and service to our country. I'm pretty sure you've heard and seen things I don't even want to know about.

Our disagreement here is easily separated from the value of any trade, profession, or craft, in my mind. This disagreement is about respect, or at least the perception of it. You've exressed the belief that other members disrespect the skills of these snipers, or snipers at large. Based on that perception and sensitivity to it, your fighting response has been the disrepect of others due to their expressed thoughts on the sniper show, regardless of their trade, profession, or craft. All I've done is shine light on your response. We surely come from different walks of life, but I don't believe we're the enemy.

 

[ATH]

Find where I said that and post it up in quotes. Or at least have the courage and integrity to edit your post to the point that it is truthful.

I don't need to. I stated very clearly that the sniper did an admirable job of preparing for the shot to the best of his ability, but that some circumstances of the shot were beyond his ability to fully compensate for. He calmly and professionally responded to the first miss to the best of his ability and dispatched said bad guy.

You responded reflexively and unprofessionally as if I'd spat on every sniper who ever served this country. Which is about as far from the truth as possible.

Chance, luck, whatever you want to call it, the fact remains that at the fringes of performance the sniper cannot fully control and account for every variable. As I've stated before but you seem too dense to understand, this is not a knock on the sniper's training or skill but a simple fact of science and physics. This is why we don't have snipers notching kills at 2000m with the .308.

I think this all boils down to an emotional disagreement on the definition of "luck". I'm not interpreting a "lucky shot" as having ZERO input by the shooter...what is that, blindly pointing a weapon and pointing the trigger?? I'm calling a "lucky shot" one which is beyond the inherent precision of the weapon and/or the ability of the shooter to fully and rationally compensate for the variables involved.

In the case of the 2600m shot, the sheer distance, varied winds, and unknown ammunition were beyond his full control.

In the case of the sniper shooting at targets obscured by a wall, the ability to known exactly where his targets were behind that wall were beyond their control.

If what you are reacting to is the accusation that there was NO skill involved, I am in full agreement with you. Clearly there was significant skill involved otherwise they wouldn't have been close enough for the uncertainty of chance to fufill a hit.

If what you are asserting is that these snipers are somehow perfect, and were able to shoot beyond the inherent limitations of there equipment and unknowns, then explain to me how they can overcome the inherent accuracy limitations of their equipment and rationally plan for where ammo will hit which they have never shot before?? Or how they can see through a solid wall and know exactly where the target is, so they can hit it square on? I directly asked you how a sniper would rationally compensate to place a shot with unknown ammunition and you did not answer this question.

I am simply asserting that, when snipers employ their weapons at the fringes of their effective range, luck/chance must necessarily play a role in determining what is a "kill" and what is not. The shot in the backpack vs the shot that killed the insurgent, was there any meaningful difference in the role of the sniper placing those shots? I doubt it. The precision of the weapon was not that exact. Again, repeating what I have already said, sniping is NOT hunting. The same rules do not apply. I think it obvious that one should not be taking hunting shots at the fringes of their weapons' effective range, where chance necessarily plays a role. You cannot argue that you are placing shots more precisely than the inherent accuracy of the weapon. In war, however, if such shots stand even a remote chance of preventing the enemy from achieving their goals or taking out a good guy I say go for it. And that's what they did, with success in the end. Kudos to the snipers, but let's not pretend that a hit on a .25 MOA target with a weapon posessing .5 MOA accuracy (as an example) includes no chance/luck in the equation because to imply that spits on the very mathematics on which long range shooting is based.

 

[Buffalobob]

For those concerned with my personality flaws I am well aware of them and people who are around me much can confirm that they are true. I even gave you a reference to check at the Special, Forces Sniper School. He will verify that I am a mean, ornery person.

So as I see it Phorwath won't apologize to RS2G and ATH will not correct an untruthful post.

It doesn't get much simpler than what has been said already


Those that can go and do; and. those who can't whine and complain.


P.S.

For the reading impaired who think kills are not notched at long range with a 308 by combat snipers:

this guy is using a M21 with a 3X9 BDC type scope (Leatherwood ART) in a 1 inch tube. Do the math on the drops needed for a 308 and see if any 1 inch tube scope in the world has enough elevation to get to 1600 meters. These are meters not yards so do the math. Then remember my sniper beat that shot by several hundred meters and it was witnessed by quite a few people

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I dont know how I missed this thread until now

Adapt, Improvise and Overcome. Do those words sound familiar to anyone? It sounds to me that is exactley what Rob Furlong was doing. I have read a couple of accounts of that story and I am not at all disappointed with his shot(s), whatever you wish to call it, luck or skill. The fact that he was using unfamiliar ammo makes it all the more incredible in my eyes. It took three shots from 2430 m,each getting closer. Anyone here that could do better? Sorry, I see very little luck in that and Bill is correct about the proper definition of luck.

What we have hear is a high level of skill. At that range, the the rifle/load degree of error combined with enviromental factors is probably larger than the human body. It takes skill to get to that window and it takes a certain element of probable chance (what some refer to as luck) to hit something smaller in that window. Any disagreement so far?

GG, no offense, but what you saw as disappointing - the fact he was using unfamiliar ammo, rifle not tuned and sight for that ammo, heating cartrdges in the sun to extract the most he could, etc. - I saw all this as WOW, and he got the job done. GG, dude, this is combat. This isn't BR, or rock chucks or elk. You do what you can to get the job done. Adapt, improvise and overcome! Are you suggesting he shouldn't have taken the shot because he was not confident in a one shot kill? And that because it took three shots, it was luck? In my eyes, each one of those shots were amazing and I was very impressed unlike some here. Was he better or as good as Carlos? Who knows and who cares? They were both very good at what they did.

One shot, one kill is always better, but is not always necessary for snipers. In hunting big game we value and respect the game we are hunting as a resource. This is not the case with enemy human targets. And GG, I know you were not trying to disparage the snipers in question, but still... disappointing???

Buffalobob and RSG2... hats off to you.

Mark

 

[Pdvdh]

So as I see it Phorwath won't apologize to RS2G. judgement

Those that can go and do; and. those who can't whine and complain. walk on water


P.S.

For the reading impaired who think kills are not notched at long range with a 308 by combat snipers: condescension.

My hat's off to ya.

 

[Eaglet]

I dont know how I missed this thread until now

Adapt, Improvise and Overcome. Do those words sound familiar to anyone? It sounds to me that is exactley what Rob Furlong was doing. I have read a couple of accounts of that story and I am not at all disappointed with his shot(s), whatever you wish to call it, luck or skill. The fact that he was using unfamiliar ammo makes it all the more incredible in my eyes. It took three shots from 2430 m,each getting closer. Anyone here that could better? Sorry, I see very little luck in that and Bill is correct about the proper definition of luck.

What we have hear is a high level of skill. At that range, the the rifle/load degree of error combined with enviromental factors is probably larger than the human body. It takes skill to get to that window and it takes a certain element of probable chance (what some refer to as luck) to hit something smaller in that window. Any disagreement so far?

GG, no offense, but what you saw as disappointing - the fact he was using unfamiliar ammo, rifle not tuned and sight for that ammo, heating cartrdges in the sun to extract the most he could, etc. - I saw all this as WOW, and he got the job done. GG, dude, this is combat. This isn't BR, or rock chucks or elk. You do what you can to get the job done. Adapt, improvise and overcome! Are you suggesting he shouldn't have taken the shot because he was not confident in a one shot kill? And that because it took three shots, it was luck? In my eyes, each one of those shots were amazing and I was very impressed unlike some here. Was he better or as good as Carlos? Who knows and who cares? They were both very good at what they did.

One shot, one kill is always better, but is not always necessary for snipers. In hunting big game we value and respect the game we are hunting as a resource. This is not the case with enemy human targets. And GG, I know you were not trying to disparage the snipers in question, but still... disappointing???

Buffalobob and RSG2... hats off to you.

Mark

MontanaRifleman,

You think you...

Your post expresses the way I feel about it. I respect every one's opinions but don't agree with everyone, that's OK, that's expected to be so.

MRM, thanks for posting that, very simple, very down to earth, very powerful. Thanks again.

 

[ATH]

At that range, the the rifle/load degree of error combined with enviromental factors is probably larger than the human body. It takes skill to get to that window and it takes a certain element of probable chance (what some refer to as luck) to hit something smaller in that window.

This is exactly what I have said what, two or three times now? I'm in total agreement with you! The one factor that further added chance to the first shot was the unknown ammo.

BB, I am glad you are aware that you are mean and ornery though most people would not take so much pride in that. I will add to that one who reacts emotionally rather than rationally.

I'm not correcting "an untruthful post" because it is not, you are simply not capable of reacting to this in a rational manner. Not my fault.

The sad thing is that you and I are more in agreement than disagreement on this but you are just not big enough to approach this more maturely than to name call and throw personal insults. I'm done with this ugly trainwreck, there are more pleasant and rational people to deal with around here.

 

[Buffalobob]

I am glad you are aware that you are mean and ornery though most people would not take so much pride in that

Very few people actually want to be.


Two Weeks In Hell: What It Takes : Video : Discovery Channel

Two Weeks In Hell: Selection Begins : Video : Discovery Channel

Two Weeks In Hell: Only The First Day : Video : Discovery Channel

Two Weeks In Hell: Nasty Nick : Video : Discovery Channel

Two Weeks In Hell: Gut-Checks and Puking : Video : Discovery Channel

For anyone who actually wishes to see the whole show I believe it will air again January 14. The process is just to select those who will actually undergo the extensive training. Most of the guys will have been through infantry school and airborne school which weeds out about 20-30 percent of them. Mental desire to overcome obstacles including pain is probably the most valuable skill. It also helps to be mildly crazy.

there are more pleasant and rational people to deal with around here.

lightbulb