Talk:Sniper

Louis XIV or Agincourt?

>France's Louis XIV trained elite riflemen to shoot armored knights. Their guns >weighed more than 9 kg (20 lb), and were capable of shooting 30 g (1 oz) lead balls >fast enough to put a bullet through plate armor. Some authorities claim that they, >alone, made heavy cavalry (knights) obsolete.

I have heard a version of this story before, but rather it was the English or Welsh longbow (and archers) who massacred the French heavy infantry at Agincourt in the year 1415, long before Louis XIV. However, the matter is under some dispute (how effective the archers were).

Instant-death shot placement

In the article it mentioned that police sniper aim at "cerebellum, a part of the brain that controls voluntary movement". That won't stop the target from involuntary/reflex action, and he might still jerk his finger and pull the trigger(involuntarily). There had been reported cases like a driver's cerebrum being destroyed(completely blown off) by shot, but the reflex still cause him to step on the peddle and cause the car to accelerates. Medulla oblongata or the apex of spinal cord should be aimed instead in order to instantly cut off body control. Someone please confirm on this. ---dillee1

The cerebellum specifically controls fine motor control and motor initiation is located in the cortex around the front to middle third of the brain. Aiming for the base of the skull will probably cut off the medulla which is lethal but also useful in stopping signals from the premotor or motor cortex (part of the brain used for initiating movement) to the rest of the body. One thing is for sure, if the cerebellum is destroyed, one can almost certainly assume that the target cannot shoot straight.

Speaking as a neuropsychologist, it is practically impossible to shoot one particular part of the brain. The medulla oblongata is about 2cm underneath the cerebellum so I wouldn't think they'd aim one way or the other. Besides, with a hollow-point bullet I think it'd make a nice mess just about everywhere. --PaulWicks 09:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it really true that snipers are generally isolated from the rest of the military and their type of combat despised? That doesn't fit with what I have seen. I actually know more people who are fascinated by what they do. I very much doubt that military snipers tend to be shunned or ostracised. It's also unlikely that people tend to dislike their type of combat as some sort of general rule. Does the author have any concrete evidence to back up these assertions?

... I was with STA2/5 during the first part of Desert Storm - one thing I will say honestly is that we WERE treated differently than the other military personnel that we were deployed with - there are several reasons for this ... we never slept anywhere near them (see the 'sniper paranoia' explanation below) ... the entire time I was in Kuwait I never once had any visible insignia or identification markings on me - this was common to everyone in STA2/5 with the exception of our 1LT and of course this would cause a few double takes from personnel that weren't used to us, also, my primary rifle was a little over 5ft. long, and things like that tend to make people talk and create stories after you leave the area ... other infantry would go on patrols or specific missions and would prepare and pack accordingly and had a designated equipment and personal bunk somewhere, usually in a bivvy, while we had very few pieces of equipment that we didn't carry with us - they would be gone for a few hours on a run, while we would be gone for several days at a time ... one disadvantage of STA training is that it gives you the objective of the enemy, meaning that we could be watching and targeting anything we needed to from several hundred meters away (we never even dug in unless we were at least 500m away from our targets) - this causes a trained sniper to be very uncomfortable when walking around in a camp, or even a well guarded base - I see these TV shows and movies with soldiers and Marines just casually walking around the camp and I just can't fathom something like that, I still get jitters when I pass a really tall church tower once in a while - in any open situation, a sniper will be scanning the surrounding area looking for the places that he might be if he was the enemy - you don't see our snipers ever sitting or standing around anywhere ... things like this might seem to be a good reason for snipers to be 'shunned' in these exaggerated stories ... I wouldn't say that the other Marines we were supporting went out of their way to talk to us, but I don't think that it was out of disrespect and I never felt like we were despised in any way - different is different and I think that's where those stories come from - the worst I remember was walking into a meal tent and having most of the place go silent for a few minutes after we walked in, nothing big - being a sniper is not even close to most of the movies about it, it's all about surveillance and target acquisition, not the constant ‘seat of your pants’ James Bond stuff most of the movies portray … to be honest, 100% of my targets were electrical and phone boxes, small unarmored vehicles and the occasional suspicious satellite dish on top of a building, other than that, it was a whole bunch of watching and documenting and communicating intelligence – there are obvious discipline, endurance and concentration requirements that are vastly different than a common infantry position, but these guys are people doing a job just like everyone else – as far as our missions and methods being looked down on, that is totally a myth – I would say that having a STA platoon, or at least a few teams assigned with your brigade provides far advanced scouting and intelligence and would make other military personnel MORE comfortable if anything ... there are many other reasons that I can't go into, but believe me, it's probably not the kind of stuff you have heard about – hope this helps to clear a little of this up for you – check out www.marinescoutsniper.com and you will get a more realistic vision of what we are all about, it’s a lot better than going by the movies and myths that are always going around ... I'm no good at all with HTML - hopefully someone can make my addition easier to read? ... and by the way, reading below about a .50 flattening out in someone's skull ... I was a SASR .50BMG sniper and my primary weapon was not ever, nor will ever be designed as an anti-personnel weapon - this is another movie myth that the 'bigger the better' - people should really have a better idea of the truth and accuracy of what they are putting in here - after reading this whole discussion, it really seems to paint an ugly picture of any scout/sniper - this whole "head shot" theory sounds and works great ... but a military sniper will not be trained to just go for a head shot ... anywhere from the belt to the neck is enough to get the job done in almost any combat situation ... from what I understand, a police sniper/sharpshooter is another story because they have to be constantly concerned about the environment they are in and the consequences of being 'off' by a small amount when innocent people are involved ... again, sounds to me like a lot of this page is urban legend

As to female snipers, no, they aren't a "curiosity." The Soviets (and various others throughout history) used female snipers because they were effective. And guess what? The Soviets had no trouble getting volunteers. If that destroys your illusion that women are a bunch of June Cleavers, that's your problem. --K

Added distinction between a sniper and a marksman because I believe the term is often used too liberally in the media to the detriment of the professionals. Everytime someone is shot from a distance, the killer is automatically labelled a sniper. This give the wrong impression that a sniper is some psycho operating outside the scope of the military.

---

vastly amusing:

"Additionally, sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient and merciless..."

Remember, this is not about what women say, but how they act on a battlefield under stress. Originally this bit was written by somebody with very bad English and a Russian IP address, who also provided a lot of material about Russian doctrine. I checked the localization, cleaned up the English and left it because I could confirm it from my experience, though I'd never thought of the application. I work as an embedded software engineer, and I know that women are preferred hires for electronic assembly because they do well with repetitive tasks (like children, i.e., they're patient). I've seen PBS present FBI data on hostage negotiation: one should never approach female terrorists (i.e. they're merciless). This also fits my personal experience. If a kid gets hurt on your property, do you want to talk to his mother or his father? User:Ray Van De Walker 2004-01-28 11:48Z

This made me blink. Can anybody confirm that the "mercilessness of women" isn't just something that a troll added? Is it really part of the military literature? MikeCapone Jan 25, 21:29, 2004 (UTC)

Does Kipling count as military literature? "The female of the species is more deadly than the male." --wwoods 17:45, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. I think that the author is alluding to the fact that Soviets used women as snipers during WWII. I'm not sure it belongs here though. It's more of a curosity than anything else. Stargoat Jan 27, 17:17, 2004 (UTC)

Patience and 'mercilessness' are personal features, and being a certain gender will not make you more or less of either. Women will make just as adept snipers as males. (From Craig Humphreys. Not a member) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.71 (talk) 7 January 2006

I dont know if this helps any but i was told by a Prof hunter that women make for better bowmen. For some reason they have less troble holding a bow steady. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.199.163 (talk) 17 May 2006

That doesn't really have anything to do with snipers though, does it? Mushin^talk 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does. Snipers need to hold their rifles steady. --ZeroOne 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

first of all women snipers are odd in armies where women soldiers are odd. Males tend to have better depth perception and navigational skills, which would help a sniper. Cultural issues also come into play. My guess is the best marksmen started shooting at a young age, and since more boys are taught to shoot at a young age, they are more likely to be better shots. not that any of this matters with the article. Rds865 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I think information about sniper rifles may desrve a separate article Iammaxus

---

Oi! There is so much junk in this entry I don't know where to start. It needs some major editing and polishing. Werbwerb Jan 27, 01:12, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and it's especially embarassing since it's a featured article (formely known as "Brilliant Prose"). User:MikeCapone Jan 28, 2004, 03:39 (UTC)

Ah, I guess I was a bit harsh, seeing as English wasn't the original author's native language. Werbwerb Jan 29, 01:07, 2004 (UTC)

Beltway sniper attacks

this article needs to refer to the Beltway sniper attacks at least once. Kingturtle 21:10, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I remebr when those happened. everyone was all freaked out that all me friends and people outside would be killed(Esskater11 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

---

Why does this article need to refer to them? While they may be moderately well-known in the United States, using that as justification to include them would certainly be USA-centric. If you can come up with a legitimate reason why they were unusual enough to warrant inclusion in what is supposed to be a general article on a subject spanning centuries, a sentence or two might be plausible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.246.110 (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

---

just because the US press likes the overused moniker of "sniper" does not make a thing so.B4Ctom1 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosnia olympic

I remember reading something about Olympic shooters during the Bosnia war, but I don't remember whether some of them participated or they refused. I don't remember their side as well. Could you mention something about the relation (of its lack) between sniping and precission shooting as sport.

---

Notes on some work required

Just making a note of a few points I think require work. I will eventually do them myself, but my list is currently about 30 articles long 8^( so feel free to jump in!

• Paragraph/section organisation needs re-work, e.g. major sections are currently provided for single paragraphs of peripheral material, like "attitudes to snipers"
• "U.S. snipers are usually far more highly trained than others," Does the author mean "other infantry soldiers", or "snipers of other nations"? If the latter, some evidence would be good. How do they compare to, say, Finland, Canada, UK, Autralia, etc
• "Russian and derived military doctrines include squad-level snipers." These are actually marksmen, a distinction the article itself emphasises later.
• More distinction between military, police, assassin and criminal/sociopathic sniping, which are all given the same name in common usage but are quite different things (different objectives, equipment, tactics, etc). Police vs. military is briefly alluded to, the rest are barely mentioned.
• "boat tailed." Not a sentence. Presumably someone meant to add more here and hit "Save" too early. Howver instead we should probably link to ballistics, bullet or ogive.
• Some misspellings, e.g. "reconnaisance"
• "A psychopathic or sociopathic personality is seen by some as necessary for an efficient sniper...". Really? By whom? Certainly not my nation's army, which tries to exclude such unreliable and disruptive individuals.
• "Snipers in history" has a 75 year gap; it needs a lot more about WWI. My sources indicate that it was this conflict where most of the modern Western military doctrine and practice arose.
• "The use of sniping as a way to murder people outside of war is most common in the United States". Really? On what evidence? The author provides three examples in forty years! The only hard stats I have seen on a remotely similar issue is proportion of murder victims killed by firearms, for which the USA is somewhat high but not exceptional. The proportion of peacetime murder victims killed by sniping is so low that I doubt it is possible to obtain stats. The claim should probably be removed, although the accompanying list of infamous criminal snipings is validly encyclopaedic.
• Tactics. Do we really need quite so much detail? This isn't a "How to" manual!

this may not be a how-to manual, but for an encyclopedia, this information is quite good. imagine, for a moment, that you know not what a sniper is. would carrying a 3 foot gun onto the front-line make any sense? --Rey

---

Anon Change from 505 in 9 months ->> 542 in 3 months.. please provide a source. Thankx UninvitedCompany 21:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

---

This article is really very 'cheesy' and seems to be trying to become a sniper training manual. I dont for instance think any mention of rifle head space is appropriate in this sort of article, way too specialist. Some of the facts are a little iffy too --Nick-in-South-Africa 06:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

---

"Police snipers are trained to shoot for the cortex, a walnut-sized part of the brain. The technique used to hit the cortex is to imagine a line between the base of the ears and to seek to bisect this with the bullet." This is wrong, but I don't know what's right. Medulla oblongata? --wwoods 17:45, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

i think that the medula omblongata is the correct word, however the cortex mentioned is fairly close, and a .50 cal flatttens out after hitting a skull, so any shot to the back of a skull would effectively hit both/all. --Rey

2 things. No a .50BMG (Thats what your refering to I guess) or any calibre suitable for sniping doesn't flatten out after hitting a skull. And .50BMG isn't used (much) for anti personell sniping (its used for anti materiel) and definately not in ranges where you can make out thier head. Much less hit it. (From Craig Humphreys. Not a member) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.71 (talk) 8 January 2006

---

"In the Bosnian War, and for much of the Siege of Beirut, the term sniper was used to refer to what were generally ill trained soldiers who terrorised civilians. During the Siege of Sarajevo, the main street of the city became known as "Sniper Alley".

In urban combat against Soviet tank forces, some opposing forces successfully massed groups of three-person teams, each comprising one sniper, another team member with an assault rifle or machine gun, and one with an antitank weapon such as a RPG. These swarms of small units were reported to be quite effective, though they sustained high casualties."

"Soviet tank forces" where, when ? in Bosnia ? They were no Russians in Bosnia and no more SU. Ericd 00:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't say there were Soviet forces in Bosnia. I presumed it to mean Afghanistan or the Caucasus but I wasn't confused by the sentence. Are you a native English speaker? Gest 01:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No I'm not a native English speaker. I think it's confusing~. It probably predate the Bosnian war IMO. And I not know were and when it was Budapest, Prague, Grozny ? Not in Afghanistan IMO. If it was it Grozny this should be Russian forces. This is not precise enough to be encyclopedic IMO.

Ericd 21:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you must be right because although the Soviets fought in the Caucasus in WWII, they were known as the Red Army then. I doubt very much that the rebels in Prague or Budapest would operate in that manner and although it sounds like a Chechen tactic, the first Chechen War didn't start until after the dissolution of the USSR. My bet is that it was in Afghanistan where this was done. Why don't you believe this to be the case? The other other possibility, most likely IMO, is that the wrong name was used and it should have been the Red or Russian Army from the start.

Gest 07:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it was in Afghanistan this wasn't urban combat IMO ?

Ericd 17:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Soviets may have had Kabul tied up (as the Americans do today) but there was conflict in Herat, Kandahar and other cities.

Gest 12:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deleting this bit until someone actually figures out what it means.

Vorpalbla 20:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Effect of barrel length on accuracy

Edited quite obviously incorrect "There is no correlation between barrel length and accuracy" to "There is considerable correlation between barrel length and accuracy."

I'm not sure there is anything obvious here! Shorter barrels are, all other things being equal, more accurate than long barrels, this is I posit, counter intuitive and not obvious. The reason is that shorter barrels are stiffer and resonate less than longer barrels and have more favorable harmonics and this bares favourably upon accuracy; this is why most bench rest rifles have short barrels. However there are other factors that impinge upon accuracy in addition to barrel length including, bedding - that is action to stock fit, trigger release, lock time, scope optics and mounting, ammunition quality, especially bullet concentricity, barrel quality, head space, bolt alignment and concentricity, lug contact, load tune, rifle to shooter fit and of course shooter skill.

correct me if i'm wrong, but does a longer barrel not only burn the propulsives, but also includes far more rifling, which would give the bullet a better spin, and thus, more accuracy?

The downside of short barrels is that fully burning the propellant is less likely meaning that all other things being equal, the resulting bullet velocity will be lower. This is not really an issue for most Police sniper rifles where ranges are typically very short, why some of these do indeed have short barrels, but it is an issue for military sniper rifles--Nick-in-South-Africa 22:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A longer barrel is always more accurate than a shorter barrel (until you get to the length where max propellant pressure has been reached and the bullet begins to decelerate in the barrel. This is due to the higher muzzle velocity. Which outwieghs any other benefits gained by shorter barrels. Which benefits can also be gained by use of a heavier better made barrel. (From Craig Humphreys. Not a member) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.71 (talk) 8 January 2006

Tests conducted several years ago (I forget just where) progressively reduced a 24-inch .308 barrel by one inch, chronographing the same ammunition each time. Rule of thumb: average loss of 20 fps muzzle velocity per inch down to 19 inches. My personal precision rifle has a 20-inch Schneider barrel that shoots both 168 and 175-grain bullets within one MOA out to 800 yds or so. BillyT —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyT (talk • contribs) 16 June 2006

---

• The foliage or material is taken from at least 300 yards (100 m) away so the sniping position's natural cover is undisturbed. Should this be 300 feet (100m)? Or 300yards (300m)? Or what?
• what is a 'crew-served weapon'?

--Townmouse 21:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe a 'crew-served' weapon is any weapon that requires more than one(1) person to operate, thus 'crew' served, meaning several people. — LegolasGreenleaf 02:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

True in general, but more specifically the term usually refers to very large, beyond-visual-range sorts of weapons: artillery and tactical missiles, for example. These can do a lot of the work of flattening an army that can't see you, but they need intelligence in order to have something to shoot at. --Wildbill09 06:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes a crew served weapon is any weapon which requires more than 1 crew member to man. Pretty simple really. E.G. A mounted machine gun will have a machine gunner, assistant machine gunner, and usually someone distinguishing targets. (From Craig Humphreys. Not a member) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.71 (talk) 8 January 2006

---

The photo of a bullet cutting a card in half doesn't show the "force and accuracy of a sniper bullet." It just shows a card being cut in half by a bullet. It could by any bullet, even a relatively slow innaccurate bullet. And that breathless stuff about the "amazing!" speed of the bullet should be removed. Finally, Newton didn't make a "point" about a bullet falling at the same rate as everything else. It is simply a law of Newtonian physics, and also doesn't belong here, and I would suspect is only strictly true in a vacuum. Anyway, the stuff about the balistics of a bullet should be in a bullet article, not a sniper article.

Yes a bullet doesn't actually start to fall straight away, it rises first. So this myth about a fired bullet and a dropped one hitting the floor at the same time is actually incorrect. (From Craig Humphreys. Not a member) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.71 (talk) 8 January 2006

Well, yes and no... There does seem to be a common misconception in both rifle and tank gunnery that projectiles rise because of some physical phenomena. In reality, the fact that projectiles don't technically rise is well studied, and well verified by laboratory use of radar and high speed imagery.

The rifle's bore and sight line are not parallel. The scope is mounted at a tiny converging angle so that when the scope is horizontal, the barrel is tipped ever so slightly up so that the arc of the bullet will intersect the sight line (at the near zero range), rise some number of inches above the sight line, and then pass back down through the sight line at the far zero range. Bullet rise is a result of this canting of the boreline.

In practice, a bullet fired from a perfectly horizontal barrel, and a dropped bullet, will reach the ground at the same moment. In a zeroed rifle, a bullet tossed in the air in such a way that it rises the same number of inches above your hand as the appex of the bullet's arc rises between zero points would also reach the ground at the same time. And, a bullet dropped from the appex height at the same moment that the fired bullet passed through its appex height would also reach the ground at the same time.

Now... here's the catch. There's a tiny amount of drag acting on both bullets' vertical velocity. A dropped bullet, in practice, actually does arrive ever-so-slightly before the fired bullet. The dropped bullet will immediately rotate and fall tail-first. The fired bullet is spin-stabilized and thus falls sideways, so aerodynamic drag acting on the vertical speed component is slightly different on each bullet. --Mroesler 04:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for correction on sniper rifle accuracy

"Sniper rifles are one of the most powerful types of guns, they can hit a target with pinpoint accuracy from over 6000 yards away." I'll believe that they can propel a bullet 6000 yards (maybe), but there's absolutely NO WAY that a sniper could do that with "pinpoint accuracy;" all of the other distance statistics in the article contradict this. Could someone who knows more about ranging fix this? -NattyBumppo 23:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I vaguely remember sniper rifles having a gurranteed 1st shot hit on a person at 600 meters, and a gurranteed head shot at 200 meters, but my books are all old. I doubt rifles can shoot any 6000 yards, considering the longest confirmed kill was only around 2,500 meters. The statement should be removed/fixed.-LtNOWIS 04:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's wrong. Apart from a few .50 BMG rifles (which are pretty powerful, but relatively rarely used), most rifles used by snipers are no more powerful than other common rifles of similar calibre. Most are 7.62mm, and those will not even reach 6000 yards at maximum elevation, never mind hit anything. Don't know the theoretical maximum range for the Barrett, maybe it can get to 6000 yards but it sure as hell can't hit with "pinpoint accuracy" at that distance! The maximum effective range for the M82A1 Barrett is 1800m in the anti-materiel role, i.e. it can hit cars most of the time at 1,800 m. Also: it contradicts its own next sentence (2 miles is only 3520 yards); the conversion from metres per second is wrong at the precision given (should be 0.5493 mi/s, not 0.5525, but it's over precise anyway, and do we really need a speed expressed 6 different ways); and the impression given that 884 m/s is a modern marvel, is wrong (the Savage Hi-Power was going faster than that in 1912); and the whole paragraph needs a complete rewrite. Hmm, and I'm a bit doubtful about that picture being fair use. Securiger 17:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • The 338 Lapua can shoot .2 moa. This round uses a .416 Rigby shell necked down to accept .338 bullet. That makes it capable of grouping into a pie plate at 1500 yards. This platform is in service with the British, Canadians, and probably American Special forces. The 338 Lap is light weight, produces less muzzle flash than the 50bmg, and will penetrate all body armor used by Military forces world wide. It is more powerful than the 7.62x51 (308) round used in other sniper rifles. All sniper rifles are designed to be consistant. Accuracy and consistancy are required. Sniper riles in the American military use ammunition matched to the rifle. 6000 Yards is not possible with any weapon currently in service.

While .338 may be capable of that. It will never be capable of it when used in the field (Due to shooter and rifle innacuracy). (From Craig Humphreys. Not a member) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.71 (talk) 8 January 2006

I think the author typo'd a '6' instead of a '1' as in 1000 yards. Even the Barrett M82A1 has a maximum realistic range of 1800 yards twobells

Photo of split card

This page seems to show that the picture of the bullet cutting the card is indeed under copyright. The caption is just false anyway. The purpose of that photo is to demonstrate high speed photography. It doesn't demonstrate accuracy. The gun (probably not a sniper rifle) that fired the bullet was probably inches from the card, and held in some kind of brace, and wired to high speed photo equipment.

The copyright is semi-moot because of fair use guidelines (according to the photo page), but all other issues remain, and I agree. I'm going to look for something more accuracy-related, although a quick skimming of my books hasn't revealed much.

Also, I have some pictures of the aftermath of firing sniper bullets into gelatin (a fairly realistic simulation of human tissue, used in modern study of terminal ballistics) -- if I can verify their fair use status (or find similar public versions), I think they'd be better than the current 'shock waves' picture, which is actually a bullet in a liquid. -- Wisq 05:37, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Iraqi Resistance Sniper Training Video

Removed, propaganda, not relevant to the subject. TwoBells

Quotation marks mine. Can we get a verdict on this? I've been staying out of the issue, but I'm sick of watching anon users add and remove it. I just watched it now, and frankly, if this is a 'sniper training video', it's a wonder their snipers are actually hitting anything. It shows nothing about being a sniper — no rifle scope aiming, no wind and elevation compensation, no concealment, no target rank prioritisation, no actual guns even. It just shows marksmen, not necessarily snipers, shooting what are presumably U.S. soldiers. The music is catchy, except I fear it's probably trying to tell me to "kill the American infidels" or something.

I'm going to err on the side of removing it as POV propaganda for now, but I'd welcome a second (third, etc.) opinion. -- Wisq 22:42, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

We should not talk about the quality of the Tranings, this is another and aims only at the motivation of the combatants and not the technology education. It is shown which are defeatable the enemies and should diminish inhibitions, this is the Traning! Without chalk and board! About that point we cannot judge, it functions. 80.58.19.170 08:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That's the motivation to kill Americans. You could kill Americans any number of ways, ranging from a rocket-propelled grenade to your bare hands. Perhaps it belongs in Iraqi insurgency (and that will be up to them to decide), but it isn't a "sniper training video", and doesn't belong in the Sniper article, IMO.

I'm moving it to this page, not just because I believe it's irrelevant, but because either way, it's appears to be very POV pro-Iraq. Let's resolve the dispute here (with some outside opinions) before re-adding it. -- Wisq 12:56, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Having just viewed the video I cannot see that it belongs under the sniper page. From a purely emotive point of view it's pretty sick; this being an encyclopedia however that's no reason to remove it. I do not know where it should be placed however; maybe in an "Iraqi resistance" article if one exists (I'm sure it does).BobtheYounger 12:25, 2005 September 03 (UTC)

Ghillie suit

From the section on ghillie suits: "Unscented dental floss is used to sew each knot of fishnet to the fabric, in the areas to be camouflaged. A drop of Shoe Goo is applied to each knot for strength."

Err... what? This sounds more like a homemade instruction manual than vandalism, but I think it needs to be replaced with a more professional description anyway. Anyone up for it? Tronno 23:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

.... this isn't far from the truth - I never got any dental floss with the deal, but 'shoe goo' was actually one of the required items that you needed to bring with you to indoc - as far as tying it together, it was 550 strap or canvas (sail making) thread and a thick curved needle, nothing really special about any of it, mostly burlap (I don't recall any fishnet either, but maybe this guy used it) and whatever you could find to attach to it - "home made" is a perfect way to describe it - the training is to enable a sniper to create/modify their suit just about any time ... the only big no-no I remember hearing about was anything that smelled (like using coffee grounds for color) ... the shoe goo wasn't to reinforce any threaded knots, but was for attaching items that could not be easily or practically done with the thread - if you were using dental floss, you had more problems than you are admitting to

that is the professional way, if you have any doubts go visit a scout sniper platoon and try to see if you can spot them stalking. professionals make thier own and usually the professional is on a lance corporals budget (which is shoe-goo from wal-mart) i used shoe-goo ,550 cord a seabag, as well as dental floss and fish netting. now granted its not each knot and a lot of it is shoe. you still have to use the dental floss or triple thread the high tension areas. maintinenece is the key. not too much burlap, as you use more natural veg (naturally). and yes, that is the homemade way to do it. were not talking about ordering one and pulling it out of a plastic bag (seals/army). Seminole 1 - 1/5

I just edited the above paragraph to make it readable (didn't edit anything in it) It was in a big one line quote. (From Craig Humphreys. Not a member)

longest shot drop

I'm no expert on sniping, but the aritlce states that drop on the world's longest battle kill was 44.5 meters, but by my calculations, the drop on a 4 second flight would be 78.4 meters. A 3 second drop would be 44.1 meters. I'm guessing someone did the caclulations for 3 instead of 4 seconds. Any one else get the same numbers? --2tothe4 7 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

Have you accounted for bullet rise? I am looking for any data of bullet trajectory. But so far cant find anything of use. (From Craig Humphreys. Not a member)

Not to argue, but perhaps the author added the effect of shooting from a high elevation to a low elevation? --208.253.246.93 23:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In ballistic tables, bullet drop is normally measured relative to the pre range-adjusted sight line as a horizontal reference and not relative to the bore line, creating what appears to be "bullet rise"... in zeroing, the rifle barrel is angled slightly up so that the bullet arc passes up to (tangential zero), or through (arc zero) the sight line. Thus, if the shooter was zeroed to a very long range, past the point of 1 second of flight time, the total bullet path drop at the target may be 44.5 meters below horizontal reference, but actually 78.4 meters below the bore line.

I found an excellent reference to the difference between bullet path and bullet drop... the number quoted as bullet drop in tables is typically actually bullet path. It also describes the notion of "superelevation" another oft-misunderstood ballistics term. The article is actually about the inclined fire phenomena (where a bullet path will be slighty too high, and thus require downward hold BOTH when shooting uphill and down) but gives a good overview of ballistic terminology. Inclined Fire by William McDonald

--Mroesler 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

---Note, the first shot fired hit a sandbag over the head of the eventual victem, the second shot nailed him in the throat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.142.11.84 (talk) 10 May 2006

Barrel length, 300mm?

This is too short, about 1 foot. I have looked up the barrell length of a number of rifles to demonstrate this point: M-16 (standard US assault rifle, not sniper rifle)=508mm (just for comparison), G3=450mm, M-21=560mm, Dragunov=610mm, M24 Sniper Weapon System=610mm, M40 =610mm, L96=686mm, M82A1=737mm, Steyr IWS 2000=1200mm. Based on this list, 300mm is off and 600 would probably be correct, so I will change that, and if anyone objects with reason, just change it back. I know very little about sniper rifles, but looking at the data that is my conclusion, especially seeing as most basic assault rifles are of=ve 300mm. say1988 17:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Added inappropriate tone tag

I added this tag to the article, as the sections sniper training and sniper tactics are written in a casual style that is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. In particular, frequent use of the words you and your gives a very informal tone. If nobody edits the page to solve this issue, I will do it myself when I get chance. Thanks. Mushin 02:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have carried out the edits necessary to remove the casual tone of the aforementioned sections. As well as rewording, I removed the first paragraph of Sniper tactics due to the fact it was a piece of creative fictional writing, and not relevant to the article or section in which it was present. Mushin 00:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Article cleanup, cleanup-section tag added, sections need shortening

I have cleaned up the article as best I could. This included rewording, wikification, grammar, creation of Targeting section and removal of unecessary text (as the article is getting very long). Issues I have identified that are still remaining:

• Sniper tactics section: This section is not currently a cohesive, continuous prose and therefore needs a rewrite or at least a rewording. Cleanup-section tag currently in place.

• This is still a very large article (43kb). Wikipedia guidelines state that "the 32KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then sections probably should eventually be summarised and the detail moved to other articles". See article size and summary style for more details. Please discuss the possibility of moving detail to other articles. I suggest that perhaps these sections could be shortened:
  • Sniper rifles - much of this information is just copied from the Sniper rifle article itself, and should be greatly cut down to summarise appropriately.
  • Sniper tactics and Counter-sniper tactics - Maybe these two could be merged and moved into a separate article (for example, Sniper and counter-sniper tactics) and then summarised in Sniper.

Mushin 03:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed a large amount of text from the section on sniper rifles, which was merely copied from Sniper rifle and thus was not needed. Also moved a lot of info on counter-sniper tactics to a new article to reduce the size of the article. It is still quite large, but I'm not sure if anything else can be cut. Mushin^talk 17:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Which role goes to the more experienced soldier?

The text "The role of the sniper typically goes to the more experienced soldier" was recently changed to "The role of the spotter typically goes to the more experienced soldier". Which is the correct version? No edivence was included in the edit by 71.136.83.199, so neither option can be confirmed. I will try and find evidence to support either version, but any information anyone else can contribute would be helpful. Mushin 12:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The article does not explain the role of spotter, so it is difficult to decide. Also, it is unclear what "experienced" means. I am creating the article Sniper team, where the issue should be resolved by experts. mikka (t) 18:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe I wrote the original sentence. (It said 'sniper' at that time.) It was based on info from the book I cited in the references section (by Maj. John Plaster). It also notes that in police situations (which are usually protracted incidents), rotating is necessary – but for liability reasons, no rifle sharing occurs; each has their own. I'll see if I can find time today to reword that bit. Obviously, having no first-hand experience, I can only rely on the (evidently somewhat vague on this topic) wording of the book unless an expert provides a more specific explanation. For now, I'll assume they rotate for long-term duties, but that for short engagements, experience may play a factor. — Wisq 17:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well if you definitely have a reference, then that is more than is available for the other version so far. Please change the section if you get chance, and maybe cite that specific reference within the text as well? Mushin 18:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A distinction has to be made here between the rank notion of soldier seniority, and the field experience/shooting experience of the soldier. As a commander, I developed several field exercises to assess the skills and temperments of my soldiers. I carefully evaluated each of my soldiers and matched them into pairs or teams based on this. Obviously, mission accomplishment comes first, so I'd prefer to have my most consistent, least-affected-by-pressure soldier be the sniper. Beyind that... I tended to prefer that the more senior soldier (who is thus the team leader) be the spotter. He is responsible for navigation, communication, logistics, threat assessment--freeing the shooter to focus on shooting. My thinking is that the closer I am to the shot window, the more narrowly focused I want to be on the shot. Being the commander of anything takes about all the bandwidth you have. The other, opposing command philosophy is for the sniper to be the team leader, on the basis that as the shooter, he ought to be making the decisions, and the team mission should be built around his guidance.

Remember too, that in military special operations, there is a somewhat different attitude about rank. Typically, in a small team environment, soldiers quickly learn each others strengths and weaknesses. Quite often, leaders recognize the special skills and talents of their subordinates and actively engage those soldiers, or even defer to them, in their area of expertise. In a sniper team, there is a constant interaction, a constant give-and-take. In general, the smaller the unit, and the more proven the subordinate(s), the more informal the leadership structure becomes.

Also, I was never set on the idea that a sniper team is, by definition, a two man team. I always selected 2, 3, or 5 man teams depending on mission, with no predisposition towards 2-man teams at all. Mroesler 04:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO this entire section should be cut, the composition of teams will vary from day to day let alone from country to country, even just looking at WWII you see different applications of sniper "teams" from person man upwards. This information does nothing to define the idea "sniper" or further understanding of it.It is interesting for those with an interest in currect military doctrine and tactics (myself included) but if it doesnt describe or explain the universal concept of Sniperism it has no place in an encyclopedia. Rant over,toodlepip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.252.39 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

'Attitude towards snipers' section

The section contained several general statements, either false (removed) or dubious.

Removed statement: "generally are snipers disliked by their own army", which is utterly false.

Dubious statement: "A commonly held view is that snipers must have a psychopathic or sociopathic personality". Please provide a reputable source of this statement, based on survey, whatever. The author probably confuses professiosn of "sniper" with "hired killer".

"Mystique of sniper" phrase: hardly suitable for an encyclopedic article. the rest of it is expressed in a POVish way bases on false presupposition that snipers were considered "bad guys".

Overall, "attitude" means someone's opinion. The current text is an unsupported one-sided opinion of the author. Either references provided, or it all deleted. mikka (t) 18:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I can help finding relevant references. In his book "Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege, 1942-1943" the British historian Antony Beevor claims that, at least in that period, (enemy) snipers were particularly loathed. The widespread view (the attitude) was to consider them as turning the life of the common soldier to a nightmare, while not contributing substantially to the outcome of the battle/war. I remember reading this, but I don't have the book with me to quote the part exactly. Anyone?

Marco Tarini, 3 Dic 2005

Removed the entire section, as it has not been referenced at all in the article, and the honus is on editors to provide the sources for information or it can be removed. As it was, the section did not help the article, more so because it is not even neccessarily accurate information at all. Mushin^talk 17:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed Tobuk as Juba's gun.

The page cited states that the military only believes it is and we don't know if that's the only weapon used. Other sources claim the sole sniper if such a person exists maybe using a Dragonuv and or even the israeli M89SR. Also there is no rifle called the "Tobuk", it's called "Tabuk". See the main article on him for more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.94.225 (talk) 2 January 2006

Good move considering that the "Juba's" that have been killed, captured, and even video recorded have been found to have used, Tabuks, Romak-3/PSL, and even bolt action rifles. B4Ctom1 20:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Snipers in history

The Simo Häyhä section under Snipers in history states another Finnish sniper, Sulo Kolkka made 200 additional kills with a submachinegun, but on the actual Simo Häyhä page, Häyhä is credited with 200 submachinegun kills too! Is this all correct, or is the reference to Sulo Kolkka's 200 submachinegun kills inaccurate? My research seems to indicate that indeed, Häyhä favored the Suomi K31 submachinegun, in addition to his Mosin Nagant M28 sniper rifle, and made numerous kills with it. Furthermore the Sulo Kolkka page states "Because no mention of him has been found in Finnish records, there is growing suspicion that Sulo Kolkka is not an actual person, but an invention of a foreign war-correspondent." So it would seem Kolkka is therefore unverifiable, and the reference to him, and his supposed 200 submachinegun kills on this page should be removed, and possibly credited to Häyhä if verifiable? Thoughts on this anyone? Bshumate 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Finnish pages say that both Häyhä and Kolkka would have additional 200 submachinegun kills. Btw, this Sulo Kolkka being fictional character thing is a though one... At least one person named Sulo Kolkka served in finnish military at Winter War and died in Continuation War, but I couldn't find any further info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.49.219 (talk) 7 March 2006

Barrel Length and Accuracy

There are to many factors barrel length brings to the picture to say that short or long is better.

Competition rifles with shorter barrels are generally in smaller calibers. In wich case such things as less resonance are a plus.

Longer barrels used with calibers like .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Laupa, or even .50 BMG have the very big advantage of adding weight and mass to a rifle. Let me explain what I mean

Weatherby Rifles are crticized by many as being innacurate. In truth these are some of the most accurate production rifles on the planet, however their recoil is so heavy they cause the shooter to flinch which in turn hurts accuracy.

Yeah, removing the flinch instinct is critical. In my reading, I've seen various instructor-assisted methods to help snipers-in-training get over that reaction. – Wisq 23:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

When one is dealing with large cailbers, the sheer weight added by a longer heavier barrel (some choose to use short bull barrels instead) but the increased time to create and staibilize bullet spin makes a very real differance. It all depends upon the caliber, and velocity of what is being shot. Klauth 06:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Juba video

• Juba video

Another year, another video of Iraqis shooting western soldiers. I'm taking this down on the same grounds as the "Iraqi sniper training video", above. It's speculative ("alleged"), propaganda-style, on a difficult-to-use download server, and it still shows nothing about sniping itself. In fact, we have no way of knowing whether it's even sniping at all. Since this video already appears to be in the Juba (sniper) article, I recommend it remain there rather than here. – Wisq 04:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been enough problems at the Juba (sniper) article with additions of dodgy links. Keeping links like that on this article would be pointless. Mushin^talk 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Not relevant to the subject, histrionic nonsense, belongs in religion, sub-section: fanaticism. 8th May 2006 TwoBells

good move, the Juba phenomenon is one of interest, but since its lore is generated likely of multiple snipers, and is even portrayed in the videos as using different rifles, Juba is likely a conglomeration of snipers acting. Like I said definitely of note, but not of specific identification (until someone shows somthing other than dubious evidence) of a single persons acts. B4Ctom1 20:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

M24

The article said that the M24 was based off the remington 700 (along with the m40). Isn't the M24 an enhanced, semi-auto version of the Vietnam era M14 rifle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.109.147 (talk) 31 May 2006

The M-21 was an enhanced M-14; The M-24 is very much a Remington 700. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mroesler (talk • contribs) 16 June 2006

Sniper History

Would this article be improved by adding something about snipers in WWI? Snipers were in extensive use on all fronts. It seems odd that they do not get a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.159.237 (talk) 31 May 2006

I'd agree, as modern sniper warfare was pioneered during that period. I seem to recall seeing such a mention on this page before, but it seems to have disappeared. --129.89.246.110 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A major new sniping history has just been released: The History of Sniping and Sharpshooting by John Plaster, 700 pages, almost 900 photos and illustrations. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing, so I am not sure if it would be considered appropriate to add it to the References section of the Sniping article. I worked for the book's publisher, Paladin Press. Jsf67 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

terrorists etc

I happen to agree with this edit. However, I just substantially expanded that section. Note that I changed "warfare" to "combat". I do not consider the austin situation to be "warfare," but "combat" does indeed seem appropriate. I'd welcome a copyedit or further expansion. I don't know that the role of the sniper in irregular combat has been adequately explored by the article. ... aa:talk 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mils dot versus MOA

When I was reading this page I red the following:

Explanation: 1 MIL = 1 milli-radian. That is, 1 MIL = 1x10^-3 radian. But, 10^-3 rad x (360 deg/(2 x Pi) radians) = 0.0573 degrees. Now, 1 MOA = 1/60 degree = 0.01667 degrees. Hence, there are 0.0573/0.01667 = 3.43775 MOA per MIL, where MIL is defined as a milli-radian. On the other hand, defining a mil-dot by the US Army way, to equate it to 1 yard at 1000 yards, means the Army's mil-dot is approximately 3.6 MOA.

Actually, there is a misunderstanding about what is a milli-radian and a minute of angle.

The milli-radian is a metric method of calculating angles. A full circle worth 6283.185307179586476925286766559 milli-radians (2 X PI X 1000). This was kind of complicated for the army (whatever the nation) so they decided to add +/- 2 percent to each milli-radians in order to create the Mils. By doing so they created a system that allows them to use a 6400 mils circle that can be easily divide by 2,4,8... Saying that a mils equals to a milli-radian can bring a tiny 2 percent error but sniping is all about precision so the need to eliminate every bit of error before a shot is essential. It is also interesting to note that the russians have decided to use 6000 division circle intead so SVD shooters beware because all the western calculation mean crap to you.

Now lets compare the two system to find the true value of a MOA and lets remember us that a full circle of MOA worth 21600 minutes. (360 * 60 = 21600).

For a MOA converted in milli-radian the problem is the following : 21600 / 6283.185307179586476925286766559 = 3.4377467707849392526078892888463 (3.43775 MOA like you said.)

For a MOA converted in mils the problem is the following : 21600 / 6400 = 3.375 MOA

For the 3.6 MOA value... you might have get it from the following formula : 3.4377467707849392526078892888463 * 1.047197551(value of 1 MOA in inch at 100 yds.) =3.5999999993241467330147520265587 (3.6 MOA like you said). Which is incorrect if we take the true MOA / Mils value into the calculation. 3.375 * 1.047197551 = 3.534291734625 MOA at 100 yds. (3.8651175 MOA for us which are using the metric system).

Regards Alex (hamel_222)

The USMC standard is that 1 mil (i.e. 1 milliradian) equals 3.438 MOA (minute of arc, or, equivalently, minute of angle), while the U.S. Army standard is 3.6 MOA, chosen so as to give a diameter of 1 yard (36 inches) at 1,000 yards. 

At that point in the calculation, replacing 3.438 MOA by 3.6 MOA introduces an error of 4.7%, not 2%. I am somewhat gobsmacked that the US army deliberately introduced such an error. Pi isn't a nice round number - deal with it! :) Blaise 09:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Way too many pictures here. DJ Clayworth 14:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Some photographer interested in getting his name and work out there threw up a ton of French photos. I got rid of most of them, since they were inserted into places that already had 2-3 photos. I don't mind someone wanting to donate photos to the Wikipedia, but inserting 6-7 pictures in an article that's already almost twice the preferred length is a bit much. EvilCouch 01:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also would like to add that the photos of the guy in jalalabad and opposite the consistency paragraph represent sharpshooting and not sniping and should be replaced. Snipers are taught to refrain from exposing themselves directly in an open window or rooftop. The tactic employed by a sniper would be to take position further back from an open window and employ foreground and background camoflage to conceal themselves. As the actions shown in these photo's are not representative of an actual sniper, they do not effectively illustrate the role that is being explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.177.168 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, I am proposing deletion of the photos mentioned above. I will check periodically for objection and if there's none, will proceed. the photos in question are below:

• soldier is exposed in window, correct tactic is to position further back
  soldier is exposed in window, correct tactic is to position further back
• soldier is not making any use of camoflage or making any attempt at concealment
  soldier is not making any use of camoflage or making any attempt at concealment

It seems that these photos depict soldiers doing more of what police snipers might do, i.e. overwatch. The section on police is disputed already. I think we should resolve that before getting rid of the photos.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 00:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

it might be possible to treat each as a different subsection? i think these photos represent sharpshooting and not sniping.

I think if we decide they're not photos of snipers, but marksmen, we should move them to the marksman article. (Don't forget to sign your comments with "~~~~") --Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 16:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

agreed, i do think these photos are more representative of marksmen. however, in the photo of the guy from jalalabad reconstruction team, he's holding the barrel of his rifle directly to steady it. Holding a rifle barrel thats free floating is completely incorrect and will cause you to be off by some way. So the guy looks cool but isn't actually of much use. This photo in particular is a candidate for deletion (Silverstar189 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Selected snipers in history

This section is completely out of hand, it states "'Selected' snipers in history, not all the snipers we can think of. Besides trimming the overly long paragraphs for (sentences too long, irrelevant info like ranks and dates that can be found on wikilinked articles), I have removed the following:

• Sulo Kolkka – not notable (many snipers with more kills)
• Gordon & Shugart – the incident does not directly relate to snipers or sniping and not notable in an historical perspective.
• Juba sniper – doubts whether he even exists
• Gilliland – not a record shot, only a sensational headline or manner of speaking.

The list if already too verbose and the idea is to show some important historical snipers (Zaitsev, Hatchock) or incidents (changing the course of an important battle etc.). The article is already too bloted and this section is not helping and should possibly be trimmed even further to a simple link with one line description.

--Deon Steyn 09:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How was gillilands shot not a record? It wasnt even that sensational. I claim you have vandalized without researching.B4Ctom1 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The range of the M24 SWS is given by its in-site page as "over 800m" a statement that personally would to me suggest it was capable of another 10% of the given range (880 meters) or on the outside an additional 25% (1000 meters). Using "Gilliand" and "sniper" as keywords on google returns 12,000 results and the first several pages of links returned by google all pertain to Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland. The link considered most 'relevant' by google (by which I mean the first link returned of the 12k) is to an article hosted by www.telegraph.co.uk and discusses the shot in question. It states that the shot was made from 1,250 meters which is aprox. 150% of the low-end of the M24's range. The article also claims that the shot was "well beyond the capacity of the powerful Leupold sight, accurate to 1,000 metres." The article also qoutes Gilliand himself and goes on to discuss the role and mentality of the sniper in modern combat.

I do not see this as being a sensational in the context I feel you mean to imply primarily as it being negative and unworthy of reference. Though it does to a degree in my opinion fit the second definition of the word, sensational, as given by answer.com: "Arousing or intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction, especially by exaggerated or lurid details: sensational journalism; a sensational television report." However, a great deal of modern coverage of an single act, engagement or personal story as pertaining to military action as published by sympathetic news sources often fit this definition all around. It could even be argued that any single act (such as Gilliland's shot) or piece of military equipment (such as the Patriot missle from the first Gulf War) can all be seen as "lurid details" that are "intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction" simply due to the fact they are singular subjects or actions culled from a much greater whole of which they are ultimately a part.

My opinion is that Gilliland's shot is suitable for referencing as it is the most publicized example of a military sniper engaging in actions that adhere to the definition of a sniper in the military context versus the term's pop culture references especially that of criminal shootings from which the shooter is somewhat removed or firing from concealment. A perfect example is the "D.C. Sniper"/"Beltway Sniper" that some are calling the "D.C. Shootings" or "Beltway Shootings" as the range and difficulty of the shoots made are not considered on par with those of a military-trained sniper.

I do not feel that Gilliland warrants a indvidual page so the best way to reference him without writing a stub would be to include him in such a list. I agree that the section has become overly long and to inconsistent as it currently stands with some links being duplicated in the Selected snipers in history sub-category and the See Also one (Carlos Hatchcock) but Gilliland would also be a pertinent addition to the 21st Centruy sub-heading which currently contains the fewest mentions, of which one is quite disputable.

I propose a "list of" topic be made to include this subsection which would allow for expansion as well as the inclusion of fictional snipers from various mediums such as cinema and literature without further lengthening a topic already relatively long.

--Helioglyph 08:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier, I hadn't noticed the initial reply by B4Ctom1. As explained in my first post on the matter, this incident (Gilliland): firstly; this is not a "record", this is not track and field athletics. It is very difficult to describe something as a "record". Secondly a 1250 m shot with a 7.62 x 51 mm is not that remarkable and hardly makes him noteworthy, simply because of a sensationalist media article.

As for the lists, well, if we want to mentioned every known sniper in history then perhaps we'd need a "list page", because this article is way too long as is and a list would not contribute much, in fact I reckon a sniper category could be sufficient. --Deon Steyn 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

this is more ridicoulous then the ninja article.

^^^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.180.72.224 (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

How so? Thnx for your IP btw, lol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gab.popp (talk • contribs) 10:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Yea, you're a 1337 hacker and he should definitely be scared. 24.6.14.215 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. The shot placement section is a joke. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Care to actually provide some constructive criticism so that the article can be improved? Or are you just passing through on a wiki-wide article bashing tour? The Kinslayer 10:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Most sections have zero sources, and statements like "Military snipers, who generally do not engage targets at less than 300 m (330 yd), usually attempt body shots, aiming at the chest. These shots depend on tissue damage, organ trauma and blood loss to make the kill. Police snipers who generally engage at much shorter distances may attempt head shots to ensure the kill. In instant-death hostage situations, police snipers shoot for the cerebellum, a part of the brain that controls voluntary movement that lies at the base of the skull. " sound like amateur experts sounding off with their personal opinions. This needs to be sourced. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd wording

"During the Bosnian War, especially the Siege of Beirut, “sniper” referred to soldiers..."

Is it me or does this passage suggest that the Siege of Beirut was part of the Bosnian War? --80.41.36.181 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it used to read: In the Bosnian War, and for much of the Siege of Beirut, but it was changed in a user 72.244.121.114 on Feb 11. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deon Steyn (talk • contribs) 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Snipers in Fiction

?! 65.173.104.19 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Positioning

"Some snipers are able to shoot an observant target from less than 90 m (98 yd), while the target is searching for them, without being seen".

Does the writer of this have a particular environment in mind? Surely if a sniper is firing from dense forest, or is just in the shade, they may get much closer even than 90m and still not be spotted? Where has this threshold of 90m come from?

Or does it just mean that they can get that close without an observant target pinpointing their direction/location -- I can appreciate that there is a distance at which this becomes very difficult in principle. --217.18.21.2 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty cold-sounding

Sentences like this: "Corporals Matt and Sam Hughes, a two-man sniper team of the Royal Marines, armed with L96 sniper rifles each killed targets at a range...". How do you "kill a target", exactly? They shot people, let's not beat around the bush here... WikiReaderer 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• While WP:NPOV must be maintained, WikiReaderer makes a good point here. Unlike many other military appointments, snipers are specifically trained to kill people, whether in police situations or in warfare. (This differs from other military/police jobs that in theory may never involve direct killing, especially in the case of police (I think I read somewhere only about 0.5% of cops will ever actually take a life). Plus unlike most warfare killing that involves shooting from a distance and rarely any up-close contact with the target, snipers are "right there" with the sniper score, therefore they see in intimate detail what they have done. This article should include discussion of how snipers are psychologically trained -- or handled afterwards -- for what they are having to do. Did any of those snipers who killed hundreds of people ever have psychological problems afterwards? 68.146.47.196 15:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have read several autobigraphical accounts from snipers and I would say they take great pride in their assassinations and other killings. They enjoy the commrodory that is a part of their job and excitement that comes from overcoming the seemingly terrible odds against their success. Snipers believe in what they do and they believe it must be done. Essentially, snipers save the rest of us from bad people (from their viewpoint) and in so doing they make the world a better place, even for the bleeding hearts that don't appreciate their sacrofices or accomplishments. -- Ctatkinson 22:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

a target can be a person. it is a correct usage, and I believe the term used by the shooters themselves, and also indicates that they hit the person they were aiming for. Anyone who doesn't realize snipers kill people, are too dumb to read wikipedia anyway. Rds865 (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What ammo was the Candian sniper using setting the record?

I have read that the shot wouldn't have been possible with the ammo he was using normally, and that he got the ammo from his American allies. But what kind of ammo was this? M33 Ball, Or the Raufoss round?

.50 BMG cartridges loaded with Hornady 750 gr. A-MAX very low drag projectiles

Picture/caption question

File:040521-M-1012W-013usmc.jpg

Re this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:040521-M-1012W-013usmc.jpg - On the sniper rifle page the caption says that the rifle is an M24, on this page it is stated to be an M40. Let's sort out the contradiction on way or the other. Geoff B 17:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well being Marines it is supposed to be an M40, the presence of the front sight would indicate an M24, BUT there are many product variants (this one has a camo stock for instance) to be sure one way or the other (the pic is also from 2004). The most important difference is the length of the action (M24 is longer) and if you look at original high res version of the photo I would say the action looks like the shorter M40's action ([1]) versus the longer M24 ([2]). So the action (shorter?) and the operator (Marine) would indicate an M40... perhaps there were some models or batches using different barrels? --Deon Steyn 09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have seen the source of the image http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DMSD0510239&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/2005/Marines/DM-SD-05-10239.JPG which says:

"Special Reaction Team (SRT) members US Marine Corps (USMC) Sergeant (SGT) Shannon C. Moye (foreground), sites through the scope on his 7.62mm M-86 sniper rifle as Corporal (CPL) Eddie L. Tesch, uses a spotting scope to read targets taken out during sniper (Released to Public)"

So according to Corporal Ryan Walker, USMC it is an M-86 sniper rifle. I have tweaked the caption to reflect the rifle, which is an M24 and neither an M86 sniper rifle or M40 sniper rifle. Please click on both images that I have posted. Then compare both images, observe the front post, shape of barrel, shape of stock (particullary the contours) and even the scope of both weapons.

There have been numerous cases where official Department of Defense captions has misidentified weapons which clearly does not reflect the actual weapon. A prime example is this one: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DASD0716195&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/2007/Army/DA-SD-07-16195.JPG Which states:

"Pfc. Matthew J Mongiove, from 10th Mountain Division, 4th Brigade, scans the area from the site of an M-249 squad automatic weapon (SAW) providing security in support of the 561st Military Police Company, 716th Military Police Battalion, 101st Airborne Di (Released to Public)"

This is an M240B machine gun and not a M249 SAW. It is apparent that SGT Andre Reynold, U.S. Army did not correctly cite the appropriate weapon.

Another example of an accidental mislabeling of a weapon is this one: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=061013-F-9429S-012&JPGPath=/JCCC/Still/2006/Air_Force/061013-F-9429S-012.JPG

"U.S. Air Force Airman 1st Class Travis Fillman watches over an entry control point with an M-60 machine gun during exercise Eagle Flag 07-1 on Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, N.J., Oct. 13, 2006. Fillman is a security forces journeyman from 817th Contingency Response Group, McGuire Air Force Base, N.J. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Scott T. Sturkol) (Released) (Released to Public)"

This is clearly not an M60 machine gun but a M240 machine gun. --TabooTikiGod 19:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have used Adobe Photoshop CS3 to combine the two images, it is evident from placing the overlay of the confirmed M24 SWS image over the photograph of the sniper rifle in question that both images line up and it is an M24 SWS and not an M40 or M86 sniper rifle. -TabooTikiGod 10:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Does look like an M24 to me, I just wasn't sure because the source announced it was Marines. Geoff B 20:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the photograph, it's on Okinawa so potentially it could be any service branch since the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force all have units based on the island. The photograph was taken in 2004 so the Marines still could have been using the battle dress uniform versus the MARPAT. There is not enough information in the photograph to definitively determine whether or not they are Marines, so the caption associated with the photograph(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:040521-M-1012W-013usmc.jpg), taken verbatim from the Department of Defense website (http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DMSD0510239&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/2005/Marines/DM-SD-05-10239.JPG) will remain as is. -TabooTikiGod 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We could just change it to a "typical Remington 700 based" or just remove reference to the type of rifle or simply substitute the pic with another? --Deon Steyn 05:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains, it is an M24 SWS, not a "typical Remington 700 based," I have already made the appropriate changes to identify the weapon. Personally, I don't think it is an exceptional sniper photograph--if you (Deon Steyn) would like to find a substitute photograph to replace this one, I won't stop you. -TabooTikiGod 09:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

World War II

I noticed that in the world war II section the entry on the united states is very Army-centric. The Marines didn't half-ass it like the army, and special note should be made of Marine scout-sniper platoons. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable Snipers

I have, twice now, inserted Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart. There is absolutely no way to debate that these two snipers are not notable. There is likewise no way to debate that with the exception of Hathcock and Zaitsev, they are probably the two most recognizable snipers in recent history. Everyone knows the story, their actions were immortalized in a massively successful movie, in a multitude of books and on countless documentaries. A simple google search indicates that their names are nearly always said in conjunction with the word 'sniper.' Furthermore, the subsection doesn't say "Snipers with the most kills and longest shots." It's a section where notable snipers are listed with a short synopsis of their feats and accolades. In addition, the fact that multiple users have inserted the information is proof positive enough that these two snipers are notable enough for inclusion on this page. I see that it was discussed earlier on, yet no consensus was ever reached on it. 74.142.88.126 (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Why are there no photos of Iraqi insurgents firing sniper shots? A sniper is a sniper, be he an Iraqi Islamist or an American Crusader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.133.54 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have one that follows copyright laws, we can discuss it. However, as you refer to American snipers as "Crusaders", I'm guessing you are just trying to stir up trouble. Also, having a rifle and being able to make a shot at a few hundred yards does not make one a sniper. If that were the case, pretty much every deer hunter here in America would qualify as a "sniper". As the lead of this article says, "A sniper requires skill in marksmanship, camouflage, and field craft." Marksmanship is one part of being a sniper.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgents aren't soldiers, and this article says snipers are only soldiers or police. plus, if they were smart wouldn't post pictures of themselves on the internet. the lead of a article should say "being a good sniper requires..." Also I think the definition should include an exception for hunters. That is a hunter targets animals, for sport or food, a sniper targets people, vehicles, and other strategic targets. Rds865 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say from my point of view I could accept photos of iraqi insurgents as snipers, if there were any available showing them acting exactly as that. However, I am yet to see one as photos in this regard are extremely sparse. Although we all have our own beliefs etc, a sniper is a sniper, regardless of their cause and does not need to be operating under a specific banner, just demonstrating the techniques of one. With the same reasoning, I am suggesting a couple of pictures be removed on here which do not show sufficient techniques of camoflage and concealment. I would agree that sniping only extends to the targeting of humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverstar189 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Cleanup: Measurment Correction

Under the targeting section (of what I've seen) the measurements are incorrect. I believe they are switched around, for 1 meter = 40 inches, as 1 yard = 36 inches. I'm pretty sure they're not correct as I use the metric system in my country. Thecutnut (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

B-Class review

This article needs many more citations to pass B-Class. See [[WP:V] for what to cite and WP:Cite for how to cite it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Robo-snipers

What do you too guys have against this section? Just because the person is not on the battlefield does not mean he is not a sniper just as I explained the operator of a predator is a pilot. Maybe I should make a separate page but can I put a link to this page?

Section

A modern sniper may now be thanks to technology far away from the battlefield using robots being deployed in Israel to police the Gaza border. At present each human operator can control up to 15 such weapons but future plans are too fully automate them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomon is Wise (talk • contribs) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead of the article has a specific, accepted definition of a sniper. A robot is not a service member. The services might use them, but they are tools. Your explanation of predator/pilot is faulty reasoning. The operator might be a pilot, I'm not here to argue that, but the UAV is not a pilot. In the same manner, the operator of a robot with a gun could be a sniper, but the robot isn't. According to this article, the operator of a robot with a gun would only be a sniper if he was trained in the areas of marksmanship, camo, & field craft, but just because the operator might be able to make a long shot using the robot does not mean he is a sniper and it certainly doesn't make the robot a sniper. Not by current definitions. Just because The Guardian uses the word "sniper" in its article doesn't mean the devices it is reporting on fit the accepted definition of a sniper. We can revisit those definitions, but right now, robots don't fit.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the definition, but even under it, robots apply. the gun is just remote controlled and the servicemen is shooting from a farther distance and better concealed. using a camera on a gun to shoot, would be using marksmanship, and the gun would be placed and concealed using the principles of camouflage and "field craft." Rds865 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Circular reference?

It looks like one reference for this article is a circular one. http:// hubpages.com/hub/World_War_II_Snipers is reference 1 and if you scroll to the bottom of that page, it cites its source as Wikipedia. At a glance, it looks like a copy of this article. Anyone care to comment?--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the Wikipedia reference was just for Vasily Zaytsev, but I don't see a source for the beginning section of the hubpages article. Sections of this article are basically copies from the hubpages article, I don't know if hubpages copied from Wikipedia or the other way around. It's a problem since we don't really have a credible source either way. Either hubpages copied from us and it's a circular reference or Wikipedia copied from hubpages and we're violating its copyright (plus I don't think hubpages meets the credible source criteria).--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 00:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that link is blacklisted

Snipers only Soldiers?

This article seems to imply that the word sniper only includes police a military snipers, not terrorists. I have thought anyone who shoots another person from a concealed position is a sniper. whether it be an expert solider, or a kid with a bb gun. Also, sniper can be applied outside of combat into war simulation games, such as paintball or video games. Rds865 (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The view this article takes is that a sniper has a specific meaning in military terms. A sniper has training in marksmanship, camouflage, and field craft. A person who can shoot well would be a marksman. I can shoot quite well with a rifle and make long shots, but that doesn't make me a sniper even though the media has confused the general public on the issue. In reference to paintball, there's already an article about woodsball marksmen. Basically, a sniper does much more than just shoot targets from distance. See the "Etymology" section of this article for a little more about the confusion. The word "sniper" can be applied to other areas and people like terrorists with rifles, but that doesn't make it a correct application of the word.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say not being a good shot, doesn't make you not a sniper. I am not sure how saying that the media misuse the word proves it is misused. If you think Iraqi insurgents who are called snipers aren't snipers, show some proof. Sniper is widely used to refer to all concealed shooters, and since most people aren't soldiers it is used more often to refer to non solider, non police use. perhaps there should be an article about snipers, and one about the military designation. Rds865 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a specific quote in the article that you think is wrong and should be changed? WinterSpw (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rds865, if I carry around a .40 S&W, wear a navy blue jumpsuit and run around trying to protect the citizens of my city daily. Does that make me a police officer? Just because you put a tool in someones hand, and they mimic a certain action.. does not necessarily make them what they're wanting to become. An 'Iraqi insurgent' with a sniper rifle, in hiding.. isn't a sniper if they can't hit a damn thing. The word sniper denotes sharpshooter.. would you give a half-blind, one-armed, 80-year-old a sniper rifle? Hey, it doesn't matter if he can hit anything, he's hiding and he's got a long-range rifle.. he's a sniper! Give me a break. Also.. read before you right.. "Not being a good shot, doesn't make you not a sniper" Triple negatives.. fail. 97.102.11.143 (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Snipers/Sniping

perhaps some of the information already in the article could be organized in a criticism of sniping. Snipers tend not to be liked by their possible targets, understandably so. There seems to be a lack of fairness when sniping(yes, I know war isn't fair and compared to bombing and shelling, sniping is close range and is much more precise) Also, snipers have a reputation of being cold blooded hunters of men. Rds865 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "lack of fairness" with sniping. I don't think there's really a point in creating a section that states snipers are "disliked" and "criticized", and I don't think one of your statements is true: "...snipers have a reputation of being cold blooded hunters of men." WinterSpw (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WinterSpw. It seems that Rds865 has many opinions about this topic, but I haven't seen any sources yet.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 00:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sniping someone is less fair then, a duel. Other people had put in things about snipers being disliked. Snipers are depicted as such in the media. Often by critics of war. Tom Clancy compared snipers to hunters in The Bear and the Dragon. In the movie Enemy at the Gate it the main character tries to convince his love interest not to be a sniper because it requires being a certain amount of cold bloodedness, and the villain in that movie is cold blooded. certainly sniping is not a passionate way to kill someone. Rds865 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rds865, is there any way to kill someone "passionately"? I have not thought of one yet. Please think before you write.Brettroscoe (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettroscoe (talk • contribs) 00:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

two definitions of sniper

Ok I adjusted the definition to match the wikitionary one as well as the usage of the term outside of the context of military organization since no one has argued this. If this is unacceptable perhaps there needs to be two articles, even if one is about the media's "misusage" of the term. Since the English language has no governing body definitions can change if everyone uses the wrong one, the wrong one can become the right one. Rds865 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC) The reference to the Munich Olympic hostage crisis is incorrect. I worked in Munich in the late 70's and shot at the Hauptkonigliche Schutzengesellschaft each weekend.The club is one of the oldest in the world,founded about the 13th century for crossbow shooting. It boasted several Olympic Gold Medallists, one of whom was frequently a range master. He was a Police marksman involved in the hostage situation.The Munich Police did have specialist marksman.He said that from the first hours of the crisis he and his colleagues were covering some seven targets{as I recall].The orders were not to fire until all targets were simultaneously in the crosshairs. The controlling officer was calling around the shooters in sequence continuously asking for confirmation of target acquired. They got frequently up to five under the crosshairs and sometimes to six. The fear was that a surviving terrorist could kill hostages out of sight.He said it was the most stressful thing imaginable.Starting to take up pressure on a trigger then having to release it and carry on tracking your target. The exhausted marksmen were moved out to the airport ahead of the terrorist /hostage group. It was there that the order to fire was given [or heard]while not all targets were truly acquired. This resulted in a terrorist throwing a grenade into the helicopter.222.153.185.28 (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cop vs. Military

it seems to be a the military snipers are tougher then the cop snipers list. Also, army snipers still are part of a broader operation, even if they operate on their own mission. Their role of reconn is an example of this. also police snipers as far as I am aware observe. The fact that police snipers don't have any threat seems unreal, as if you can shoot someone, they can shoot you. some references and some definitions of roles. Also, dark blue and black could be considered camouflage, since police snipers are often in urban environments and may shoot from roofs, in which case they would blend in with the sky. Rds865 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You can change the text in the article if you have references or facts that support your argument. WinterSpw (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the police sniper section, removing information already stated about military snipers. Also, according to the ASA, there is no record of the range of shots fired by police snipers. I also have two cases where police snipers were deployed in a rural environment. I believe in police terminology hostage takers are not civilians. Also, hostage takers are not the only targets of police snipers. Rds865 (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think police snipers should be defined as being in 'SWAT teams', which clearly only portrays the Americans and not the entirety of the world. WinterSpw (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the chart that reflects the comparison between "military snipers" versus "civilian lawn enforcement sharpshooters". Mainly due to the fact that the information is inaccurate and does not reflect true facts. Furthermore, this article does encompass the world and not just the United States. For example, military snipers cannot operate indefinitely without resupply nor do they operate soley by themselves without the support of other units or personnel either in direct or indirect roles. Civilian law enforcement snipers can employ their teams in non-urban terrain and situations, not just operating soley in urban environments. -Signaleer (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting police section??

Who put that they wanted to split the 'Police' section into a new article? I wouldn't recommend splitting the section into another article though, because a new article just talking about police snipers versus military snipers is just bogus. WinterSpw (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the difference between military snipers and civilian law enforcement snipers warrants a separate article. I believe that in context, the law enforcement or police section should be exactly where it belongs, there is not enough content nor validity to create a separate article. -Signaleer (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 22:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "sniper" :
  • {{cite book |author=[[John Plaster]] |title=[[The Ultimate Sniper]]: An Advanced Training Manual For Military And Police Snipers |publisher=Paladin Press |year=2006 |pages=5 |id=ISBN 0-87364-704-1}}
  • {{cite book |author=John Plaster |title=[[The Ultimate Sniper]]: An Advanced Training Manual For Military And Police Snipers |publisher=Paladin Press |year=2006 |pages=5 |id=ISBN 0-87364-704-1}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Snipers of the Kystjegerkommandoen

I have just added this info under " range ":

" During the Operation Harekate Yolo mission in Afghanistan, A Norwegian sniper of the Kystjegerkommandoen aiming from a trench hit one of the Taliban insurgents ( Human Target ) from a distance of 1380 meters, using 12,7mm «multi-purpose»-ammunision " Mortyman (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Range and mention of Norwegian specialforces

I see that the info I posted regarding the range of one shot fired by a Norwegian specialforces soldier and the source of this info has been labelled with " ".

The info is correct and the article is siting sources within the Norwegian armed forces. The insident has actually been under investigation in Norway. Not because of the range of the shot, but because of the ammo used. it is normally not intended for soft human targets. If there was any false info regarding the range, I'm sure that that also would have been adressed. This source is in Norwegain, but I don't see how that can be a negativity to the article. If we were only to site English sources and regard that as the only truth in the world, then we would all have a serious problem. Please remove the label. Mortyman (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Training

Perhaps a training section can be implemented. At present, snipers are usually trained at in the regular national army, and can then follow extra courses at England (Platton Weapons 3 Sniper Course, or America (Scout Sniper Advanced Course) afterwards.