Talk:Longest recorded sniper kills

Should the current record be mentioned in the lead?

There's ben a lot of to-and-fro editing of the mention of the current record in the lead. I think mentioning it there is acceptable and even desirable, who agrees or disagrees? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems silly to mention it in the header with an archaic measurement system, then the history section and then again in the table. The only reason it's there in the first place was someone vandalized the page with info about that guy who got sued by Jesse Ventura-- Esemono (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care tbh, It just now looks rather foolish saying the same thing briefly in the intro section and more fully and probably more appropriately in the history section. Your call. - Galloglass 21:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That is in fact exactly the purpose of the WP:LEAD of all WP articles - to summarise the entire article. An article lead is not actually supposed to contain anything that is not also discussed later in the article body. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is about long distance sniper kills rather than Harrison.... - Galloglass 21:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Australian Claim - What Constitutes Proof

Has the bar for accepting this particular claim been raised higher than that required of other records? The four references for the Harrison shot are newspaper articles, all of which read very much as if they have the same primary source. The Australian claim is (now) detailed in a published work sponsored by or produced in association with the Australian Army History Unit, written by two retired Lt Cols, one of whom reintroduced sniping instruction to the Australian Army in the 1970s, and which cites as primary sources discussions with serving members. Obviously the claim is harmed in some people's view by not being officially acknowledged by the Army itself, and by the initial single 'hearsay' newspaper article - but quite apart from operational security, the Australian Army has clearly made its stance known on releasing such information. Does that stance mean that a shot by an Australian sniper will never again be accepted, or to put it another way - what level of proof would be required for this to be accepted?

Since there doesn't appear to be a bibliography section for the talk page, and my entry in the article bibliography has been deleted (again) - here it is: p192 - "One Shot Kills - A History of Australian Army Sniping", by Glenn Wahlert & Russell Linwood; Big Sky Publications in association with the Australian Army History Unit; ISBN 9781922132659. To deny the claim now is tantamount to accusing the authors of either not adequately researching claims made to them, or wilful collusion.

The main question I have is what's the source of the authors claim for the kill? Do they have a reference for this or are they basing this on the rather dubious 2012 article? Regards - Galloglass 11:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have proof that the book uses the 2012 article? Or does the book uses confidential army sources?-- Esemono (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The book doesn't reference Chris Masters' interview or the Daily Telegraph at all in its bibliography or list of primary sources. What it has for Selected Primary Sources->Post-Vietnam Period is ″Interviews with retired and current Army snipers, not all identified either due to their request or for reasons of operational security.″ So once again, it more or less comes down to the bug-bear of lack of official acknowledgement - at the very least I believe the shot deserves a mention in the article, perhaps a section after the official list.

The book can't be based on the 2012 article as the information given is considerably more detailed, particularly down to the date/time/location/altitude given - it also uses 'Recently released metadata', by which I think it means the equipment listed (down to the type of 'scopes the observers used). Further, absent this particular controversy, there's no reason I can see that you would regard the 2012 article as rather dubious - apart from Chris Masters (writer)' reputation as an investigative journalist, it reads at least as well as any of the four Harrison articles, with the exception that it doesn't quote the sniper himself. I'll have to try to get hold of Chris Masters' book, see if there's any further information there. 60.225.169.113 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's quite clear then. The entry should be added into the article. -- Esemono (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

French training shot

The latest addition to the list is a French sniper who shot an amazing shot in controlled situation. Should this be added to a separate table? No question it was a great shot but a little different that hitting a moving target in a live war torn environment. -- Esemono (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the shot does deserve a mention but the article is not about target/sport shooting so I don't really think it should be in the main list. - Galloglass 23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yea no! It's longest sniper kills. A controlled environment, peace time, non combat shot does not count. It should be removed immediately or you will have a bunch of range shots carefully planned and shot on days with no winds! ~~

What if we made a seperate table like this?

Training Shots

Sniper	Date	Distance	Weapon	Ammunition	Nationality	Unit	Location	References
Adjudant Benjamin X.	2015	3,695 m (4,041 yd)	Custom Armeca	.408 Chey Tac	France	1er régiment de chasseurs d'Afrique	France	ref

The records yes but just by pure luck.

They dont mention two of the long shots took 16 rounds and 9 rounds? 2500 yards thats 28 inches per click.--A12bc34be5 (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Plunket

Shouldn't Thomas Plunket be included? In 1809 he shot a French general and his aide-de-camp at extreme range for the time - supposedly about 600m but I think this is disputed by some.Catsmeat (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the cut off "Confirmed kills 1,250 metres (1,370 yd)"? -- Esemono (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Mised that. OK, fair enough. Catsmeat (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Longest recorded sniper kills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203040740/http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=25833 to http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=25833

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The list is growing rather long

The table currently has eighteen entries. To keep it to a reasonable length perhaps we could consider increasing the "minimum qualifying range" to 1,500m? That would eliminate the current bottom six. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Seems pretty reasonable to me. The list is by no means or expected to be exhaustive. TVGarfield (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• A reasonable length would be 25 entries so we have a way to go -- Esemono (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional Cites

Request assistance; admin needed to add additional cite:

http://nr.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=1&articleid=102019506&source=digest&tagid=-52&tagname=Moods

Thanks in advance.Habatchii (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)