Snipers are nasty, everyone knows that. They hunt people like animals, killing them without giving them a chance to fight or even to surrender. Few soldiers are more hated; even their own armies often seem less than pleased to have them around. So why is the British Ministry of Defence happy to announce that it has just spent a …
At first, I was irate at the introduction to this article. To consider calling a military sniper a 'coward' is not only short sighted and misinformed, but downright insulting. These men and women put themselves, alone, in the worst environments for days at a time with no backup, and return with little to no fanfare when their mission is complete. To call any members of the armed forces 'cowardly' when they are doing their part to ensure YOUR protection, while you can sit down and write an article when your biggest threat is spilling your chai tea mint latte and ruining your pleatless khakis, is itself cowardly.
Thankfully, the introduction alluded to the exact opposite of the rest of the article. Thanks for that.
Where do you get your information from?
(Quote)Snipers are nasty, everyone knows that. They hunt people like animals, killing them without giving them a chance to fight or even to surrender. Few soldiers are more hated; even their own armies often seem less than pleased to have them around.(/quote)
What? Where on earth did you find this liberal clap-trap from or is this your own beliefs?
Us grunts in the army like to hear nothing more than "Snipers are covering" or "You've got a sniper attached to you for this patrol."
Snipers are an excellent and effective tool at removing enemy forces with minimal escalation of force.
The reason a sniper doesn't give people a chance to surrender or fight, is well, rather obvious.
If they fought back, you're ignoring the basic Rules of Engagement, which is our Law of Armed Combat.
If you let them surrender, well, most of them wouldn't.
Also, most snipers that we've used in the last 12 Operation Telics in Iraq and the last 10 Herricks in Afghanistan have killed people in the process of doing bad things, such as laying bombs and explosives, or firing upon Coalition troops.
You have an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) team setting up a site 2km from your position. You have in your team the usual firesupport, as well as a Javelin and a sniper with his L96.
A: Fire the Javelin, which costs around £40,000 and would not only eliminate the threat, but also a large chunk of the land in the immediate area
B: Use your sniper to fire minimal rounds to eliminate the threat, causing minimal disruption
The British Army Snipers Course is one of the best courses to get, it's held in high opinion by all military Commanders and it's an excellent aid to promotion. I intend to go for mine in the next two years, or at least aquire the basic Sharpshooter qualification. Which is actually the shooting part. The sniper qualification only comes if you complete the Stalking phase, when you have to cross open ground without being spotted, then hit a static target that appears within a 24hr period for 3 seconds. So there are a lot more snipers out there than you might think, it's just they've only got the Sharpshooter section completed.
You have a ridiculous opinion, and I would love to know what it is based upon.
American movies perhaps?
What about Zaitsev?
Thanks Lewis - a good informative article (as ever), but Vasily Zaitsev must rank up there for his role in the siege of Stalingrad - maybe not as the best sniper ever, but as a rallying tool for the troops.
He used a Mosin Nagant, too - a bog-standard infantry weapon.
But then he was Russian, so probably not as well known as Hathcock, though 'Enemy at the Gates' is a much better film than 'Sniper'.
Haven't DARPA been trying this for a while?
That's from 11 years ago - and targeted at aerial combat. Did anything ever come of it? It seems that if they struggled with Big 'ol shells, smaller ones will be even tougher...
The 'R' in 7.62x54R stands for 'Rimmed' and not 'Rimfire' - the cartridge, like more or less every modern cartridge larger than the .22 Magnum, uses a centerfire primer. '54R gets the designation because it has a prominent rim or lip around the base of the casing as opposed to the more common cutout groove. When the cartridge was first adopted together with the Mosin-Nagant rifle in 1891, use of this rim for headspacing purposes allowed looser machining tolerances in the rest of the rifle's chamber, both to avoid overtaxing the Russian Empire's limited industrial ability and to enable the rifles to be made relatively cheaply - hence why Izhevsk and Tula were able to crank out upwards of seventeen million Mosin-Nagant 1891/30s by 1945.
Call me pedantic if you like, but facts are facts.
Wasn't it 'chosen man' in the Napoleonic Army?
Didn't Captain Kirk get targeted by a "fire & forget weapon?" In the first Series.
As regards the 7.62x54R cartridge designation, the "R" stands for "Rimmed" and not "Rimfire." 7.62x54R is a centrefire cartridge.
Most modern rifle cartridges are described as being "Rimless". They have a cannelure just in front of the base of the cartidge for extraction and ejection but actually headspace off the neck of the cartridge. Older cartridges, such as the venerable 303 and 7.62 Russian headspace off the rim.
On another note, the wind starts to play a seriously big effect from about 800 to 900 yards out. The wind allowance for a 7.62 round is about 10 inches per mile an hour of wind coming from 90 degrees to the trajectory. A fairly mild breeze can take you five feet off target with no problems whatsoever.
Otherwise an excellent and highly interesting article, well up to Lewis' usual standards or excellence.
"most famous sniper ever"
No mention of Simo Häyhä?
Simo Häyhä was a Finnish sniper in the Winter War with 505 confirmed kills (estimated 542 actual kills) within 100 days (using a rifle with iron sights, as a telescopic sight presented a larger target for other snipers as well as making the user more visible) in addition to almost 200 additional kills with a machine gun.
Be vewy qwiet I'm hunting wabbits huhuhuh
Having some experience in hairydynamics and ballistics (competition shooting); I can state with some certainty that ballistic projectiles cannot be steered. Put fins on a bullet and it will just carry on, but sideways.
What you would need to do is use a "rocket" in the bullet to push it at 90 degrees to its trajectory path. The combined forwards and sidewards travel would result in very limited steerage.
All theoretically do-able but the miniaturisation needed is pretty awesome.
A scary video
Showing you just how unrealistic films can be.
Next time you see someone hide behind a barrel or US mail box.. just consider.
Er, I thought this was relevant due to the collateral damage/assault rifle paragraphs.
If it's going to be a laser guided bullet, some well positioned mirrors would mess it up a bit...
I'll get my coat. The one with the mirrors.
RIP - Lewis Page
I would just like to say here publicly, that Snipers are the finest most honourable people it has ever been my pleasure to meet.
just as a small nitpick
Just as a small nitpick,
1. The mentality that most fights happen under 300m isn't really a Cold War era idea, but also why WW2 used SMGs. And not just the Schmeisser; the Russians produced far more of their own burp-guns, the Brits produced quite a few Stens, and the Americans developed the grease-guns because the Thompsons were too expensive and slow to produce for how many the army wanted. Also why it culminated with the invention of the assault rifle.
But even WW2 didn't produce that idea. The Thompson itself was born out of a WW1 need for a "trench broom", i.e., something to put a lot of bullets in the air at close ranges.
2. The designated marksman rifle isn't just for short range sniping, or it would be a bolt action rifle for maximum accuracy. It's also for suppression. Psychologically, a "sniper" ranks up there with heavy machineguns for suppression factor.
3. Calling "snipers" murderers is at least as old as the American Independence War, where brits with muskets without sights (not that you'd have use for sights on a musket, given that the only way to be hit by a musket ball was if it was aimed at someone else) called the Minutemen murderers for having rifled guns with iron sights.
I guess it's just that most people have this aversion towards killing someone personally. Probably more people got PTSD ("shell shock") because they shot someone point blank, than because of being shelled by MLRS.
That, in turn, is known at least as early a the Roman Legion. The Romans rotated ranks in the middle of the battle, so their soldiers wouldn't get a nervous breakdown from all the killing. For all the willy-waving about being the sons of Mars and all that, when push came to shove, even for them it was pure stress.
The aircraft and airstrip crews, and often even those soldiers with assault rifles and machineguns, have an element of plausible deniability. You can lie to yourself that maybe it wasn't your bullet that killed that guy, or maybe those kids in that bombed school weren't hit by the bomb _you_ loaded, etc.
Or if you will, it's why a few weapons in almost all firing squad were loaded with blanks. Even though anyone who's fired a rifle can tell the difference, each soldier can still lie to himself that _his_ gun had a blank.
Or if that doesn't work, you can convince yourself that it was self-defense. That guy was trying to shoot you, so you shot him first.
What I'm trying to say is that the loathing of snipers doesn't necessarily have anything to do with numbers of kills. It's got to do with knowing that someone can calmly look you in the eyes (through a scope) and squeeze the trigger. Even if you're no danger to him, due to different weapon ranges. And then he can do it again. That's unsettling people.
A cheaper way...
...2 ways to make sniping cheaper.
1. use a mobile phone application to have a wind, air, temp calculator for the snipe. This is the IT angle ;-)
2. Ring the dirty rotten terrorist, who will stand up to get the best signal - then shoot him.
BTW, I though Vassili Zaitsev was the most famous sniper .
Nice article, pity it is so poor hystorically
The first 50'cal rifles were introduced into massive sniper use by Russians in 1941 and nearly immediately after that by the Germans using captured Russian guns and munitions. The guns in question were the PTRD and PTRS. It became clear in 1941 that they are pretty useless even against the relatively weak german tank amour. However, the extreme precision along with 1200m+ killing range made them the ultimate sniper rifle of the second world war. After the war they were taken onboard by guess whom - the Chinese and the Koreans. Their sniper crews were armed with this and the american/british in-field customisation of machine guns for the same purpose was a hasty response to a 50 caliber already present in the field.
As far as "white socks", well... I would not be surprised. These countries supported Dudaev directly and helped ship a large portion of the ex-Warsaw pact munitions down to Chechnia when Eastern Europe joined NATO. I have seen a plane with "bulgarian cucumbers" leave for there from Gorna Oriahovitca more than once a week for several years in a row until Putin came to power. One of his first actions was to called the Bulgarian and other ambassadors and tell them exactly what will happen if they continue with this practice.
The Baltics have also been the main producer of snipers and shooting sportsmen for both Russia and Germany for 100-odd years. I would not be surprised for them to be in Chechnia, though I would not expect the ones there to be female. I have seen the attitude of a Chechen to a woman myself one time too many in Grozny so I find this particular part of the urban legend hard to believe in. The rest is not that far off.
How do you make sure only your own side has these?
If these super-range rifles are used in action, then some will be lost.
How will the US react the first time one of their presidents is killed from five miles away? Or just random strangers on the streets of Washington?
[quote]Having some experience in hairydynamics and ballistics (competition shooting); I can state with some certainty that ballistic projectiles cannot be steered. Put fins on a bullet and it will just carry on, but sideways.[/quote]
You may want to reconsider your statement by taking a look at http://www.futurefirepower.com/excalibur-smart-artillery-round-fire-and-forget
While it relates to an artillery shell, the shell is still un-powered and is guided to its target over 25miles away to an accuracy of a few feet.
@Cal - I can see you're not a sniper..
... what with that hair-trigger you've got!
>"What? Where on earth did you find this liberal clap-trap from or is this your own beliefs?"
Take a deep breath, count to ten, then go read the rest of the article *after* the first paragraph - it's all about how that stereotyped view is a load of clap-trap. You really jumped down the author's throat a bit quick there.
Nicely balanced article.
Snipers are pretty much the ultimate infantry soldier...
Saying that, they're still G.R.U.N.T.S.
Saying that, no matter how many specialists you have back in echelon (gunners, engineers, frigates, crabs...) you cant hold any land without the G.R.U.N.T. in the field.
A.C. as I know a few grunts...
As always, a well written and well reasoned article from Lewis Page. Looking at the comments so far, I wish people would read the entire article before venting.
Keep up the good work.
...read the article, rather than just the first three lines you halfwit.
Gotta love people who only read the first page of an article..
R is for rimmed cartridge
The R is for rimmed cartridge not rim fire as with a .22 rim fire primer. Although uncommon in rifle cartridges in America, the rimmed cartridge is still popular in Europe where break action rifles are commonly used for hunting rather than bolt action or semi-automatic designs.
@ Michael, Cal
I read the title/opening as "Everybody knows..." in the sense of "Everybody knows that the world is flat..." -- an ironic assertion for the rest of the article to disassemble.
OTOH, it seems to me that whenever the other side (whomever the "other" is) uses an unconventional-warrior strategy, we (whomever "we" happens to be) will refer to the unconventional warriors as "cowards":
Setting Gatling guns against single-shot rifle infantry? Cowardly.
Potshotting from behind trees with rifles rather than standing and firing in massed ranks of musketry? Cowardly.
Shooting arrows from long-distance, rather than going hand-to-hand with sword and axe? Cowardly.
Whacking with a bloody great stick rather than using the teeth and nails that the Ungchuk the Creator gave us? Cowardly.
Mine's the one with the extra pockets for all sorts of Cowardly toys.
Steering a bullet
Steering a bullet is possible. Obviously fins or flaps can not be deployed and actuated due to the stabilization spin of the bullet in flight would make even the fastest adjustment operate over a large degree of arc. The answer would be a jet steering mechanism utilizing the 1960's technology of the Gyro-jet weapon system and the latest nano-technology allowing a stabilized, non-spinning central port to steer using directed jets of solid fuel powered gas to steer the bullet.
I'm not certain that laser guidance would work all that well. The big problem is to keep a bullet straight over long distances. Micro-gyros and a fairly simple ASIC would be able to adjust for wind deflection and bullet drop (within reason) as long as the bullet had momentum and jet fuel. Using a laser to paint a moving target works with missiles and guided bombs but that is with a very large lens that can find the laser dot. Besides lens size the required lens shape wouldn't work. A long range bullet needs a pointed ballistic shape and a lens needs a nearly flat shape.
There are a few issues with wind (and other atmospheric conditions) that will non-uniformly and non-predictably affect projectiles.
Firstly, wind is different at different heights and different areas. So as a bullet travels in its ballistic arc it will pass through many different atmospheric "regions" with different conditions.
Take the 2400m kill. A bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1000m/s is going to be in the air for pretty much 3 seconds. As gravity is constant this means it will drip by something like 27metres. Which means it will have traveled 2400 metres horizontally and 27 metres vertically.
It is not possible to predict the local weather at all those points, and it cannot be guaranteed that 2 (or more) bullets fired in exactly the same way will be affected exactly the same by teh atmosphere (winds change, gust etc)
I also cannot believe that a "guided" bullet can react quickly enough to a gust of wind or errant thermal to be able to get back on track.
Surely, and I offer this to the military for free*, the way to deal with targets up to 2000m is through standard snipers, to about 4000m through getting a standard sniper to crawl a couple klicks and then go oldskool and over 4000m to use laser guided aircraft delivered munitions. said munitions needn't be large area effect weapons, they could be small, anti-personnel murdertech.
*I'd love an Apache if any military out there has one free and feels sufficiently grateful for this consultancy.
Now I now this is not strictly about the article but it reminds me of Grosse Point Blank.
He says himself that he had "a certain disposition" for what they needed. Got trained by them and then went to work for himself after they had used him for what they needed.
Surely this covers a huge portion of the population who would not fit the profile for this type of work. Yes it is work, as Utopia is still around the corner and not quite here yet.
Ruthless, probably. Dangerous, only for two people and they obviously choose to be in the way. Necessary, rather that than collateral for the possibility of getting one.
An invalid generalisation.
"nobody thinks of a bomb armourer, or a "fighter" pilot", or a base cook as a cowardly assassin."
I must disagree with you there. Quite strongly.
Well, when you've done tours of Iraq and Afghanistan and you owe your life to sniper fire taking out bad people, you can understand why I flew off like I did.
However, I then read the remainder of the article and felt paragraph after paragraph like a bigger and bigger prick. :)
Apologies to the author.
7.62x54R (rimmed not rimfire)
Register, Your explanation of this new technology is quite accurate. One little mistake I caught is the meaning of the R suffix in the Russian 7.62x54R cartridge. The first number is the diameter in mm, the last is the length in mm. However R suffix indicates a rimmed case, like .303 Lee-Enfield or quite a lot of first generation small bore smokeless or cordite cartridges. Normally now, most cases don't have a rim that exceeds base diameter, rather a grove is carved into the solid thick bit of brass (or steel) with the result is a smooth case that can readily slide against other cases in the magazine or clip. No high pressure rimfire case is possible as the primer resides in the hollow rim and is crushed to ignite the powder. This requires a very thin shell of brass to easily crush, hence no hope of containing the 50-65 thousands of lbs/in pressure generated.
Another additional point to realize is that often the heavy .50 cal (mostly Browning .50 machine-gun) sniper setups are used to destroy high value, soft equipment targets. .50 cal armour piercing rounds do great damage to delicate AL skinned aircraft, even from a mile away. A 8ft x 40 ft target is a bit easier to hit than the 1 ft x 1 ft zone of a man (and planes at rest don't move too much either).
PS, Very good to see others realize the humane aspects of sniper shooting and tactics. The real butchery is the mass-death stuff used so much.
PPS, from a citizen of one of the few countries that allows ordinary people own such weapons, develop loads for them and practice shooting them without supervision.
Sorry, Mr. Page, you are incorrect.
The "R" in 7.62x54R stands for rimmed, not rimfire. It is a centerfire cartridge, like all modern high-powered rifle cartridges. Also, the length of the casing doesn't give you that great an idea of the powder charge, or indeed the power of the round. The width of the case, the taper of the shell and angle of the case neck, the weight of the bullet, how much of the bullet is seated inside the case neck, how much powder is actually loaded into the shell, and what type of powder is used in the shell can make a huge difference in the power of the round. I handload ammunition for my Mosin-Nagant and as such have done a fair amount of research on the cartridge. A factory Russian round propels its 150-grain FMJ bullet from the muzzle at approximately 3,000FPS; a factory .30-06(7.62x63mm) propels its 150gr Nosler ballistic tip (note; superior bullet) at about 2900 FPS. That amounts to roughly 3,940 and 3,820 joules, respectively.
Yes, there are a lot of variables and I only picked those particular rounds to illustrate the point. The x54R is not as long as the x63, and indeed CAN and often is a less powerful round, but such is not always the case.
Also, in response to:
"This means that not only are the rifle's blast and flash eliminated, but also the supersonic crack made by a normal high-velocity bullet - in other words the weapon is totally silent, ideal for quietly knocking off sentries or whatever."
Bullshit. A suppressor suppresses sound, it does not eliminate it. Propel an object at high speed through atmosphere and it will make sound. A suppressor eliminates most of the sound of the expanding gas resulting from the combustion in the shell, via internal baffles. Using a subsonic round prevents a sonic boom. You still must deal with the sound of the action, especially if it is a semi-automatic, and the aforementioned zip of a bullet tearing through the air. What the hell is the point of a subsonic round in a high-powered rifle? You're taking an expensive, unusual round and turning it into a low-powered piece of shit. Why not use a .45 ACP? It's already subsonic, everybody and their brother makes suppressors in the caliber, the round is common and match-grade bullets are available.
Cue Brits mocking the 'Merkin gun nut. It's okay, I deserve it.
Re: Where do you get your information from? by Cal
[quote from article] even their own armies often seem less than pleased to have them around.[/quote]
Possibly from 'A Rifleman Went to War' by H. W. McBride, as something similar is mentioned.
IIRC - During WWI static trench warfare sometimes sections of the line on one side would fire enough shots/shells to satisfy administrative demands, but would deliberately aim off so as not to cause casualties on the other side; and in return the other side would also adjust their aim so as not to inflict casualties. With this unofficial co-operation they would reduce their chances of death or injury. Then a sniper team would be assigned to that part of the line and after a few deliberate sniper shots/kills real hostilities would kick off again.
Maybe your opinion isn't shared by the majority
I highly doubt anyone with a clue views snipers as assassins. They are highly trained individuals who place their life on the line in defense of our country. Society owns a lot to all who serve in the military including snipers. If you don't have the stomach to defend your country, you're not entitled to the freedoms it provides.
Snipers make find coworkers, too
Regarding snipers as cold-hearted killing bastards: I've worked on IT projects with several retired commandos/special forces and snipers. I liked working with them all, but got along personally with the snipers best. While certainly very controlled individuals, they never struck me as psychopaths and generally exhibited real human emotion. From what they have told me, the United States and British armed forces are intent on preventing some of the problems created by previous generations of snipers who came to enjoy their jobs too well, continuing professionally after release from service. A sense of remorse, at least for unintended kills of non-combatants, was required. However, remorse at achieving the objective (killing a particular person) was not. You should not feel guilty about killing the enemy leader but should if a stray shot kills his six year old daughter.
Interestingly, I found the snipers to be extremely intelligent.
Great article and some excellent corrections in the comments. El Reg has quality readers.
Two issues, otherwise nice article.
1) The only people I've seen who don't appreciate snipers are bean counters and folks who have never been on the ground in a real life combat situation.
2)You passed along the myth "In one incident, shooting at one of these men, Hathcock's bullet flew down the other sniper's scope and killed him."
This was nicely debunked by Mythbusters. The various layers of glass in the optics prevents this from happening. The energy of the round is spent before it gets halfway thru' ...
A couple friends and I tried the same thing 20 years ago with a box of otherwise useless Vietnam era scopes that an uncle had acquired. Fast and small bullets exploded on impact (duh!), typically not getting thru' more than two layers of glass and breaking the third; slow and heavy typically didn't make it thru' more than three layers of glass, breaking the fourth (and sometimes the fifth).
Heavy & fast is another issue entirely ... The .50 Browning sent miscellaneous shrapnel into areas that would probably have been fatal. The 20mm blew everything apart.
This was on a totally enclosed range, and distances were short (maybe 10 yards), except the .50 and the 20mm; those were on my favorite long distance range (can do 3,750 meters), but the targets were only out about 50 yards.
We're still kicking ourselves that we didn't propose a "Mythbusters" style show back then ...
RE: @Mark_T by AC
"You may want to reconsider your statement by taking a look at http://www.futurefirepower.com/excalibur-smart-artillery-round-fire-and-forget"
"a smart artillery round that has an integrated GPS tracking system along with fins and rockets"
You didn't read my post properly did you ? No I don't want to reconsider it thanks.
LIFE IS PRECIOUS
you people make me SICK !!
ALL of LIFE is precious and sacred. nobody has the right to take any life of any form for any reason. period.
"but they're just doing their jobs.".. the usual useless excuse. in truth there is NO excuse.
can you not understand this? can people not think and decide for themselves? can people claim to have no choice?
yes.. you spiritually retarded people can tell me how much good things (technology etc) we have as a result of military research, but that is plain bullshit. if we had focused our resources on doing things to benefit life as opposed to extinguishing it, we would have got a heck of a lot further and would have even more tech of benefit to us than we have presently.
let me tell/remind you that the taking of any life is the worst crime against nature and existence, and there will be a heavy price to pay.
if you ask me if that means i would not protect my own family or my own life, my answer to that is: yes i would do my best to protect myself and family, BUT only by being with them (not in another country, or even away from my family), AND not by means of taking life. and if you think this isn't viable then you are wrong.
if it's a matter if "kill or be killed" then i will accept to be killed, but when skilled and trained correctly (by means of martial arts) there is always a chance of living without having to take any life.
PS. it made me feel ill, but i did read the whole article and all the comments.
It's all been said before
The idea for steerable rounds is at least 3 decades old and was portrayed by Michael Crichton in his film "Runaway" in 1984:
Bugger. I must be getting old.
@Mike_T and TW Burger
Contrary to what Mike_T says, and following on from TW Burger's comments, a steerable non-powered projectile is possible, but difficult.
Firstly, the spin stabilisation doesn't make steering impossible, merely difficult - some missiles roll but are steered with conventional fins (Sidewinder being one example) albeit the relative roll rate is lower than that expected with a bullet - the rolling frame of reference is just another guidance variable.
Secondly, steering does NOT rely on powered flight, and any number of air vehicles demonstrate this fact. The projectiles are only ballistic in the first place because they're unsteered. As long as there's sufficient airflow over the steering surfaces, and the surfaces are designed with supersonic airflow in mind, then the round is steerable.
Thirdly, conventional fins may not be necessary - tailoring airflow can be achieved by different methods, such as changing flow rate/pressure in different sectors of the projectile (with the right shape, of course). Drag and deceleration is a side-effect of any steering mechanism, so implementing steering impacts range and residual kinetic energy (necessary for the ultimate effect in an inert round, obviously) - there is a major design trade-off there. Personally, I'd like to see what is achievable with configurable "golf ball" dimples or a mechanism with a center air-scoop and dynamically re-directed airjet near the round's base.
IMHO, to make any of this worthwhile, either the range must be shortened, calibre increased or the round given in-flight power.
Well done, sir, on coming back to the board and owning up to going off half-cocked!
Did you try a .308 FMJ round?
Didn't think so.
The FMJ = Full Metal Jacket and the round will not frag that quickly.
Also if you did any ballistic tests, you'd see that the bullet would behave differently based on the distance to target. On targets where the bullet has retained most of the original muzzle energy, the bullets did frag more. On targets down range, further from the rifle where most of the energy was lost due to flight, the bullet retained more of its initial weight and fragged less.
Guns and Ammo, a hunting magazine did an excellent article on the different types of hunting rounds fired in to gel at different lengths to show their terminal impact at both close range and normal distance to the target.
So unless you hand loaded your rounds to take in to account that the energy of the bullet would be much less... seems like your myth just got busted. ;-)
Unlike most hunting cartridges, an FMJ doesn't have a hollow point or a ballistic tip for creating large frags.
Trained snipers are more than just Designated Marksmans. They are *scout/snipers*, meaning that they also function as recon. So they may not kill you with a long shot, but may also call in an air strike too.
RE: Nice article, pity it is so poor hystorically, and TW Burger
Oops! Nice comment, pity it is so poor historically. Present your rear for hoisting on your petard, pronto! The Fins were officially using their Lahti L-39 20mm anti-tank rifles as a counter-sniper weapon and for long-range fire before the Russians did the same with the PTRD and PTRS. The Lahti used both the standard AP round and HE, the latter being very popular for targeting machinegun nests. It's likely because the Fins did so with success that the Red Army started sniping with their obsolete AT rifles.
And both the Brits and Germans in North Africa in early '41 often used obsolete anti-tank rifles for harassing fire, though not as an official sniper function, so that again pre-dates the Soviet use mentioned. There are some accounts of British troops using up the heavy Boys .55in AT rifle ammo for long-range harrassing fire on the advancing Germans in France in 1940, but that seems to be more of a case of the Brits looking for an excuse to lighten their load!
RE: TW Burger
On the point of pointy-nosed bullets being too sharp for laser lens, I had an interesting chat with a clever MoD gent a few years back about the same topic, namely using laser-guided .50 cal bullets to target the thinner armoured parts of tanks. When I raised the pointy-nosed point, he said this would apply to a bullet designed to look for the laser splash on the target, but a bullet could be designed with a laser lens in the base that looked backwards at a laser projector on the rifle, and steered the round to ensure it stayed in the beam. This would allow the nose to be the aerodynamic point required, and the rear lens could be shielded by a cap that fell off after leaving the muzzle, much like the jacket on a discarding sabot round. His problem was not the laser guidance, but that he didn't think the idea of using the same round for sniping humans "would be economically viable" for her Majesty's forces!
Cool article as always.
Thanks Lewis. Fascinating.
1) Shouldn't beancounters actually *love* snipers? Snipers use a ludicrous number of rounds when training, but far fewer in combat, making them cheaper in the long run. Maybe I have my facts wrong, or maybe beancounters are idiots. (Just ask the BOFH.)
2) But didn't Hathcock use a 50-cal, the very round you said caused potentially fatal shrapnel?
Or were you drawing a distinction between "head shredded by flying bits of his own scope" on the one end, and "surgical shot leaving the scope barrel intact, like I saw in the movies, so it has to be true" on the other?
I'd have loved to be there watching you try out those guns. It does sound like a very Mythbuster-y experience and a lot of fun.
Is that the snipers my neighbor and his buddies had in 'Nam were much appreciated part of their team and they sure wanted them around. they weren't considered "bad" anything.
having done a little 30-06 at 1000 yds with iron sights i have to admire anyone making that difficult a shot with or without scope at that range or more.
thanks for the article!
Reminded me of a quote from a Faux News (i think) interview with a sniper.
Interviewer : What do you feel when you shoot someone.
Sniper : Recoil
Some hate journalists in much the same way..
Some hate journalists in much the same way..
Your title is "Snipers - cowardly assassins, or surgical soldiers?", but you only manage to hold to topic for the first page or so. Your real story is a report on sniper's kit.
But I think the lady doth protest too much.
I met a British sniper in Gleneagles train-station bar. I don't think he would be thrilled by your attack on his morals. Thusly I assume that you get in a lot of fights, (in bars I imagine), while drunkenly upholding the pen as mightier than the sword.
Do I make too many assumptions about you? Perhaps I do, just as you do about people who fight and kill in places which would only leave a brown stain in a writer's undergarmentry. Keep writing, I'll watch your career with a little interest.
Paris because to El Reg, there is no other woman.
"Snipers are nasty, everyone knows that. They hunt people like animals, killing them without giving them a chance to fight or even to surrender. Few soldiers are more hated; even their own armies often seem less than pleased to have them around."]
Nice article, sort of..
No new stuff here. But of interest to peaceniks, techno-mentalists and anyone that hasn't played "America's Army".
But a balanced piece? Maybe, if you see the world in black or white. "Snipers are quite possibly evil psychos, even their friends think so, but anyway here's a breakdown of new kit they might like".
Somebody pointed out that a steerable bullet is a nice-but-dim dream. And the more I think about it the truer that sounds. So perhaps El Reg is falling for the press release that claims that American arms are the best in the world, even the arms that are physically impossible.
So where exactly was the article going? Moo-moo land?
No icon because you only have a few to choose from and they're all the same.
that was a sweet article, thanks :)
and to add a little to the conversation regarding the history of sniping:
I have it on not so good authority that the idea of firing rifles at range to pick off the enemy one by one before they got closer was in use up to around 200 years ago by Britian (ftw) as a way to sap the enemy and scare the sh*t out of them before they could even start to retaliate. Apparently they used older musket-style rifles that had much better range but took ages to reload compared to the more current guns of the time. There would be a limited number of these more specialised troops in a unit and the rest would be using faster loading weapons for closer combat. man we used to pwn teh baad guyz so much XD
I accept full responsibillity of this being totally wrong as my information is coming from a conversation with my brother who likes to read fact-based history books, usually about alexander the great et al and also about ye-oldy blighty empire.
however it sounds plausible to me, like the longbow idea of taking everyone out at range, just carried over into newer weapons.
please feel free to correct as is required :)
p.s enemy at the gates was awesome..... but so was sniper, mostly because it was so bad it was good :)
- Updated Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, ALREADY OBSOLETE
- Mounties always get their man: Heartbleed 'hacker', 19, CUFFED
- Opportunity selfie: Martian winds have given the spunky ol' rover a spring cleaning