Thread: : Snipers vs. Competition Shooters

are you suggesting Gimp you know more than these guys and they know shit? The special forces shoulda just called you for a savings of a few hundred thousand dollars and you coulda put them right .

Originally Posted by el borracho

are you suggesting Gimp you know more than these guys and they know shit? The special forces shoulda just called you for a savings of a few hundred thousand dollars and you coulda put them right .

are you literally incapable of reading?

Originally Posted by gimp

are you literally incapable of reading?

I dont get ya Gimp -other than its way more pages than I want to read it is an analysis done for the Special operation unit and you think it shit --well Ok doesnt alter the original point though -snipers shoot less than target shooters ...well in the US and hence their ability shoot first round hit at distance are less than a well rehearsed target shooter --no hard to comprehend in my view

Originally Posted by el borracho

I dont get ya Gimp -other than its way more pages than I want to read it is an analysis done for the Special operation unit and you think it shit --well Ok doesnt alter the original point though -snipers shoot less than target shooters ...well in the US and hence their ability shoot first round hit at distance are less than a well rehearsed target shooter --no hard to comprehend in my view

So you're saying Gimp is wrong because you're too lazy to read? I dont get ya?

Originally Posted by el borracho

I dont get ya Gimp -other than its way more pages than I want to read it is an analysis done for the Special operation unit and you think it shit --well Ok doesnt alter the original point though -snipers shoot less than target shooters ...well in the US and hence their ability shoot first round hit at distance are less than a well rehearsed target shooter --no hard to comprehend in my view

No the analysis literally has nothing to do with what you and your shit clickbait link think it does and you seem to be completely unable to read my posts pointing this out or, I dunno, the original source

Originally Posted by gimp

No the analysis literally has nothing to do with what you and your shit clickbait link think it does and you seem to be completely unable to read my posts pointing this out or, I dunno, the original source

prove me wrong with a cut and paste -more than willing to take it on the chin Gimp !!!

Originally Posted by el borracho

prove me wrong with a cut and paste -more than willing to take it on the chin Gimp !!!

Single syllables and no more than 50 words. No numbers bigger than 10.

Originally Posted by Wildman

Single syllables and no more than 50 words. No numbers bigger than 10.

youve read the whole article have you wildman or just stirred from mental hibernation to add a worthless pennys worth

Originally Posted by el borracho

prove me wrong with a cut and paste -more than willing to take it on the chin Gimp !!!

Okay you linked a page that is talking about a table that is used as a source in this study from 1999



-The linked study is NOT about differences in theoretical accuracy of snipers/competition shooters - it is looking at the possible benefits of a fire control system on sniper weapons to increase hit probability, comparing the effect of variables on a baseline system of shooter/spotter vs a fire control system.

The author(s) of the page you linked clearly haven't actually read the study at all, and they've cherry-picked and mis-interpreted some parts of the table and written a stupid couple of paragraphs with an eye catching headline as "clickbait" to get views on their site. Either that or they did read it, and knowingly mis-represented it, to get views on their site.



-Even if the linked study was about differences in theoretical accuracy of snipers/competition shooters (which it isn't), it's FROM 1999 so it's highly unlikely that it would relevant today given the massive US military development over the last decade and a half, with 2 wars happening etc


-This is the table in question. The author of the page you linked has cherry-picked the numbers from it but disregarded the footnotes which explain that the "snipers" data is for "entry level snipers across all services", and the "competition shooter" data is for "national level competitors" and also applies to "experienced snipers"




-Even if the table WAS just comparing "snipers" and "competitive shooters at a national level" (which it isn't) it would be a biased comparison anyway because it would be comparing the shooting ability two groups, one of which has been selected for ability at shooting (competition shooters) and one that hasn't, and concluding that the selected group is better at it. No shit?

-Even if theoretical competition shooters were proven to be more accurate on a flat range with known distance targets, sighters, unlimited time etc, that is only one facet of effective shooting and not important if others are "accurate enough"

-The table itself is sourced from a 1990 study which I cannot find to read, the data was ESTIMATED and we have no idea how it was estimated or the sources/methods of gathering the data or real definitions so the table is utterly worthless, not even mentioning that it's two and a half decades old now.



-The authors of the linked study completely disregard any theoretical differences in their deliberations of whether a fire-control system will improve hit probability



-You're trying to draw conclusions about a shitty article based on a mis-interpreted piece of worthless statistics. That's what I'm calling retarded, not your precious ~*special operations*~ study (which is actually 2 dudes, one of whom is a contractor from an external corporation, doing a theoretical maths problem in 1999 sooooooo.....). Read sources of stuff on the internet before posting dumb shit. Or just listen when I say something is retarded and save me all this fucking typing

-I don't give a shit about "snipers vs competition shooters" but I hate people who can't perform simple reading comprehension or critical thinking

-Good thing I was mad bored today

that last piece Frank says is funny shit !!

The military would rather the day off, and the cop wants to be paid.