mistakes , Chinese whispers and exaggerations are what many legends are made of
Printable View
mistakes , Chinese whispers and exaggerations are what many legends are made of
Not FTR, I use a bipod...Quote:
Originally Posted by ishoot10s
regards
shoulda just put a plate sized gong up at 200 yards and give them all an air rifle. thatd sort the men from the boys haha
similar for ammo, safety video
SAAMI - Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter - YouTube
No wonder they have an ammo shortage if they do that with it!
I'd like to see the avg. time for the best and worst of snipers vs. shooters on a 2.4km run ...
Dunno if its rare or common. The Yanks and Brits are the only ones who ever comment on their snipers - the rest of the world has more sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Rooftop Execution - NCIS report provides details of sniper deaths
The sad thing in that article was that one of the slain soldiers knew He had it coming. They constantly set up in the same spot, used the same routes etc. The urban environment is far more dangerous than any jungle I reckon. One kid with a cell phone and you're screwed. He'll even post it on youtube for ya, with aweful arab music too
Digressing from the thread tho - I still rate the snipers ability to hit moving targets and range find manually. Being able to wait all day in the sun wearing a ghillie-suit. walking back 50kms when you know they're pissed and are doing their best to kill you personally. Knowing what the enemy will do if they do find you. Being able to shoot straight and accurately under that kind of pressure makes a joke out of the 'pressure' us civies feel during a competition. That bit is chalk and cheese
Pointless study, especially considering any fat prick can shoot targets and possibly achieve high honours.
With a 1% pass rate in the NZ Army and low pass rates throughout most Nato forces, not everyone can be a sniper. Shooting is at most 10% of the job. I bet no moving targets were shot in the test.
I would have thought field firing in some testing conditions would be included to make the results accurate across the board.
something few shooters do shoot movers at distance!! 2.4 run with kit -id get a bus!! remember these snipers are pretty young guys -early twenty's to mid one thinks so a healthy civvy who is active would compete with practice in the run at least
still stroking your ego I see.well fuck a 2.5 run with kit.try full tack for two weeks covering in excess of 50km of ground on foot will staying undetected and actually completing your tasks.no???? to fucking hard??? but civis can use quads you say??.give me a break with this pussy shit fight, targets shooters are excellent target shooters.snipers train to kill and do it excellently!!!.
Shame you were not around for the surprise battalion birthday Neckshot. One C.O bet the other that, his battalion could out walk the other. We all got to walk 134km in 36 hrs in FSMO to win a bet for the boss. I actually got/felt shitfaced on 1 can of beer after that wee jaunt. Never used to get blisters but I ended up with 18 between both feet.
it definalty levels the shit talkers out and shuts them up.pitty the same cant happen on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by R93
what are you reading neckshot?the thread isnt about athleticism but pure shooting ability although it has wandered .I dont think anyone's trying to steal your mojo either just bantering about shooting .Quote:
Originally Posted by Neckshot
I don't think Chris Kyle would have worried if he couldn't shoot v bulls all day.
A movie coming out about him will no doubt confuse the differences between real soldiers and Hollywood fiction.
Purely better academic accuracy isn't the only factor to shooting ability, this is retarded
hehe funny how this thread goes from an obvious observation to them and us . Kris Kyle rest his soul and well worthy of a movie. A large point about marksmanship in the article really is target shooter shoot shitloads snipers dont --pretty simple although it lacked in the reality of the extremes in real pressure versus target and still versus moving
hehe your here posting GimpQuote:
Originally Posted by gimp
I'm here to call this retarded
I'm closer to a target shooter than a sniper and I think this is retarded because you can't draw any conclusions from a shitty 2 paragraph article about a meaningless bit of faux-trivia with no real data provided that doesn't take into account a hilarious number of variablesQuote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
the funny thing is the retards that tested this were --Project White Feather is a U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)-sponsored effort to apply advanced sniper weapon fire control technology that will extend range and increase first round hit probability for special operations applications
but GIMP this is retarded
one imagines they didnt fuck around while accessing things.Probably the bigger real point about this army test they were getting real about their shooting ability or lesser ability compared to the civvies they shot against . good on them as the honesty will see possible improvements in the skill levels
Lol can you seriously not see why it's stupid to think you can draw any conclusions from that 2-paragraph "article" ??Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Lol can you seriously not see why it's stupid to think you can draw any conclusions from that 2-paragraph "article" ??Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
thisQuote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Okay smartarse, since you obviously didn't actually read the paper it's talking about:
1: it's estimated
2: it's sourced from a 1990 paper, which I haven't bothered to read yet so let me know if it has any profound revelations
3: read the key to the table, specifically (a) and (b) and think about the selection bias in (b)
4: drawing worthwhile conclusions from that terrible page you linked isn't possible
5: I'm going to bed, please read things
Table from the paper:
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pse6d6f05f.jpg
Also the conclusions you've drawn from the page you linked are pretty hilariously totally unrelated to what the paper is actually about so thanks for proving my point
I dont know what your reading Gimp but ---According to their tests, the standard deviation of aiming error for the best, formally-trained operational snipers was three times worse than tested High Power and Long Range competition shooters sufficiently skilled to compete successfully in national level match competition at Camp Perry and the like. In fact, the worst competition shooters tested were as good or better than the best snipers in basic holding and shooting fundamentals.
Kraig Stuart
Aug 01, 2013 @ 15:14:18
Because I have a bit of experience in both sniping and competition I was asked my thoughts on this from a guy on another forum. As I said, I’m not surprised of the results. I’ve ran several sniper schools, the problem is once a person attends the school, they quit. I don’t mean totally, but they don’t practice their craft near to the point of a High Power shooter, both in practice and competition.
A high power shooter will practice several hours for each hour he spends in competition. You just don’t see that with snipers. I’ve had sniper students who “got hooked” and took up High Power, hitting me up for ammo and support ( I was also running the AK NG Marksmanship Unit as I was running sniper schools), Some, should I say most, I never heard of again unless they want to attend another course for “for a refresher”. The HP shooter/sniper didn’t need a refresher.
This only deals with the shooting aspect of sniping, not the observation/scouting aspect, but that too needs practice or its a lost art. I have guardsmen from urban areas and I had guardsmen from the Alaska Bush, mainly Alaska Natives who make their living off the land. Guess which one didn’t need refreshers in observation/scouting.
Kraig Stuart
Distinguished Rifle Badge #1071
USAMU Sniper School, Oct ’78
I'm reading the fucking paper the stupid page you linked is quoting, something you might benefit from doing instead of posting random quotes of comments some guy on the internet made on a shitty "article" that cherry-picks a bit of meaningless misinterpreted trivia from a paper about something entirely unrelated which actually completely ignores that piece of trivia in its own deliberations
In conclusion,
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Nuff said in your case as far as the military side of the equation goes. The whole motive is to sell a product to fix something that is not broken. It is the US forces we are talking about after all.
No corruption or hand-outs happen to ensure a big military deal goes through there. It would never happen.;)
The test is flawed and irrelevant in so many ways but you simply fail to acknowledge it.:huh: How would the results read if there were moving targets at 3,5 and 600? If being able to plug a v bull on a range ever overshadowed field craft and numerous other qualities, there will be a lot of dead, fat, tweed wearing cunts, covered in their own shooting mats on future battlefields:D
R93: The point is there IS NO TEST
The page El B linked is a bullshit "article" totally misinterpreting a table in a study of something else, that the study actually decided wasn't important, and is sourced from a 1990 paper that estimated it (which I can't find online to read).
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
I know. I just cant help myself.
what your talking of Gimp isnt obvious as there is no hyper link to it --i found it but its 85pp -still some pertinent comment that back what im saying --practice more!ill look it over tomorrow
page 16 it where this stuff comes from it appears --look it up by cut and paste
weapon Fire Control Error Budget Analysis
Weapons & Materials Research Directorate, Army Research Laboratory
ARL-TR-2065
another interesting observation by the author on page 30
1: http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/1999/ARL-TR-2065.pdf is the paper that retarded link is talking about
2: the authors of the paper ignored the table of ~*snipers vs competition shooter*~ for the purposes of their paper (Because it doesn't say what the retarded link says, and it's only estimated)
3: the paper is from 1999
4: the paper is about estimating how a fire control system could increase hit probability, there is no testing, and it focuses entirely on other variables than the shooter
5: fucking jesus christ next time just take my word for it that it's retarded
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Play nice children
oh gawd, 6 pages of wanabe forum "snipers" debating "special operations" stuff :sick:
guys, if you really want to see who has the biggest winkie, just meet behind the boys toilet and whip em out ok
Attachment 13039 :P
My dick is probably tiny, it's been a while since I saw it because I'm so fat, but at least I can read.
