ITT we discuss all things long range. The appeal of snipers "one shot one kill" is almost romanticized, visions of impossible shots, ghosts of death, and untouchable killers roaming around lone wolf style unaided and without need for aid. Certainly those like Simo Hayha fulfills this heroic caricature. Of course there's a lot more than shooting with impunity, even the South Armagh Sniper[s] ended up getting one of their fire teams caught, though not after ventilating a few brits and creating a legend on their own right.
Long range shooting, its aesthetics, its art, and its equipment.
I'll start by dropping the Precision Rifle Bible vol. 1&2. Something about ringing gongs at 1000yd is something so satisfying, so addicting.
Is there a sniper in that picture op?
yes you are already dead :D
South Armagh Sniper capture
How much land would I need to be able to practice long range shooting?
Does 30 sound like a good number?
Depends on how the land is shaped.
Yeah, I'm new at the whole concept of owning my own shooting land.
Let's say I hypothetically found a stretch of land that is roughly 15 acres X 2 acres, does that sound adequate?
I also am hypothetically near a stretch of 10 acres X 3 acres
Should I just ask in the QTDDTOT?
TBH just look for an outdoor shooting range, you might have one with a long range range less than an hour drive if your lucky, go practice there.
Before doing that though, get the right shit, there are a couple videos and books on the subject in the ar/k/ torrent that will explain everything.
I'll try to find the torrent link for you.
Buying 30 acres just to shoot on is fucking stupid, 30 acres isn't "long range" and unless your going to live on it, it's a fat stack of cash that would be better spent towards more pertinent things, like a precision rifle, scopes, etc.
15 acres length wise is almost 1 km, but a large portion of your land would be a shooting range and that seems a little wasteful.
If you're near BLM lands, the question is moot really because you can just shoot there.
If you're in the East, 1) get on the nuggetfest honeypot and 2) you only need a stretch of land as long as you'd like to shoot, facing downhill or against a substantial hill, as no backstop will be large enough legally. Find land with a valley and shoot across said valley.
Otherwise, join a gun club or benchrest range.
Good starter pack?
What caliber? Also, heavier guns are often better for long range shooting, they help stabilize the shooter and help cut recoil for extended shooting periods, especially prone. Otherwise, on the right track. A good rifle and basic magnified optics is a good place to start.
Look into spotting scopes, look for a friend who will shoot with you and be a spotter. Not only is this part of the effective long range sniper team, a spotter is the best way to build fundamentals by helping to call shots and correct you. Range finder is a good thing, get used to it and learn it. Get familiar with the dope book, even though the kids today might just use calculators on their fancy devices, nothing beats a good old dope book.
Beyond starter pack, precision long range shooting is he kind of sport and practice that invites handloading or eventually almost demands it. Good match ammunition is expensive, and there's nothing like tuning a load to a specific rifle, reloading is good for both. If you get really serious into it, you want to keep on one specific load for the most part, cut variables down by keeping one specific load for the purpose, one dope, one consideration. If you want to spend bigger money down the line the scope makers often offer specialized scopes modified to a specific round.
6.5 swede or 6.5 creed. The rifle comes with a submoa guarantee and the vortex Viper comes with an excellent warranty.
Spotting scope, rangefinder, are on the docket. I have plans to buy my own house in the near future and when that comes I would love to start looking into handloads.
There's a benchrest 1000yd club that's not too far from me that I've been hanging out around, hopefully they'll keep me on target as far as learning.
Get a common round faggot, 308.,30-06, or .270
It's easier to stock up without spending a lot of cash. Get ammo from the same lot, so get like 1-2 thousand rounds of the same lot.
Get a scope shade to hide sunglare. Put a bipod, cheek rest, and some camo on your rifle.
How to get good at sniping? Take a class? are taking gun basics classes worth it?
If you can't use a 22lr then you shouldn't try it. The 22lr has long been considered the best cartridge for any given situation you will find yourself in. I'd recommend the Ruger 10/22 as it has the most accessories, but with a good pair of eyes or glasses you won't even need a scope.
Get out boomer. Anything outside of plinking and rodent hunting is going to be subpar with a .22
OP go with a 5.56 is you don't feel like spending a lot of money on ammo, 22. is only good for practice and special circumstances.
Yes but this is a hollywood myth. Real sniper work that's actually useful on a battlefield has nothing to do with one dude taking headshot noscopes at random soldiers.
Simo Hayha was basically a hunter paid to go out and hunt soviets, I don't know how his kills even could be confirmed in that case unless he took trophies, but it's clear given the commie victory that it didn't have much effect.
There are plenty of hunting rifles in something like .300 to .400, it's not like it's super expensive especially considering people training to be marksmen don't shoot through thousands of rounds a year.
It's the same principle as hunting at longer ranges.
Is there a nation that has the best globally recognized snipers?
Given the amount of resource they used to try and kill one man certainly says a lot.
6.5CM has dropped in price, its comparable to .308 for the most part provided you're buying match ammo and not plinking shit.
Consider that getting a meme caliber is fucking stupid regardless and the rifle alone will cost more than an average common caliber rifle. Scarcity is a thing too, what are you going to do when SHTF and everyone is burning piles of 308 while you gotta decide if you should cap a guy or save it for later.
You aren't going to come anywhere close finding an unbiased source for that
Most western fiction seems to fellate the UK on that aspect but I suspect Nazi snipers might had better scores. According to wiki the White Death had by the best kill count (and then some commies which comes in direct contrast to the previous claim but it's (((wikipedia))) after all).
I mean best trained snipers nowadays, not best in history.
Not exactly hard when you'e just shooting into human waves of commies.
UK, US and Canada probably have the best modern sniper programs.
About any NATO dedicated specialist that trains often enough.
NATO sniper school is all the same school, today there isn't enough of a difference training-wise or doctrine-wise to make such assessment based on national affiliation, the only differences rest on individual performance.
One could ask about the military effectiveness of NATO sniper "doctrine" VS WARPACT sharpshooter doctrine.
Now knowing that the whole sniper "doctrine" (which isn't one, it's a bunch of tactical solution glued together, it's "the german school of sniper") is only a reaction to the sharpshooter doctrine (which is one, dedicated weaponry specifically designed for it, scalable strategically if needed, etc… and is the logical continuation of the WWII era, they weren't really that good at it… but they sure were a mighty pain in the ass in "huge" formations) it's fairly obvious which one has more value. A bunch of guys with sharphooter rifles and training are gonna be much more of a pain to deal with than a single sniper, no matter how good he is.
A sharpshooter section can stop an infantry platoon, maybe even a company, advance, cause harassment do recon in force, etc… Meanwhile their own platoon is doing something else.
A sniper team can't effectively do that, there just isn't enough of them. All they can do is wait to be called by the blocked platoon/company to hunt down the sharpshooters.
Yeah you know what else is and is (well, used to be) available in much greater quantity? A mortar.
The unwillingness of NATO to use indirect fire support for political correctness reasons is going to doom us all.
This always rustled my jimmies. Russian infantry goes around carrying AGS launchers and they also got fuckload of artillery/rocket support, meanwhile NATO troops are stuck with their garbage m203s and if they're lucky they get 80/120mm mortar support or an airstrike.
I thought Simo Hayha was just a regular NCO in the army, not a sniper, and the whole thing with "white death" was a myth, and it was actually more than one man. Even the famous "white mask man" is a fake, because he uses a Swedish rifle.
Might be the only decent pieces of advice you've given all thread. I'm not concerned with SHTF in the least. Most preppers worth their salt have reload kits anyway which is going to be cheaper and higher quality than anything on the store anyway so pick whatever caliber you want. If you're reloading match quality rounds at $.60/rd who cares?
For fucking real? What an absolute joke.
Why are they unwilling?
Because there's a slim chance that the splodey boom booms might hit an innocent Afghan child while he's being fucked up the ass by a warlord.
It's even more amusing if you consider that according to offical statistics the ˝good guys˝ killed more civilians last year than the evil taliban. Mostly because calling in artillery fire is a big no no, but blowing up random buildings and people with planes is perfectly fine.
Nothing wrong with killing non-white civilians potential enemy conscripts
Each doctrine is designed to be a counter to the other, even if each counter is merely an adapted stop-gap. Sure, an entire platoon of sharpshooters with artillery support would be a tough nut, however that rides on them holding off an enemy advance long enough to be effective. The US uses snipers as special application and force support (ie targeting HVTs and picking off pesky fuckers). Most if not all US ground troops have optics of some kind, which increases the effective range of their weapons by simply being able to see farther. At that point the only advantage a sharpshooter has over a regular infantryman is a larger caliber weapon and maybe a higher power scope. Combine that infantryman with an APC/AFV and he can quickly close ground with an enemy trooper and defeat him with overwhelming firepower.
Consider also that the military is made to fight wars against hostile nations, which means that when the bullets start to fly it's time to bleed the enemy as efficiently as possible. This means that lugging around big guns and extra troops, supply, and equipment is only adding to the logistical headache and also putting more targets on the field. Why do that when you can have a bird nearby who can deliver more accurate fire and sooner than an artillery gun, which like the mortar, is best suited for area effect, which is only useful against concentrated forces or fixed positions. Sure the enemy can use any number of their artillery to attack your position, but it's kind of a null point when you can change position in a minute or two. Mobile warfare overwhelming firepower seems to be the doctrine here.
Do keep in mind however that not much has changed in overall russian doctrine since the second world war. By this I mean that their force only attacks, if you attack them back then they will get btfo as they don't defend by default. This was the case early on in the war when the germans captured swathes of land and numerous troops, tanks, etc.
For all the shortcomings of the American military, I think they would do alright if restrictions were lifted.
Yeah no shit it will be higher quality. Being able to control down to the grain the precision of your ammo would have a pretty big effect on overall performance. However for the average anyfag and poorfag that's an unnecessary expenditure. The average poorfag would be better suited to buying bulk ammo and making it work, it doesn't have to hit a fucking golf ball, as long as it can hit a man sized target it'll do. Performance has a price, a price most can't afford. So if you want to go get you a 6.5 mememoor and all the reloading equipment and supplies then you go do that.
However I'm looking into the long term, such as if a conflict breaks out, your mememoor will be outmatched by some faggot with a more common caliber as he will 1. have a stockpile of cheap ammo that won't run out anytime soon 2. can shoot more shots due to his stockpile 3. have more range, trigger, and field time due to cheap ammo that he doesn't have to handload each shot.
The buying a lot number in bulk kind of aligns with the whole hand loading precision thing, because they will be more alike than not.
have fun carrying around a reloading set in the field in case you run out of ammo
Can't really call it a meme anymore given even walmart of all places sells it and everyone is selling a rifle chambered in it.
This S.T.A.L.K.E.R. meme of bandit Zig Forumsommandos running around fighting each other is an absolute joke. You mock me for a reload kit but in the same breath claim that some chode with "thousands of rounds" of 308's gonna have an easier time moving? Please. Your concerns are not worth the ballistic advantage 6.5CR has over 308, the cost is marginally more, and the supply is plentiful and growing. If it were, say, 6.8 or some other rare round sure, but I can find 6.5 in my local box stores today. It's not only a normal round today but one of the more popular up and coming. Get off your fucking boomer chair and look around you.
The problem with mobile warfare is often that it does not remain very mobile. Assaults and offensives stall out, even attacking armies will often stop to regroup, reorganize, resupply, figure out the next offensive. Offensives often do stall out or are stopped, sometimes a part of the line is stagnant for long periods. Swift moving mechanized troops go from maneuver and trying to swamp enemies with firepower to being dismounted and back into trenches or at least digging in, sometimes back to fighting the unmechanized slow way. Just because doctrine is maneuver and fire doesn't mean that is going to be every place, everywhere, all the time. "My doctrine is to not crash my car. Therefore, I do not need a seatbelt".
Also, certain terrain and cities put an end to mechanized infantry assault. We saw it in Afghanistan, it could happen in many rugged mountain areas, some forests and jungles will severely limit the use of mechanized infantry, force them to patrol on foot like old times. They have realized that snipers can be very effective in the slow, slug out, building to building fighting of the cities. Here again, you can't beat a determined infantry force by just charging down streets with your IFV or APC, or worse your over glorified technical of a humvee.
Because of these things, sharp shooting rifle squads and units have a place, it means the sniper and marksman have a strong value. Not everywhere is the steppes and plains of White Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Poland, ect. Not everything is going to be swift moving fluid offense.
What speaks to me on the note of snipers and their effectiveness, is that they don't even have to be effective. See the effects on morale Juba or the South Armagh shooters had on a "superior" force. See the effects our snipers have on the towelheads. The effects of a sniper who can snap kill you can be devastating on morale. There's a feeling of hopelessness because you won't see it coming, and you can't exact revenge for the dead comrades and you can't protect yourself against future attacks. It wears on the nerves.
That was a post I was mulling since the origins of this thread, but it is a point of such importance that I kept mulling and never was satisfied with what I was going to post, even on a small imageboard. If we wish to discuss the REAL important effects of the sniper service, we have to look at psychology more than numbers.
What was one thing the American snipers were proud of during Vietnam? That they caused a shortage of volunteers for mortar crews and affected their morale because they were purposely targeted. The effect of the sniper is to create terror and fear in the enemy, to get him to react with countermeasures that are wasteful of time, resources, or lead to bad tactics, all to avoid a harrying force that is inflicting minor casualties. Change the way they march, the way they patrol, what areas they are willing to go to, it really is the great form of disproportionate affect, use relatively small amounts of manpower and material to make a real difference in how the enemy operates. Best of all, such small elite units are decentralized and can be easily moved about without changing overall strategic organization, ie. it is easier to move a sniper team to a region or area than a machine gun or heavy weapons platoon.
It is not the sniper's kill count, it is his impact upon the survivors that counts. Against hardened veteran soldiers, perhaps the casualties he inflicts are important to a great extent, killing or taking out of action those who cannot be replaced, and his psychological effect will be minimized against such a force, but his effect on the green horns, the conscripts, fresh troops can be substantial. Worse, a leadership not made of hardcore military "bring it on" that is autistic and numbers obsessed will look at the casualties only, or overreact to the small casualties, and they will overreact and do things that might lead to bad orders and doctrine for the troops, or the operation itself. Whereas a hardened warrior/soldier will take the losses and keep charging and win, soft hands will flinch and let the full effect of the sniper's psych effect take hold.
Sniper's become the boogeyman if they are good enough at what they do, they can pin down sections they aren't even firing at or observing, they can keep a street from being walked down ever after they have quit hunting it. Hit hard enough, they can leave for another sector and still have a lingering effect in some cases. The legend built can be more dangerous to a fighting force than the bullets thrown at them.
The other part of the mystique is that it is helpful for peacetime training and morale, the sniper myth is used set a very high standard in the minds of soldiers and shooters who wish to aspire to shoot better. Even if they fail to achieve sniper grade performance, their pursuit and desire to achieve high accuracy and long range competence helps to build up general marksmanship in general terms. Set a high standard, lead through high (if impossible to achieve for many) example. To tell the shitty shootist making excuses for his bad shooting "fuck you, look what this guy did, it is you and not your rifle". Trying to, even failing, to hit main sized targets at 1,000 yards with a marksman rifle will still make you a better iron sights shooter at 400 yards from what you learn and gain.
Snipers should not be shelved or disbanded like they have been in some services before in history, the schools are needed to take the lessons and wisdom forward. Even in potential wars where they aren't as useful as other conflicts, they still have value. Even if they aren't winning wars by themselves, or making huge inroads, they are still a valuable asset for the little amount of resources you put into them.
My favorite part about sniper mystique is that you can create a boogeyman that's never dying if set up properly. The "Juba" and south Armagh sniper were each multiple people, but propagandized as one single person, creating this illusion of an immortal character.
Also have a bill Holmes even though he's a shit machinist it still gives you the basis a clever person needs to build it.
Yes but you cant scale that up, you cant get an army of guys with surgeon-level steady hands and history of surviving since 12 year old on ability to kill elusive game animals.
Actual sniper work that is scalable is:
- 90% of infantry armed with assault rifle or similar 100-300m range rifle
- 4% armed with 1000m light machine guns
- 3% armed with 300-500m rifles
- 2% armed with 500-1000m rifles
- 1% armed with 1000-2000m rifles
Arrange these guys so the beaten zone is the same for all groups, and so longer range groups can be broughr to bear on beaten zones of multiple close range units.
End effect is that enemy has no oppurtunity to engage your troops without getting hit withthe full sledgehammer of your available fire. Defense or offense, that kind of organizational tactic shatters opposition.
I will trade my cigarette and aspirin stocks to buy a tactical nuke.
Read "Sniper on the Eastern Front - The Memoirs of Sepp Allerberger" if you want graphic details on sniper combat.
Do you have a pdf link? Libgen.io is down.
You need an epub viewer to read it. I use 'Calibre' since it's free.
Shit, I just realized Calibre has a function to turn epub files into pdf. Here you go fam.
I actually have an epub reader already , but thanks for the PDF anyhow! Learning from those who actually have done the job (without dramatizing it too much) is the best way to do it. The future of warfare may be changing, but snipers will always have a place in my heart.
You will love the book. He explains the dead and wounded with such detail that you can clearly picture them and in other cases, hear them. Sepp was one tough fucker.
It has nothing to do with s.t.a.l.k.e.r.s trying to murder each other, it has to do with not getting swarmed and btfo by the various species of subhuman that will form roving gangs once s does htf. Carrying more or less ammo of a certain caliber is kind of a null point as it would be nearly the same, and comes down to needs and personal preference.
However, having fat caches of lead to pull from will always be a benefit, if a snake has an area he likes to crawl then he can cache his shit in out of the way places where no one will find it. This does however require he actually has enough ammo initially to create such a cache.
On top of that, if the military gets btfo by whatever the fuck then their stockpiles become fair game (I do not promote nor condone stealing from the military either in peace time or times of conflict, this is only a theoretical about a situation where the military/government is defunct and rule of law has collapsed or there is foreign occupation) and you know what the military has everloving fuckloads of? 308. and 5.56. aka the most common ammunition types in america. Would you rather (in such a situation) reload every bit of lead and brass you heat up, or would you rather have fuckloads to ram through your steel?
Do as you feel user, I know you will regardless.
Try to keep in mind that doctrine is a strategy level thing. Also try to keep in mind that jungle warfare =/= urban warfare =/= mountain warfare, and so on.You use the right tool for the job, in a jungle, a sniper is going to be essentially useless, in a vast expansive flatland, a sub-gun is going to be useless. It's about finding a happy middle ground for each situation and using what works.
When I say mobile warfare + overwhelming firepower I'm talking on the tactical level, as in using a truck to outmaneuver a tank, or several vehicles with powerful weapons flanking a position and curb stomping them.
Mechanized infantry is similar to airborne on the principle that they get somewhere fast enough, but once they hop out they're just another pair of boots. Your not gonna drive a fully loaded truck straight through a kill zone or against a defended position in a frontal assault, no, your going to dismount, and if the vehicle is designed for it, follow closely behind it using it as cover.
On the strategic scale however, having all of your units be one type is a bad idea as they can and will be countered. If they have an entire platoon of marksmen, good for them, they can send them somewhere where they will be best suited, but to field them everywhere is simply poor judgement.
Now you're just being a doos and giving all saffas a bad name on Zig Forums. See bottom right, on top of "mossy" rock, the barrel is looking straight at you. Lekker to see other okes posting here. I'm on the road a lot but it's the first time I see another non-swimmer flag. Godspeed.