Essay re: snipers

The Big D

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
3,658
Location
Maryland
Found this very interesting and thought provoking essay in yesterday's Washington Post. Sending it along for your collective viewing and thoughts... Technical criticism is welcomed, too. Sniping and the weapons associated with it are not in my personal skill set.

Be safe.

PS: Don't let the fact it was in the Post scare you away...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...AR2009041302583.html
 
Register to hide this ad
Found this very interesting and thought provoking essay in yesterday's Washington Post. Sending it along for your collective viewing and thoughts... Technical criticism is welcomed, too. Sniping and the weapons associated with it are not in my personal skill set.

Be safe.

PS: Don't let the fact it was in the Post scare you away...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...AR2009041302583.html
 
Sounds believable to me. The author seems to be knowledgable about sniper gear and tactics, as well as being a good writer.
 
Originally posted by pbslinger:
Sounds believable to me. The author seems to be knowledgable about sniper gear and tactics, as well as being a good writer.

That's because it was written by Stephen Hunter, author of a few well researched, fiction novels on the subject.
 
If there is a more cost-effective, target-specific, collateral damage-free weapons system than a sniper ("designated marksman," if you insist) in our military, please tell me what it is.

The legacy of Hathcock, Gordon and Shugart continues. Thank God we still have men like that serving.
 
Very good writing and a good story. The Navy Seals are the best of the best. Re-con and the rest are great themself and we couldn't do without them. Godspeed to all of them.
 
Originally posted by Captain Crunch:
Stephen Hunter is the author of the Bob Lee Swagger novels. Excellent reading & highly recommended.

+1 I'd recommend both the Bob Lee Swagger novels and the Earl Swagger novels. Great books.
 
I give it a C-minus, since Hunter missed the most important point:

No one is born shooting this well, and anyone who starts in adulthood will always be second-rate. The best shots begin learning how to shoot as children. Most of them perfect their skills by hunting. By the time they enlist, they have been shooting for blood for years. They usually outshoot their marksmanship instructors in boot camp. Training them as snipers is like polishing fine silver.

And this is only possible because Americans keep and bear arms.


Okie John
 
Excellent article. And I am glad to see it in the Washington Post.

I liked Dirty White Boys best. Read his latest -- was it called Samurai ? -- on my last airplane ride where Swagger winds up in a samurai sword duel in Tokyo. It was, uh, just a tad farfetched.
icon_wink.gif
 
The man knows his subject well and tells it like it is. It is a bit surprising to find it printed in the Post but it was printed for reasons to promote the actions of the New President B.O. and I'm sure the Post would like us to "believe" that these men were trained and qualified by the President himself.
 
the Post lets their writers say those kinds of things?

Last I heard, Hunter (also a Pulitzer Prize winning film critic-read "The Voilent Screen", a collection of his reviews of some of our favorite films) was working for the Post after a long career as critic at the Baltimore Sun.
Seems like he would have jumped at the chance to write this, especially after writing the great Bob Lee Swagger novels (I agree that the early ones were the best, combining a page turning plot with an examination of the inner turmoil of his Carlos Hathcock inspired hero.
Hunter is too good a writer for the Post to ignore in this case, IMO.
 
While I personally appreciate, respect and strive for that type of skill and accuracy, as a former grunt who had to walk through open terrain and perform MOUT, I %#^%&&* hate snipers.

they're cowardly.

Go ahead flame away, you can't change my mind or bring back my friend that took a head shot from a sniper.
 
No one is born shooting this well, and anyone who starts in adulthood will always be second-rate. The best shots begin learning how to shoot as children. Most of them perfect their skills by hunting. By the time they enlist, they have been shooting for blood for years. They usually outshoot their marksmanship instructors in boot camp. Training them as snipers is like polishing fine silver.
And this is only possible because Americans keep and bear arms.
Okie John

excellent point John, I dindt get into shooting until my teens in boy scouts with a .22 trainer, and didnt kill anything until about 10 more years later.

as soon as my almost 1 year old son shows interst, I plan to teach him shooting skills hopefully around 7 or 8 ?
 
Originally posted by Bandersnatch:
While I personally appreciate, respect and strive for that type of skill and accuracy, as a former grunt who had to walk through open terrain and perform MOUT, I %#^%&&* hate snipers.

they're cowardly.

Go ahead flame away, you can't change my mind or bring back my friend that took a head shot from a sniper.
While I can understand why you might not like snipers I would think that they are far from being cowards,working nearly by yourself you could be in big trouble in the event you were discovered.I would also immagine during the legnthy training process one of the things they look for is courage and the ability to stay calm under stress.Disaggreable to someone who lost a brother in arms to a sniper-yes.Cowards-I doubt it.
 
Originally posted by Bandersnatch:
While I personally appreciate, respect and strive for that type of skill and accuracy, as a former grunt who had to walk through open terrain and perform MOUT, I %#^%&&* hate snipers.

they're cowardly.

Go ahead flame away, you can't change my mind or bring back my friend that took a head shot from a sniper.

Though your service and situation obviously entitles you to dislike Snipers in general if you wish, and I personally extend my condolences for the personal loss of your friend as well as any and all our military casualties, but that doesn't entitle you to make broad disrespectful accusations toward the MOS as practiced by the American Military.

This thread was about respecting a professional group of the most highly motivated, superbly trained and well armed/equipped Americans rescuing a fellow American from murderous criminals on the high seas.

It was not about terrorists and/or insurgents who take advantage of the nominally civilian population to make war and then scurry back among non-combatants to avoid the predictable and justified retaliation.

Your post was fair enough until the "cowardly" comment.

This response is not meant as a "flame", and though unfortunately nothing will bring back your friend, maybe, just maybe, you'll find a way to get beyond your grief one day and use some common military sense to soften your opinion. I wish you the best...

Let me ask:

Have you ever engaged an enemy in the open from cover? Does that make you a coward?

Ever conduct a raid when/where/how your enemy would least expect it? Does that make you a coward?

Ever participate in an ambush of an unsuspecting enemy? Does that make you a coward?

Ever use body armor when your enemy had none? Does that make you a coward?

Ever call in arty or air on an unsuspecting enemy? Does that make you a coward?

Ever use superior technology, firepower or personnel against a less technologically advanced, less well armed and/or inferior number of enemy troops? Does that make you a coward?

If you use your own organic Sniper elements as overwatch while you cross danger areas does that make you...or them cowards?

Of course not, on all accounts.

Operating in very small teams with relatively minimal organic weaponry while relying almost entirely upon skill-at-arms and stealth against enemies that generally treat captured Snipers with less than what The Hague Accords require sure sounds like courage NOT cowardice...
 
Originally posted by ElToro:
as soon as my almost 1 year old son shows interst, I plan to teach him shooting skills hopefully around 7 or 8 ?

Jeff Cooper wrote that when a boy can take care of a family pet without supervision, he's probably ready for marksmanship training. That sounds pretty good to me.

Seven or eight is a good age, but he'll probably show interest before that. I started my son about that age, but he had been handling guns under my supervision for some time before that. The rule was, and still is, "You can see any of my guns any time you want. Just ask." When he asked, I'd drop what I was doing to let him handle something. That takes all the mystery out of it and reduces the stupid behavior quite a bit later on. The little knucklehead had me empty the safe a couple of times at first, but that's the price you pay. He's 13 now and he handles knives and guns more safely than most adults I know.

And if on some sad day he takes a rifle into combat, I would NOT want to be in his sights.


Okie John
 
Originally posted by okie john:
No one is born shooting this well, and anyone who starts in adulthood will always be second-rate.

Would you mind stating some case evidence for this? Or is this just your opinion? Because obviously you have never attended Sniper School.

The best shots begin learning how to shoot as children. Most of them perfect their skills by hunting. By the time they enlist, they have been shooting for blood for years.

I know of two fellow members of my class that had never touched any type of firearm prior to enlisting that were among the top 5 on graduation day.

They usually outshoot their marksmanship instructors in boot camp.
Unless your marksmanship instructors shot on the same range at the same time as the recruits, I doubt that you would know what any of your DIs or Drill Sergeants qualified. Not information that a brand new enlistee would be privy to.

Training them as snipers is like polishing fine silver.

There's a lot more involved to training a sniper than shooting. In fact, less than half of the training involves the actual firing of a weapon.
 
...and I'm sure the Post would like us to "believe" that these men were trained and qualified by the President himself.

I had similar thoughts...
icon_eek.gif


Actually, I think the WP is probably content to blubber on about the great one authorizing them to use their craft. Wouldn't want B.O. to become too soiled by association with nasty old guns and killing.
icon_razz.gif
 
Originally posted by sub-moa:



Operating in very small teams with relatively minimal organic weaponry while relying almost entirely upon skill-at-arms and stealth against enemies that generally treat captured Snipers with less than what The Hague Accords require sure sounds like courage NOT cowardice...

Sell it however you want, I dont care and I'm not impressed by the mind bending used to come to your conclusions.

You and I both know why captured snipers dont get treated well. Yeah, every other branch of service in every other Army in the history of warfare has the same opinion I do. Maybe we're all crazy.

Snipers have a purpose, it's primarily to demoralise the enemy. Consider me demoralised.

I'm not required to like than and as I said before, you can't change my mind.

Did the SeAL's perform outstanding work by engaging a moving target from a moving platform? Yup, great shots I'm not afraid to say those are incredible shots even. That doesn't make me like snipers.

this thread drifted from what happened to "how bad ass are snipers" and I gave my opinion.

Feel free to ignore my opinion, I'm not saying you're required to agree with me and I'm not required to agree with you.
 
So much for the respectful, reasoned approach
icon_rolleyes.gif


My bad...I should have taken the "Go ahead flame away, you can't change my mind" comment way more seriously.

A final, and I do mean final observation...

By your apparent logic, we need to go back to facing one another 50 yards apart shoulder to shoulder in brightly colored uniforms while exchanging volleys...just to avoid being labeled cowardly
icon_eek.gif


You are certainly entitled to maintain your, ummm...demoralization.

Consider yourself, at your very own suggestion; Ignored.

OUT...
 
Back
Top