Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
History's Sniper show
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ATH" data-source="post: 343973" data-attributes="member: 1656"><p>It's a fallacy to think that saying there was some luck/chance involved in any way degrades the skill and dedication of our snipers. Let's say the rifle being shot was a .5 MOA rifle. This means that removing all input from the shooter, it's still going to throw roughly a 15-17 inch group at 2600m -- in other words, under the best of conditions, even ignoring wind (!!!) over a VERY long distance, some shots will hit and some will miss as this group is larger than the left-to-right target area on a man. So how is there not some luck/chance involved when one shot hits and another misses??</p><p></p><p>I think no one would deny the skill involved in getting very close on the first shot despite shooting new ammo, two-axis reticle hold-off, at altitude, at a walking target. I think it's pretty obvious that all of these things were also outside the parameters this sniper had practiced at, so his skills could not fully compensate for these multiple unknowns. THIS IS NO KNOCK ON THE SNIPER!!! This is not hunting, the only acceptable outcome is not a double lung shot. This is WAR, the goal is to prevent the bad guys from getting the good guys. A kill, a wounding, or sometimes getting close enough to keep their heads down, is good enough to call success. That is what this sniper was trying to do and he was successful at it.</p><p></p><p>I'm sure snipers take a ton of low-percentage shots that do not connect but help achieve an objective in one way or another. Again this is ok, it's not hunting ethics they are trying to live up to. They are not perfect, they are human. </p><p></p><p>Get over this fear of admitting there was some luck/chance involved because there was. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken 3 shots. Kudos to the sniper, for skillfully taking out a bad guy at an obscene range through a combination of amazing skill....and an element of luck. I find it just a bit absurd to assert there was no luck involved when he was shooting ammo totally different than what he had ever shot before. Somehow he magically knew how these rounds would perform well over a mile away??</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ATH, post: 343973, member: 1656"] It's a fallacy to think that saying there was some luck/chance involved in any way degrades the skill and dedication of our snipers. Let's say the rifle being shot was a .5 MOA rifle. This means that removing all input from the shooter, it's still going to throw roughly a 15-17 inch group at 2600m -- in other words, under the best of conditions, even ignoring wind (!!!) over a VERY long distance, some shots will hit and some will miss as this group is larger than the left-to-right target area on a man. So how is there not some luck/chance involved when one shot hits and another misses?? I think no one would deny the skill involved in getting very close on the first shot despite shooting new ammo, two-axis reticle hold-off, at altitude, at a walking target. I think it's pretty obvious that all of these things were also outside the parameters this sniper had practiced at, so his skills could not fully compensate for these multiple unknowns. THIS IS NO KNOCK ON THE SNIPER!!! This is not hunting, the only acceptable outcome is not a double lung shot. This is WAR, the goal is to prevent the bad guys from getting the good guys. A kill, a wounding, or sometimes getting close enough to keep their heads down, is good enough to call success. That is what this sniper was trying to do and he was successful at it. I'm sure snipers take a ton of low-percentage shots that do not connect but help achieve an objective in one way or another. Again this is ok, it's not hunting ethics they are trying to live up to. They are not perfect, they are human. Get over this fear of admitting there was some luck/chance involved because there was. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken 3 shots. Kudos to the sniper, for skillfully taking out a bad guy at an obscene range through a combination of amazing skill....and an element of luck. I find it just a bit absurd to assert there was no luck involved when he was shooting ammo totally different than what he had ever shot before. Somehow he magically knew how these rounds would perform well over a mile away?? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
History's Sniper show
Top