Why?

[wind gypsy]

Yeah.. velayo, wojcik, galli, taylor.. former marine snipers and sniper school instructors will reinforce it over and over again that military lags competitive shooting significantly.

I actually just listened to a Velayo/Wojcik podcast today where they discussed the marine snipers having a 150 round allotment required for their continued training annually.. sounds like a fun day at the range. They don’t allow marines to touch the action screws, scope rings, disassemble the bolt, etc on the mk13. They don’t even trust them to verify critical aspects of their rifle set up.. Its ridiculous.

My nephew went through marine sniper school (velayo instructing) 3 or 4 years ago. His general knowledge of ballistics is terrible. I’m sure he knew his weapon system well while he was in but he was ready to purchase a bunch of American whitetail ammo for his creedmoor that he wants to shoot in prs comps.

There are plenty more examples but the truth is competitive civilian shooters put a whole lot more time into the details and training involved with precision long range shooting, put way more rounds down range, aren’t limited in equipment options, training, volume, etc like mil snipers who aren’t engaged in civilian competitive shooting in their spare time.

None of this is a knock on the bad asses who wear the title of sniper in our military.

 

[hereinaz]

Yeah.. velayo, wojcik, galli, taylor.. former marine snipers and sniper school instructors will reinforce it over and over again that military lags competitive shooting significantly.

I actually just listened to a Velayo/Wojcik podcast today where they discussed the marine snipers having a 150 round allotment required for their continued training annually.. sounds like a fun day at the range. They don’t allow marines to touch the action screws, scope rings, disassemble the bolt, etc on the mk13. They don’t even trust them to verify critical aspects of their rifle set up.. Its ridiculous.

My nephew went through marine sniper school (velayo instructing) 3 or 4 years ago. His general knowledge of ballistics is terrible. I’m sure he knew his weapon system well while he was in but he was ready to purchase a bunch of American whitetail ammo for his creedmoor that he wants to shoot in prs comps.

There are plenty more examples but the truth is competitive civilian shooters put a whole lot more time into the details and training involved with precision long range shooting, put way more rounds down range, aren’t limited in equipment options, training, volume, etc like mil snipers who aren’t engaged in civilian competitive shooting in their spare time.

None of this is a knock on the bad asses who wear the title of sniper in our military.

Glad you chimed in...

Agree 100%, snipers are bad dudes, and shooting is only 10% of what they do. Its the military that handicaps the basic sniper with training. Now, guys in theatre have an advantage over those in peacetime, they shoot more and learn from it.

I know a SF sniper very well, and he ordered a few AB Garmin watches because they have budget for gear and ammo. Even then, he has a much broader background into competitive shooting that he brings into the mil. He was trying to introduce and get his students into competitions for training, but very few had the passion for it.

I was surprised to learn the truth...

 

[hereinaz]

From Frank Galli, Sniper's Hide founder bio.

"Over the years countries believed it was necessary to employ snipers during times of armed conflict, then shortly after they disbanded those ranks losing the knowledge gleaned from these soldier’s sacrifice and experience. In the early years each time the call went out, the knowledge used to train our soldiers and Marines came from competition shooters. Even today, more than 20 years after the Marine Corps created the United States’ first official sniper school, our military still sees the value in utilizing the knowledge of the civilian shooter to assist in training our troops and helping develop the next generation tools of this military trade. Deep in tradition, born from competition, the long-range shooter has always been the silent servant to military sniper and law enforcement sharpshooter."

Sniper's Hide Precision Rifle Training — Treadproof Academy

treadproof.com

 

[Jbehredt]

@realunlucky he never said he had a problem with it, just that they didn't understand it.

@Hostile1 I tend to think of it as just providing additional opportunities. If your maximum effective range is 300yds and an elk presents itself at 500, you risk losing your shot at that animal because that extra 200yds of stalking you'll need to do gives it more chances to notice you and more chances for you to screw up. If you're capable of shooting 600yds effectively and you've put your shooting gear together with the goal of facilitating that range then that 500yd opportunity shouldn't pose any issues. Additionally, the effort required to get good enough at shooting longer distances to reliably kill animals generally means that those hunters are putting in more time behind their rifles and will be better shots at all ranges. Better shots mean more ethical kills, which should really be the goal of every hunter.

Then proceeded to offer 3 possible reasons to hunt long range. The hunter is either incompetent, incapable or braggadocious. He’s not curious. Well not about long range hunting at least...

 

[CorbLand]

sigh... he both acknowledged he was new, and asked for everyone to go easy on him... I have a feeling his 'stock' spelling was a typo considering some of us do this from the can on our phone and autocorrect loves to wreck our posts on forums.

He asked why you do it - and it's a text box so why did everyone get so pissed. Are you sure he meant to be an ass about it?

Only defending the guy as I read it and thought 'that's interesting, I've never done it, wonder what advantages there are besides the obvious fact you can shoot farther.'

outside this forum, hunters and gun owners get hell from the public. So can we not give it to each other here? Sheesh!

Most people get defensive on posts like this because they are statements disguised as a question.

 

[idig4au]

I’m not a true long range shooter like some of the experts on here, but I can say by becoming proficient shooting at 800-1000 yards in terms of shooting mechanics and knowing my ballistics has greatly improved my overall confidence at lesser ranges. This has incrementally increased my comfort level of shooting longer distances at game at distances that’s I consider ethical with my skill set.

 

[Formidilosus]

snipers are bad dudes, and shooting is only 10% of what they do.

The only people who say that are snipers that can’t shoot.

Inside the military when asked what separates a sniper from any other ground force, it’s “precision shooting”. Outside the military, those same exact snipers, when confronted with the reality that they can’t shoot very well, say “shooting is only a small part of what makes a sniper”.

In total time spent, shooting may not be the biggest component (though it should be), however it is literally the single task that separates a sniper from scouts or any other ground force.
Snipers know it, but want to defend themselves with an excuse when they don’t preform with a rifle. There is no way that a military sniper (conventional or SOF) who only is trained by, and shoots within the military will come remotely close to any civilian competitors actual shooting ability.

 

[hereinaz]

I’m not a true long range shooter like some of the experts on here, but I can say by becoming proficient shooting at 800-1000 yards in terms of shooting mechanics and knowing my ballistics has greatly improved my overall confidence at lesser ranges. This has incrementally increased my comfort level of shooting longer distances at game at distances that’s I consider ethical with my skill set.

I think that is the mindset of hunters who might be presented with long range shots. I practice at extremes so that I know my ethical limits to send a very high percentage first round shot for the given conditions of that shot.

 

[AkRyan]

sigh... he both acknowledged he was new, and asked for everyone to go easy on him... I have a feeling his 'stock' spelling was a typo considering some of us do this from the can on our phone and autocorrect loves to wreck our posts on forums.

He asked why you do it - and it's a text box so why did everyone get so pissed. Are you sure he meant to be an ass about it?

Only defending the guy as I read it and thought 'that's interesting, I've never done it, wonder what advantages there are besides the obvious fact you can shoot farther.'

outside this forum, hunters and gun owners get hell from the public. So can we not give it to each other here?

I appreciate your polite response and the others that decided to be adults. I hunt in Alaska and I have always been able to get within 200yrds of all animals I have "stocked" . When I was in my 20's I spent allot of time shooting at 500-600-800yrds with a basic Howa 300wm with a 4x12 Bushnell and it just wasn't for me.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Disregard my last. No way in hell I’ll argue with anyone who says civilians are better than military snipers.

Rock on. I’m out.

Some are...when we're strictly talking shooting. That's just a cold hard fact. Not knocking military snipers in any way either


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WCB]

This is my personal thought....there are guys who shoot long range, compete, whatever. They practice, practice, practice, know their equipment and happen to hunt as well. They apply their shooting skills while hunting.

Then there are the other 90% of guys throwing bullets 500-1000yards that eat up the long range hunting stuff because it is the cool thing to do and they can say they killed an animal at X amount of yards. They buy their way to being able to eventually hit a couple things at extended ranges and make it sound like they can do it whenever. I talk to these guys everyday as part of my job and they have no business shooting more than 200yards...but hey with the factory velocity numbers, BC, and free cut turrets that come with their scope they just have to dial and pull the trigger.

Honestly maybe 1% of hunters or shooters are skilled beyond 400 yards. 95%, including some of these "long range" guys, fire little more than a box of ammo a year.

 

[meta_gabbro]

Then proceeded to offer 3 possible reasons to hunt long range. The hunter is either incompetent, incapable or braggadocious. He’s not curious. Well not about long range hunting at least...

bro do you lift? Cause your legs have got to be jacked to make outrageous leaps like that.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Most people get defensive on posts like this because they are statements disguised as a question.

This is also how it took what the OP said.

But for me I'm extending my range because it fun.
And mostly because the point of hunting at least for ME is to dead stuff. Dead stuff is the point.

Yum yum for the tum tum

 

[Bubblehide]

The only people who say that are snipers that can’t shoot.

Inside the military when asked what separates a sniper from any other ground force, it’s “precision shooting”. Outside the military, those same exact snipers, when confronted with the reality that they can’t shoot very well, say “shooting is only a small part of what makes a sniper”.

In total time spent, shooting may not be the biggest component (though it should be), however it is literally the single task that separates a sniper from scouts or any other ground force.
Snipers know it, but want to defend themselves with an excuse when they don’t preform with a rifle. There is no way that a military sniper (conventional or SOF) who only is trained by, and shoots within the military will come remotely close to any civilian competitors actual shooting ability.

I would say there are 2 components inside the military, but then I am really talking about a sniper that is much more than just a sniper. 1)."" precision shooting"." and 2). the ability to suffer for extended periods of time. You simply do not get the job done consistently without both.

 

[Formidilosus]

I would say there are 2 components inside the military, but then I am really talking about a sniper that is much more than just a sniper. 1)."" precision shooting"." and 2). the ability to suffer for extended periods of time. You simply do not get the job done consistently without both.

Lots of military members suffer for extended periods of time. That is not what separates snipers. All the other things are a given- precision fire at distance is where the separation of snipers from everyone else occurs.

The podcast with Frank and Phil is an excellent listen for a dose of reality.

 

[Flyjunky]

I'll jump in here to make a comment that I've made on threads like this before.

Whenever there is a long range thread, capability and ethics are always the main subjects of the post. I've yet to see a thread where people complain about the ethics of people who take shots a running animals, off-hand shots at 200+ yards, etc. For me, those people are more unethical than a guy shooting longer range. The people who I know that shoot "long range" are way more dedicated and spend much more time on the range, at the reloading bench, and take pride in their ability to shoot their guns as accurately as possible. Are there exceptions to this, sure there is, but most people who plan to stick with longer range shots learn real quick it takes lots of time behind the trigger.

A vast majority of hunters shoot maybe a box a year to "sight in" their rifle and call it good. I'd venture to guess that most long range shooters can make a better shot at 500 yards than most other hunters can shoot at 175 yards off-hand.

Carry on

 

[wind gypsy]

I'll jump in here to make a comment that I've made on threads like this before.

Whenever there is a long range thread, capability and ethics are always the main subjects of the post. I've yet to see a thread where people complain about the ethics of people who take shots a running animals, off-hand shots at 200+ yards, etc. For me, those people are more unethical than a guy shooting longer range. The people who I know that shoot "long range" are way more dedicated and spend much more time on the range, at the reloading bench, and take pride in their ability to shoot their guns as accurately as possible. Are there exceptions to this, sure there is, but most people who plan to stick with longer range shots learn real quick it takes lots of time behind the trigger.

A vast majority of hunters shoot maybe a box a year to "sight in" their rifle and call it good. I'd venture to guess that most long range shooters can make a better shot at 500 yards than most other hunters can shoot at 175 yards off-hand.

Carry on

No guessing needed. Not a chance I can shoot as well off hand at 175 as I can prone @ 500.

 

[Flyjunky]

No guessing needed. Not a chance I can shoot as well off hand at 175 as I can prone @ 500.

How many shots at animals do you think happen each year by people in the 100-200 yard range at moving animals? Why don't we hear any ethics comments about that.

Amazing how when I mention that scenario people stop responding.

 

[Rich M]

It's not unethical to shoot at a moving animal inside 200 yards. Flat out running at 200 sure, but walking, or trotting along - not an issue at all. Why would it be unethical? If can't hit a walking deer in the lungs at 200 yards, got no reason to be out there.

I'm not a long range shooter - don't have the opportunity, furthest shooting range I have local is 250 yards. I can shoot about an inch at that distance if me, the gun & ammo are up to it that day. That's about as good as I get with my equipment, amount of time, money, and energy used.

 

[BRTreedogs]

It's not unethical to shoot at a moving animal inside 200 yards. Flat out running at 200 sure, but walking, or trotting along - not an issue at all. Why would it be unethical? If can't hit a walking deer in the lungs at 200 yards, got no reason to be out there.

I'm not a long range shooter - don't have the opportunity, furthest shooting range I have local is 250 yards. I can shoot about an inch at that distance if me, the gun & ammo are up to it that day. That's about as good as I get with my equipment, amount of time, money, and energy used.

Thats you opinion. It mite not be everyone's.
Imo an 800 yard shot at a Bull feeding that doesn't even know your in the drainage is ethical. Provided you have the equipment and know how.
Its all relative to proficiency. And I don't think anyone should put anyone down for something they can't do.
BTW I'm not saying you are. These are general statements.