What makes a rifle a sniper rifle

[LI0NSFAN]

I feel the person is what makes a Sniper but it seems that a lot of people sell anything as a Sniper rifle. Saw a SKS Sniper rifle today, just seems silly to me to call everything a Sniper rifle. I guess I hold the title of Sniper to a higher standard. I think what Snipers do deserves a bunch of respect. It would be like calling a pinto with racing stripes and some random stickers a NASCAR.

[mikegideon]

This covers it pretty well...

http://store.magpul.com/product/DYN008/169

[Caster]

LOL. Spin drift and the Coriolis effect make smoke come out of my ears.

I could tell a couple of other stories, but coming from "pogue city" ain't too impressive.

There has to be some fellas on this forum who can say, "been there and done that." I know a couple of guys who routinely shoot 1000 yard matches, realizing shoot a grand ain't being a sniper, but having the ability to do so is part of the "game."

You're right of course but it's like the rifles they used on "Top Shot"

Making a 1K yard shot ain't easy, but with a rifle that's dialed in for that distance and a cartridge that's capable, it ain't all that hard either when compared to the "God only knows what distance the target will come in at this time" that a sniper has to deal with.

I think any trained, tried and true sniper will forgive and even agree with this: I am so sick of the word "Sniper" I could puke. I try not to use it even casual conversation because of the "mall ninja" connotation it has taken on. I prefer DMR for my own personal use. It's more appropriate too.

[Guest The Dude]

the only thing that makes a sniper rifle a sniper rifle, is the man using it. everything else IS a DMR.

i feel that the media plays a big role in this mis-representation as well.

[Guest pfries]

Are there any girls that are snipers ?

From all the shows I have to endure that include weapons or shooting. .I never have seen a woman sniper.. Maybe its just not a job to be had in the Armed Services.?

But they say woman can shoot better than guys..

One of the more famous was Apache (Viet Cong, IIRC was neutralized by Carlos Hathcock)

[TMF]

There's a whole lot more to being a sniper than just being able to shoot

Considering how most people understand the concept of a "sniper" it would be revolutionary to explain descriptions of pooping into an MRE bag for several days or crawling for several hours just to make it a few hundred meters.

Since folks are educated by Hollywood and the media on the capabilities and role of a sniper, most believe that normal shots are made from 900m while aiming at the center of the forehead... ya know, since all scopes are 500x magnification and real snipers don't worry about silly things like wind, gravity, spin drift or the vacuum margin for error that comes with a 1 MOA gun.

To answer the OP's question, I think the term "sniper rifle" is subjective. I believe it means different things to different people. For me, I relate the weapon to the role of a military sniper. This would require that the weapon be of precision and capable of performing reliably at distances greater than 300m while having the ability to kill or severely wound at those distances. In addition, the weapon would need to be rugged enough to withstand the abuse one would expect during military activities such as airborne/maritime/air assault operations, stalks and exposure to the elements. Certainly there are plenty of long range weapons systems out there that are precision in nature, but I wouldn't dare use as a sniper rifle because they are impractical as military rifles. However, those same rifles might do just fine for a law enforcement agency that would use the weapon primarily for standoffs or event overwatch. So that is my subjective opinion of it as it relates to military sniper weapons systems.

Of course, the term "sniper" itself is subjective as well. The above referenced Soviet sniper of WWII wouldn't so much fit my opinions of what a sniper is. It would fit my description of a dedicated marksman. Those kills were all done in an urban environment amongst conventional forces, not much different than dedicated marksman of WWI during trench warfare. These shots were not taken at great distances, and, therefore, didn't require the skills necessary for long range precision shooting. Most folks here could easily nail human sized targets with any WWII rifle at distances of 200m or less, which is the range of the kills. The reason these Soviet snipers racked up numbers so quick and dramatically was due to the target rich environment they were set in. A little knowledge of concealment techniques and exploiting the urban landscape during hours of limited visibility is what kept them alive. They didn't even need much patience as the rate they were killing Germans showed that they weren't in any one position for very long. Not trying to detract from the brave deeds they did for the sake of their country, but my understanding and definition of sniper does not fit that category. Kinda like the press labeling the halfwit DC beltway shooter as the "DC Sniper". He wasn't a sniper. The shots he made weren't difficult. I could have had the same effect on target with a muzzle loader. They called him a sniper because he fired from concealment, usually once. That was it. Hardly fits my definition of sniper. I guess what I'm saying is, having the ability to put someone in your sights and squeeze a trigger does not a sniper make. At least in my opinion.

Edited August 23, 2012 by TMF

[Fourtyfive]

An accurate rifle with a very good BDC scope and a bipod to steady it all.

[Jonnin]

I think your WWI and WWII snipers need a bit more respect than that. Their scopes were crude and low power, their guns were standard issue guns hand picked to be the best of the lot but they had no extras. Their ammo was standard issue as well. They did not have a spotter, did not have any of the math and know-how of modern ballistics, etc. They had little specialized training. They did not have specialized camo, or infrared optics.

On top of that, while todays snipers have the special gear and training and all to make the 2000+ yard shots, they make most shots at much, much shorter ranges... 300-500 yards. So for 80% or so of their kills you are talking .... WWII era shots with 10 times the equipment and training and optics and so on.

I had the privelege of working with a USMC sniper for many years (he is an engineer now), he did not talk about it too much but I got a little out of him over time.

[TMF]

I think your WWI and WWII snipers need a bit more respect than that. Their scopes were crude and low power, their guns were standard issue guns hand picked to be the best of the lot but they had no extras. Their ammo was standard issue as well. They did not have a spotter, did not have any of the math and know-how of modern ballistics, etc. They had little specialized training. They did not have specialized camo, or infrared optics.

On top of that, while todays snipers have the special gear and training and all to make the 2000+ yard shots, they make most shots at much, much shorter ranges... 300-500 yards. So for 80% or so of their kills you are talking .... WWII era shots with 10 times the equipment and training and optics and so on.

I had the privelege of working with a USMC sniper for many years (he is an engineer now), he did not talk about it too much but I got a little out of him over time.

I give them plenty of respect, but like you said, they had neither the training or equipment for long range precision. Their low power optics were fine for the targets they were hitting which were under 200m and I'd venture to guess that the majority were less than 100m. I would say that their task was certainly more dangerous than modern day snipers, considering their proximity to the enemy and limited egress in an urban environment, but I don't consider it to be different than a task of a designated marksman. Don't mistake my opinion for a lack of respect, because it isn't. I have a great deal of respect for what they did.

[Guest nysos]

I am willing to bet that their shots were a tad further than you assume. A skilled marksman can hit a silhouette much further out with just iron sites. I'd bet most shots were in the area of 300-500m.

[TMF]

I am willing to bet that their shots were a tad further than you assume. A skilled marksman can hit a silhouette much further out with just iron sites. I'd bet most shots were in the area of 300-500m.

They were in an urban environment. Not too many places to take long distance shots, especially with the lines being so intermixed.

[Garufa]

I don't think distance necessarily a sniper makes.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Garufa

[mikegideon]

I know it's Wiki, but has some decent info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_(rifle)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Sniper_Weapon_System

[TMF]

I don't think distance necessarily a sniper makes.

No, it isn't a qualifier, but I believe it to be a disqualifier. A 400 lb fat woman can be trained to shoot targets at 1 km. The inability or lack of skill to engage targets long range I believe to be a disqualifier. Like I said, anyone here is fully capable of taking out midrange targets with any WWII rifle not manufactured in France. But, this is just my opinion based on my experience and understanding.

[scoutfsu]

They were in an urban environment. Not too many places to take long distance shots, especially with the lines being so intermixed.

Exactly. Long shots can happen but they are the exception.

Some old(ish) school ('06) for some of you fools....before we broke out the Krylon

Little Mk12 action:

[TMF]

Exactly. Long shots can happen but they are the exception.

Some old(ish) school ('06) for some of you fools....before we broke out the Krylon

Hmmm.... these pics look very familiar..,... Dona Ana I'm guessing?

[mikegideon]

I don't think distance necessarily a sniper makes.

Distance sure makes it more difficult. 1 MOA is 10 inches at 1000 yards. Windage is tough. It's easy to compensate for wind until it changes, and it usually does... between shots. At least elevation is easy

[scoutfsu]

Hmmm.... these pics look very familiar..,... Dona Ana I'm guessing?

Yes Sir. I actually enjoyed the hell out of EP. I thought it was a great training environment and lots of extra stuff to do like ruck the Franklins, etc. I was lucky to be part of that unit at that time and place.

[mikegideon]

No, it isn't a qualifier, but I believe it to be a disqualifier. A 400 lb fat woman can be trained to shoot targets at 1 km. The inability or lack of skill to engage targets long range I believe to be a disqualifier. Like I said, anyone here is fully capable of taking out midrange targets with any WWII rifle not manufactured in France. But, this is just my opinion based on my experience and understanding.

A 400 lb fat girl makes a good target. Some of them are 3 MOA at 1000 yards.

[mikegideon]

Spin drift and the Coriolis effect make smoke come out of my ears.

It can almost be ignored inside 1000. Significant at a mile.

[TMF]

Yes Sir. I actually enjoyed the hell out of EP. I thought it was a great training environment and lots of extra stuff to do like ruck the Franklins, etc. I was lucky to be part of that unit at that time and place.

Ha, yeah the scrub and the tin huts gave it away. I spent a little time down there. If you were like me, you took advantage of the training value of all those jack rabbits. Best moving target training in the area. After a few days there that answered the question as to why the coyotes were so damn big. I saw one so big it looked like a mangy wolf!

[TMF]

It can almost be ignored inside 1000. Significant at a mile.

It's been a while but I remember adding a hold for spin drift at 800m. If you're factoring coriolis then you're not a sniper, you're doing it for sport. I wouldn't bet my life or give away my position trying to hit a target past 800m. Unless it's an environment where it doesn't matter, like a firefight, but then I would just make adjustments based on the first round which isn't scientifc and doesn't require calculation.

[scoutfsu]

Ha, yeah the scrub and the tin huts gave it away. I spent a little time down there. If you were like me, you took advantage of the training value of all those jack rabbits. Best moving target training in the area. After a few days there that answered the question as to why the coyotes were so damn big. I saw one so big it looked like a mangy wolf!

Yep, we would use them for target practice on our own time. I loved that you could pretty much pull off any main road in EP or NM and go shooting.

I was always scared of the Oryx's after I saw one attack a HMMWV. Thing ####ed up a truck door on a moving vic.

[mikegideon]

It's been a while but I remember adding a hold for spin drift at 800m. If you're factoring coriolis then you're not a sniper, you're doing it for sport. I wouldn't bet my life or give away my position trying to hit a target past 800m. Unless it's an environment where it doesn't matter, like a firefight, but then I would just make adjustments based on the first round which isn't scientifc and doesn't require calculation.

We got into this before. There's probably luck involved making the real long shots, just because of the accuracy limitations of the rifles. State of the art today is a pocket computer, so you might as well leave it turned on. The longer a bullet is in the air, the more those factors come into play.

They didn't develop the .338 Lapua to kill muzzies at 600 yards. Unlike the 50 BMG, it's primary function is an anti-personnel round. It's just getting warmed up at 1000.

[TMF]

They didn't develop the .338 Lapua to kill muzzies at 600 yards. Unlike the 50 BMG, it's primary function is an anti-personnel round. It's just getting warmed up at 1000.

Unfortunately there are more people on this thread than there are snipers using .338 Lapua in combat. 7.62 x 51 is still the industry standard, however, by 2005 we had Remmy 700s in .300 winmag downrange. The trajectory was noticably flatter and wind calls were cut significantly.