I don't think anyone from the TV side could say it correctly enough to explain it. So, they probably won't even show it for that reason. Let alone it somehow got "opsec'ed".
- Thread starter sirhrmechanic
- Start date
I don’t have the clearance for this anymore.Hi,
No need for that rookie stuff....they escalated to...
Sincerely,
Theis
Hi,
O shit,...well squint your eyes so you can still have plausible deniability. Sorry about that.
Sincerely,
Theis
I can’t squint my eyes anymore!
Nor do we still have the clearance to see/not see...
Did I see one of the competitors shooting a Savage? Were they shooting personal rifles?
Which is unfortunate that they do it as a recruitment tool. It could be done to include both those they are trying to recruit as well as those who have been shooting for a long time. But they sink it simply to the lowest common denominator.
Perhaps explaining things would work to answer questions and encourage people who they’re trying to recruit in spececic areas.
I meant to add earlier that I wish they didn’t make it like a suspense drama. Show them set up, commentary about how they scan, locate, and make the shot, then show the shot. It seemed too disjointed.
Perhaps explaining things would work to answer questions and encourage people who they’re trying to recruit in spececic areas.
I meant to add earlier that I wish they didn’t make it like a suspense drama. Show them set up, commentary about how they scan, locate, and make the shot, then show the shot. It seemed too disjointed.
Did you catch the voice on that was Gene Hackman?
i think that was one of the LEO teams.
That would have been my guess.
I was impressed with the L.E. teams. That they made a 7 mile run before their stalk... timed. Not bad for a couple of SWAT's. They were fit as hell and came to that competition tuned up and ready to play.
If the military sent some third stringers... apparently a couple of PD's did not!
Cheers,
Sirhr
FYI,
The ISC (Int Sniper Comp) has to some extent become a Dick Measuring Contest, Dog & Pony Show, and Recruiting Event. Sorry, but yes I said it!
It was actually started as a way for teams to learn from each other, see the latest and greatest equipment, and push the military sniper community forward as a whole. Unfortunately IMHO that has gone by the wayside due to a number of reasons (which are very debatable based on who you talk to)
If you go back and look at the original ISCs, there was a significant focus on sharing, learning, and improving. The competition aspect was there, but it was NOT the priority focus. Teams were encouraged to communicate, share, and help each other. This was a chance for the "special teams" to push each other, and pass down what they could to the "regular teams". There was a chance to see new equipment through what the various teams brought and what the vendors displayed. There was formal time set aside in the schedule for speakers to share information with the teams.
Fast forward through the years and that has all come and gone to varying degrees.
Looking at some specifics:
Rifles - this has gone from run whatever you brung, to having specific classifications (2012 had Service & Open), to everyone using the same issued equipment. The point of run anything was to showcase the potential of other rifle platforms outside of what the military was using. That pissed off some competitors because someone else had an unfair advantage. The Army did not like it, because no one ever won with an issued rifle, and people then wanted the better rifles that were used for the win. Look at 2018, where they are going back to everyone using a Schoolhouse issued rifle, and the aspect of learning about what is out there is gone.
Courses of Fire / Stages / Events - these have been all over the place! They have done some very basic standard courses of fire to some very high speed new concepts. Some where most shooters almost maxed the score, to some where no one shot better than 50%. One year they had the standard popsicle stick walkers behind the berm, to having robot mover targets that could move in 360 degrees in another year. If you looked at what was in the 2017, you could see events that were not timed properly where shooters did well to get 2-3 shoots off, unrealistic difficulty where the best teams did well to get a few points, to bunny events where most teams maxed out the score. There are also the physical fitness stressors and events, which can be complete failures. Last but not least, there is the "infamous" stalk event, where teams are either going to win or loose because of the points inequality.
Teams - contrary to popular belief, there is NO standard for a team to get into the ISC. Looking at the competitiors you will see Tier 1 from Spec Ops, Top Competative teams like AMU, and regular line units that have zero experience in anything like the ISC. That saying you heard about every 5 minutes in the show, "The best sniper teams in the world", is pretty much a load of Horse $#!@. The reality in many years is that the teams who show up are a complete hodge podge with little rhyme or reason as to who is there. However once again, the original intent was to mix up the competitors so they could push and learn from each other.
I would do anything that I can to support the ASA and the Military Sniper Communities, and I have tried to do that by supporting the ISC for many years. However in IMHO the ISC is in very desperate need of a major overhaul to get back to its original mission which is making better Snipers, and it needs to stop heading in the the current direction which is measuring dicks and showing off.
Just my 2 cents!
The ISC (Int Sniper Comp) has to some extent become a Dick Measuring Contest, Dog & Pony Show, and Recruiting Event. Sorry, but yes I said it!
It was actually started as a way for teams to learn from each other, see the latest and greatest equipment, and push the military sniper community forward as a whole. Unfortunately IMHO that has gone by the wayside due to a number of reasons (which are very debatable based on who you talk to)
If you go back and look at the original ISCs, there was a significant focus on sharing, learning, and improving. The competition aspect was there, but it was NOT the priority focus. Teams were encouraged to communicate, share, and help each other. This was a chance for the "special teams" to push each other, and pass down what they could to the "regular teams". There was a chance to see new equipment through what the various teams brought and what the vendors displayed. There was formal time set aside in the schedule for speakers to share information with the teams.
Fast forward through the years and that has all come and gone to varying degrees.
Looking at some specifics:
Rifles - this has gone from run whatever you brung, to having specific classifications (2012 had Service & Open), to everyone using the same issued equipment. The point of run anything was to showcase the potential of other rifle platforms outside of what the military was using. That pissed off some competitors because someone else had an unfair advantage. The Army did not like it, because no one ever won with an issued rifle, and people then wanted the better rifles that were used for the win. Look at 2018, where they are going back to everyone using a Schoolhouse issued rifle, and the aspect of learning about what is out there is gone.
Courses of Fire / Stages / Events - these have been all over the place! They have done some very basic standard courses of fire to some very high speed new concepts. Some where most shooters almost maxed the score, to some where no one shot better than 50%. One year they had the standard popsicle stick walkers behind the berm, to having robot mover targets that could move in 360 degrees in another year. If you looked at what was in the 2017, you could see events that were not timed properly where shooters did well to get 2-3 shoots off, unrealistic difficulty where the best teams did well to get a few points, to bunny events where most teams maxed out the score. There are also the physical fitness stressors and events, which can be complete failures. Last but not least, there is the "infamous" stalk event, where teams are either going to win or loose because of the points inequality.
Teams - contrary to popular belief, there is NO standard for a team to get into the ISC. Looking at the competitiors you will see Tier 1 from Spec Ops, Top Competative teams like AMU, and regular line units that have zero experience in anything like the ISC. That saying you heard about every 5 minutes in the show, "The best sniper teams in the world", is pretty much a load of Horse $#!@. The reality in many years is that the teams who show up are a complete hodge podge with little rhyme or reason as to who is there. However once again, the original intent was to mix up the competitors so they could push and learn from each other.
I would do anything that I can to support the ASA and the Military Sniper Communities, and I have tried to do that by supporting the ISC for many years. However in IMHO the ISC is in very desperate need of a major overhaul to get back to its original mission which is making better Snipers, and it needs to stop heading in the the current direction which is measuring dicks and showing off.
Just my 2 cents!
Last edited:
Not sure about a Savage, but there were a number of "non USGI rifles" used in the ISC.
http://soldiersystems.net/2017/10/3...etition-winners-used-lanxang-tactical-rifles/
The winning teams are all running something other than an issued rifle (because the issued rifles are junk!), unless per my comments above it is one of the years where they are making everyone run a Schoolhouse issued rifle.
I agree.
LRShooter101,
That was a long response, but no doubt a lot better perspective than most of us can give. I know my own skills and knowledge of even what's out there is so limited.
I really like the thought of the event being about learning between all the teams. But, yeah, the dick measuring always has to figure in...which in most cases ends the learning curve.
That was a long response, but no doubt a lot better perspective than most of us can give. I know my own skills and knowledge of even what's out there is so limited.
I really like the thought of the event being about learning between all the teams. But, yeah, the dick measuring always has to figure in...which in most cases ends the learning curve.
^^^ My guess is that once it went on TV, the dick measuring began.
Turn anything into 'reality TV' and the whole thing goes to hell.
And thanks '101! That was some excellent perspective. I had the privilege to shoot against some of these same organizations at Gastonia. There was a hell of a lot of information sharing and camaraderie. That said, there are always a few there to measure protuberances! Though I learned a ton every time I went to a competition.
Great info!
Cheers,
Sirhr
Turn anything into 'reality TV' and the whole thing goes to hell.
And thanks '101! That was some excellent perspective. I had the privilege to shoot against some of these same organizations at Gastonia. There was a hell of a lot of information sharing and camaraderie. That said, there are always a few there to measure protuberances! Though I learned a ton every time I went to a competition.
Great info!
Cheers,
Sirhr
Shut up Beavis! LH is super secret squirrel shit that we aren’t even supposed to say out loud. ? 5 or 6 years ago the topic came up and a bunch of dudes were telling posters to STFU, I pointed out that the bullet goes up then the bullet goes down and that you just have to figure out where the bullet crosses the reticle the first time. More than a few got quite pissed off at me for that comment, if my dumb ass can figure it out then it can’t be very secret.
That’s gotta sting for all but two of the teams to go home and have to tell their commands that they finished behind Coasties, the service with practically zero sniping history. ?
Unfortunately this has been going on to some extent or another long before this made it to DVD (10th ISC DVD) or TV.
Who runs the ISC? Ask that question, and you will get a lot of different answers depending on who you talk to! Problem is, there are a lot of cooks that want to get their hands on the pot, and we all know what happens when you have too many cooks.
- Some people want a nice "show" that they can use for PR and Recruiting
- Some people want to put another trophy on display
- Some people have something to prove one way or another
- Some people want to put money in their pocket
- Some people want to better the community
At times there are some really good ideas from some really good people, and then they get flushed down the drain because someone with more brass or more pull decides something else would be better.
Don’t get me wrong, the ISC is not a total train wreck loss, but it is a shame that it can’t be much more than what it really is!
Actually they probably have the best Aerial Sniper Program (HITRON) that exists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_Interdiction_Tactical_Squadron
Ironically they couldn't hit $#!@ in the aerial stage of the ISC!
Needless to say their Ghillie Suits are not real good for land based events!
We begged for the ability to disable boats (they were all faster than our worn out cutters) with precision fire for years and it always got shot down (pun intended), when HITRON went online the drug seizures almost doubled in the first year, a guy that worked for me actually went on to HITRON later in his career. I bet that MSRT already has sent teams to train with HITRON after they got skunked on that course of fire, live and learn.
Some do. It was the issue with the misidentification by the Michigan team. Good loophole on target. Unable to see the rear of the Vic. Couldn't move after they were staked in.
Correct. But some of the SOF teams were running non USGI rifles, glass, and equipment, whereas the regular line unit teams were all required to utilize issued rifles and optics. Two separate "divisions"... service and open, but they didn't get to choose and it didn't really count toward anything other than the line units being hamstrung into using issued M110s.
@LRShooter101 has a good write up above. I can say the equipment from the 2016 match and the success of the team that ran it was largely a contributing factor to limiting the equipment for the 2017 match. The complaints during both has now resulted in M110's from the schoolhouse being set aside for this year's competition.
Ghost1941,
M110's set aside as in (added: some being) kept in as new of condition as possible? Or, not using them (added: at all for the competition)?
M110's set aside as in (added: some being) kept in as new of condition as possible? Or, not using them (added: at all for the competition)?
Last edited:
I read it as th e best performing of their issued equipment.
Ghost1941,
Regarding what you've said, I'd kind of like to see various rifles at the different stages used by all competitors. And the rifles provided by the competition committee. Have a pre-comp zero day, where contestants zero each rifle to themselves, then when that rifle is stationed at a stage, the competitor sets his zero and shoots that stage. No getting ahead with non-issue equipment. Although, some units we know can use that in the field. But, at least it will focus more on skills than an equipment race.
Regarding what you've said, I'd kind of like to see various rifles at the different stages used by all competitors. And the rifles provided by the competition committee. Have a pre-comp zero day, where contestants zero each rifle to themselves, then when that rifle is stationed at a stage, the competitor sets his zero and shoots that stage. No getting ahead with non-issue equipment. Although, some units we know can use that in the field. But, at least it will focus more on skills than an equipment race.
From my understanding they're a future batch of rifles for the school house that had supposedly been set aside in new condition. They will be utilized for the comp and then subsequently used for future schools.
Novel idea... But the sheer logistics in zeroing and collecting data for your own rifle is troubling enough. I can only imagine trying to gather some for the community guns too. They do that for the M107s at the national match and provide a baseline+ as you approach the firing line. But you're shooting truck silhouettes...
This makes about as much sense as the NASCAR "Car of the Future." In which you are trying to equalize everything for no good reason. Over the years, competitors from places like Finland brought Sako's and Germans brought Walther's and Sig's. Lots of rifles get used.
Putting things at a stage and expecting people to shoot them... even with a 'zeroing' period... no way.
When I was shooting my instructor said "What's your favorite gun?" The ONLY right answer was "The one I was issued, sir."
The equipment race is part of the equation. Get good equipment, get an advantage.
The whole point of the competition is being able to kill America's enemies as efficiently and expediently as possible. There should be NO limitations on equipment when it comes to training to do that. This is Darwinistic and should be about as fair as clubbing baby seals.
Stop this BS about rifles, etc. Make it about hitting realistic targets at realistic distances in realistic scenarios.
I don't care if someone brings a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range...
Winning is winning.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Yeah,
I see you guys are right. A stage or two possibly, but certainly not the whole shoot. The big thing that idea would shut down immediately is the "learning outside the box" capability.
So, yeah, overall bad idea. A stage or two might truly evaluate the skill levels though. Capable rifles, not junkers that the SGM wants used up and tossed. Meaning no one could score well with them. Not trying to bring the best down, just see where the pack sits against the best.
I see you guys are right. A stage or two possibly, but certainly not the whole shoot. The big thing that idea would shut down immediately is the "learning outside the box" capability.
So, yeah, overall bad idea. A stage or two might truly evaluate the skill levels though. Capable rifles, not junkers that the SGM wants used up and tossed. Meaning no one could score well with them. Not trying to bring the best down, just see where the pack sits against the best.
This is all why the ISC has been on a roller coaster ride for many years.
Open things up, bring whatever you can, and the best shooter with the best equipment should win.
This was honestly an attempt within the community to:
The ISC has awesome potential on so many fronts, unfortunately it is sadly falling short on a lot of them. I have tried my best to move things forward in many ways, but it has been an uphill battle pissing in the wind. As such, given the way that 2018 is going, as much as I hate to say it, I am out!
Open things up, bring whatever you can, and the best shooter with the best equipment should win.
This was honestly an attempt within the community to:
- Test & prove out new equipment, outside of the normal formal channels, because those channels are rarely successful or productive (proven by the fact that teams running issued gear are NOT winning)
- Allow shooters to push their skills as far as they can, without being limited by equipment. Per comments above, if you want the most lethal snipers on the battleground, don’t limit their capabilities.
- Expose key decision makers to see what is really working well, to try and get them motivated to get that equipment approved and issued for use.
- PROBLEM: Wa, Wa, Wa! There are shooters in the competition who have an unfair advantage! The regular Joes who are running issued equipment, will never win. SOLUTION: create 2 divisions, which is what they did in 2012 with a Service and Open Division. Oh, but wait a minute we have another problem!
- PROBLEM: The shooters in the Open Division smoked the competition in the Service Division. Hey! we all want the better equipment that they are running in the Open Division. SOLUTION: get everyone the better equipment that they are using in the Open Division. Oh, but we have another problem!
- PROBLEM: The bureaucracy, red tape, and BS that exists at all levels, will not allow everyone to get the better equipment. SOLUTION: Good Luck, because there is not one! Oh crap, we have another problem!
- PROBLEM: The regular shooters leave the Comp going back to their units pissed off and talking $#!@ because they had no chance at winning the Comp and they realize the equipment that they are running is second string junk. SOLUTION: Make everyone run the same equipment! This is once again where the ISC will be at in 2018. Oh $#!@, we now have a bunch of damn problems!
- PROBLEMS!!! The Comp is NOT bringing the best equipment out. The best shooters will NOT show because they don’t want to compete with junk that they don’t use.
The ISC has awesome potential on so many fronts, unfortunately it is sadly falling short on a lot of them. I have tried my best to move things forward in many ways, but it has been an uphill battle pissing in the wind. As such, given the way that 2018 is going, as much as I hate to say it, I am out!
I remember seeing previous competitions where we could see the foreign teams and their gear. As I recall the Danish team was shot P210. The pistol scenarios were outdoors, 25 meters for handguns.
Kudos for the teams that competed. Did the best sniper team win or the best geared team?
Kudos for the teams that competed. Did the best sniper team win or the best geared team?
Oh yeah, best shooters are gonna be there. This is the year that the USASOC winners are going to win ISC too, crappy rifles or not.
LRShooter101,
I understand about the "feelings" associated with the equipment and training. I really have to ask though, does the stuff brought to the competition really work out in the field day after day on hard operations? Yeah, we want better stuff, and we want all to learn better tactics.
One thing ALL of us went through at one time was getting used to "the crap" the military issued us. But, learning how to use it better made us better across the board. When a team fields a "game winner" that wouldn't last in the field, or is too cost prohibitive (I find that statement ludicrous) where lies the answer?
At some point even the best have to ask themselves what's best for the military overall? Albeit, specialized equipment is issued to some and it works. in the wrong hands it can quickly get destroyed and proven "not useful"
If people involved in this don't accept what the purpose is and that equipment whoring isn't helping, then we gaining ground in reverse. I do get that equipment advances help tremendously. And this is as good a platform to show this. But, the same with tactics. We need to know how to make what we've got work better. Not just show up with a computerized space gun and win the comp for the sake of winning.
Leadership here needs to get a helluva lot more assertive. People going back to their units pissin' and moaning because they didn't win isn't productive. The lower end of this comp needs to understand that too. It's an opportunity.
There is always cross-squading too. We can all learn from each other. Maybe a stage or two where you have to educate each other on the fly as to your abilities (or lack of) means those in the lead have to train as they go. That might even be fun as long as the elitists and the anti-elitists get that out of their blood to make a winning situation come about.
Just ideas I'm tossing out there.
I understand about the "feelings" associated with the equipment and training. I really have to ask though, does the stuff brought to the competition really work out in the field day after day on hard operations? Yeah, we want better stuff, and we want all to learn better tactics.
One thing ALL of us went through at one time was getting used to "the crap" the military issued us. But, learning how to use it better made us better across the board. When a team fields a "game winner" that wouldn't last in the field, or is too cost prohibitive (I find that statement ludicrous) where lies the answer?
At some point even the best have to ask themselves what's best for the military overall? Albeit, specialized equipment is issued to some and it works. in the wrong hands it can quickly get destroyed and proven "not useful"
If people involved in this don't accept what the purpose is and that equipment whoring isn't helping, then we gaining ground in reverse. I do get that equipment advances help tremendously. And this is as good a platform to show this. But, the same with tactics. We need to know how to make what we've got work better. Not just show up with a computerized space gun and win the comp for the sake of winning.
Leadership here needs to get a helluva lot more assertive. People going back to their units pissin' and moaning because they didn't win isn't productive. The lower end of this comp needs to understand that too. It's an opportunity.
There is always cross-squading too. We can all learn from each other. Maybe a stage or two where you have to educate each other on the fly as to your abilities (or lack of) means those in the lead have to train as they go. That might even be fun as long as the elitists and the anti-elitists get that out of their blood to make a winning situation come about.
Just ideas I'm tossing out there.
Throughout the history of the ISC, it has been all over the place. I can't quote an exact number, but if the option was there to run outside rifles & gear, I would say the teams NOT running issued gear won the majority of the time.
Problem with the ISC, the stage executions and scoring systems can easily move a team backward or forward 3-5 places in the standings based on the score from a single stage. Given there is also typically very few stages, every single stage is weighted very heavily in the final standings. As such, "Luck" can come into play, because whatever happens on a single stage, could drastically change the outcome. I watched teams get unfairly screwed in a single stage, and that one stage cost them a top finish in the standings.
As such standings can be influenced by other things beyond just performance.
I hope that it has not come off that the only thing that matters is rifles or gear! They are just one of the many factors that will help to determine the outcome.
As far as the best shooters being there goes:
- The shooters that their Command would allow to attend. I know teams that have Commands that refuse to send anyone.
- The shooters that have an available slot to attend. Less than 30 teams for all of the US Military.
- The shooters that actually choose to go. I know teams that are a lot more worried about their next deployment.
There are typically 60 or less shooters at the ISC, and that is probably less than 1% of the sniper teams operating in all of military branches (not to even mention the Civ LE Teams). As such, there is a very high probability that there are teams out there who could whop everybody's ass that will never attend.
Winning the USASOC and ISC is no walk in the park, but it is not like winning the Olympics where you know without any doubt that you are truely competeing against the best that the world has to offer!
101 has some very good points... and thanks for the insight.
I can echo the 'good stage bad stage' experience. But my takeaway was never negative, either.
For example, my partner and I were both in our 40's when competing. We were not going to beat 20-something guys from SOCOM in the obstacle course or climbing the tower. But we were absolutely at the top of the stage in some areas, especially many of the short shots where mechanical offset and speed were something we trained a lot for, being LE.
There were also some things we just weren't prepared for ar all... like a 700 yard over-water shot. We had perfect dope for 700 yards. We had even re-zeroed when we showed up due to the altitude difference. But we had never, ever taken a shot over water. Our dope was totally off... and after we scored a big fat zero and were shaking our heads going "Wha-happened?" ... a couple of SF guys from Bragg, who had seen our frustration, came over and taught us how to compensate for over water shots... We got a zero for the stage. We came away with a priceless lesson! (Though it would have been nice of them to tell us BEFORE we shot... but, hey, competition is competition!)
In the end, one of the realizations was that the teams that do well at the competitions are the ones that do 'well' in every stage. But are not always top finishers. And don't have any bad events. Endless third place finishes... generally gets a team a top position. Our problem was we were either in the top 5 - 7 or in the bottom 10... Very rarely in the middle.
More importantly, the trophies and stage win plaques and stuff are nice and all that.... but the information we got from other teams and shooters was utterly priceless! Maybe that's also a revelation that comes with age. We didn't care about winning. We did end our season of practice and the occasional competition... really, really dialed-in and tuned up! That was worth more than any wall bling. And if we had ever had to go into a courtroom or before a shoot board... the level of training and experience we got from competition would have been even more valuable. Fortunately, never had to take a shot... maybe, in part, due to training as well.
Cheers and thanks again, 101, for the very good inside-baseball perspective.
Sirhr
I can echo the 'good stage bad stage' experience. But my takeaway was never negative, either.
For example, my partner and I were both in our 40's when competing. We were not going to beat 20-something guys from SOCOM in the obstacle course or climbing the tower. But we were absolutely at the top of the stage in some areas, especially many of the short shots where mechanical offset and speed were something we trained a lot for, being LE.
There were also some things we just weren't prepared for ar all... like a 700 yard over-water shot. We had perfect dope for 700 yards. We had even re-zeroed when we showed up due to the altitude difference. But we had never, ever taken a shot over water. Our dope was totally off... and after we scored a big fat zero and were shaking our heads going "Wha-happened?" ... a couple of SF guys from Bragg, who had seen our frustration, came over and taught us how to compensate for over water shots... We got a zero for the stage. We came away with a priceless lesson! (Though it would have been nice of them to tell us BEFORE we shot... but, hey, competition is competition!)
In the end, one of the realizations was that the teams that do well at the competitions are the ones that do 'well' in every stage. But are not always top finishers. And don't have any bad events. Endless third place finishes... generally gets a team a top position. Our problem was we were either in the top 5 - 7 or in the bottom 10... Very rarely in the middle.
More importantly, the trophies and stage win plaques and stuff are nice and all that.... but the information we got from other teams and shooters was utterly priceless! Maybe that's also a revelation that comes with age. We didn't care about winning. We did end our season of practice and the occasional competition... really, really dialed-in and tuned up! That was worth more than any wall bling. And if we had ever had to go into a courtroom or before a shoot board... the level of training and experience we got from competition would have been even more valuable. Fortunately, never had to take a shot... maybe, in part, due to training as well.
Cheers and thanks again, 101, for the very good inside-baseball perspective.
Sirhr
Just rooting for my friends who won USASOC this year. I think they’ve got a very serious shot at holding both titles simultaneously, not sure that’s been done before.
I agree, this comp, has gone way downhill! What I think they should do moving forward is let everyone bring whatever equip they want, but as soon as you arrive you have to swap equip with another team and use theirs for the comp!!! That would be much more challenging and entertaining imo. Swap dope of have a father you dope day right before and roll on.
I would assume that it goes without saying, that if you are going to serve a combat deployment in the Military, then you had better do everything in your power to "Run What You Brung" at the highest levels of performance possible. During my Military Career I went from a M-21 that was around 2-3 MOA at best, to a M24 that was around 1 MOA, to a COTS Rifle that was sub MOA. I strived very hard to get everything that I could out of anything that I used. That being the case, my leathality level was limited to a signifcant degree by the gear that I had access to. This goes back to my previous comment, "How lethal does the military really want their snipers to be"? Their gear ultimately dictates part of that.
As far as skillsets and tactics go, it either comes from First Hand or Second Hand experience. First Hand is always best, but not everyone is fortunate enough to get all they need. While it is not as good, anyone can get Second Hand experience much easier. At the ISC Second Hand Experience could come from a lot of things like letting the competitors observe other teams shooting. Personally, I have learned a TON from watching other shooters run a stage at a match. At the ISC, because everyone is worried about the competition and someone getting an advantage, competitors are NOT allowed to watch other teams shooting most of the time. Pefect opportunity to develop skills that is not being allowed to happen.
How much does all of this matter? Just take a look at what some of the Snipers are deploying with these days compared to what they were deploying with just 8-10 years ago.
- Sub MOA Rifles, both bolt guns and semi-autos
- High Power Optics with signifcantly improved reticles
- LRFs connected to environmentals and ballistic programs
- Suppressors that don't destroy accuracy
- Multi-functional quick change bipods
Those are largely things that have been driven by, and have come out of, the competative long range shooting sports.
Once again, I just want to know that the Snipers going into harms way on the tip of the spear are as prepared as they can be. Whether it is gear or skills, I believe that anything that can be done to improve those things needs to be a priority. Putting the primary focus on who is going to leave with a trophy, is not going to impact those things IMHO.
Too many forget, in big green, what you "brung" is obtained "lowest bidder" even though lowest bidder is expected to maintain a "pre-set standard" of performance that is set/was set/will be set by someone "not likely to be on the ground" using it.
Historically, competition in big green was an accepted activity that was newsworthy. Commanders approved it.
It goes back as far as black powder and a smooth bore. These competitors created an "institution" intended to get the user to strive to be "all they could be", because it made them better in combat, able to hit the guy trying to hit them...
Equipment was tested and selected on "the best found" and stamped "match xx" and used in competition.
Big green created slots/billets/institutions around competition.
Competition was a resource to build on. Basic training has best recruit, best xx, up to best company that gets to lead the pack at graduation.
There "were" company grade competition units, division grade competition units, even "army" grade competition units, boxing, up to shooting....
All to foster "espirit de corps" and raise unit standings.
And there were international competitions...
Equipment innovation created an industry around this notion.
Civilian participation helped grow the competition and equipment that helped both the competitor and combatant.
OUR HISTORY !
Snipers historically were selected from competitors. Sniper schools were built by competitors.
Competitor innovation was carried into war zones.
Competition is and has been a part of our history and has enhanced sniping equipment through the "match grading" of service weapons for competition and then selecting those same "match graded" weapons for war.
After 911, the first levy of snipers had a large group of competitors who were scrounging equipment as best they could to overcome worn out issued equipment and "low bidder" low quality. Only in SF with "extra funds" did you see a better quality of equipment fielded. Can you say, "leadership failure" ?
The M110 failures being written up twice in Army Times to force corrective action, units locking m110's in storage, refusing to turn in bolt rifles, then deploying with the bolt rifles.... those units being gifted by ASA with every piece of kit ASA could scrounge and send... history...
The first international sniper competition was built from "our history" of competition, espirit de corps, see what the other people had, see what we can learn, and see what "the industry" will bring to the table.
Like most other U.S. competition, bring what you have, bring what you can afford, bring the best you have..... some of us remember SSgt Grant Singley winning one year with an out of the box AR15 rather than an AMU built rifle.
The international sniper competition has become an interesting animal to say the least. If nothing else, it demonstrates "leadership failure" as we know it today, failing to support "our guys" with what they need.
For the guys coming, running what they brung, and giving it their best, it demonstrates the American spirit that makes them winners no matter who gets the trophy.
Some of the above topic comments are reflective of the many attitudes I see in today's world about winning a competition, not about what the military competition was "MEANT" to produce.
If nothing else, if these comments can get a "industry partner" to create a better piece of gear for our guys, then keep it moving.
Historically, competition in big green was an accepted activity that was newsworthy. Commanders approved it.
It goes back as far as black powder and a smooth bore. These competitors created an "institution" intended to get the user to strive to be "all they could be", because it made them better in combat, able to hit the guy trying to hit them...
Equipment was tested and selected on "the best found" and stamped "match xx" and used in competition.
Big green created slots/billets/institutions around competition.
Competition was a resource to build on. Basic training has best recruit, best xx, up to best company that gets to lead the pack at graduation.
There "were" company grade competition units, division grade competition units, even "army" grade competition units, boxing, up to shooting....
All to foster "espirit de corps" and raise unit standings.
And there were international competitions...
Equipment innovation created an industry around this notion.
Civilian participation helped grow the competition and equipment that helped both the competitor and combatant.
OUR HISTORY !
Snipers historically were selected from competitors. Sniper schools were built by competitors.
Competitor innovation was carried into war zones.
Competition is and has been a part of our history and has enhanced sniping equipment through the "match grading" of service weapons for competition and then selecting those same "match graded" weapons for war.
After 911, the first levy of snipers had a large group of competitors who were scrounging equipment as best they could to overcome worn out issued equipment and "low bidder" low quality. Only in SF with "extra funds" did you see a better quality of equipment fielded. Can you say, "leadership failure" ?
The M110 failures being written up twice in Army Times to force corrective action, units locking m110's in storage, refusing to turn in bolt rifles, then deploying with the bolt rifles.... those units being gifted by ASA with every piece of kit ASA could scrounge and send... history...
The first international sniper competition was built from "our history" of competition, espirit de corps, see what the other people had, see what we can learn, and see what "the industry" will bring to the table.
Like most other U.S. competition, bring what you have, bring what you can afford, bring the best you have..... some of us remember SSgt Grant Singley winning one year with an out of the box AR15 rather than an AMU built rifle.
The international sniper competition has become an interesting animal to say the least. If nothing else, it demonstrates "leadership failure" as we know it today, failing to support "our guys" with what they need.
For the guys coming, running what they brung, and giving it their best, it demonstrates the American spirit that makes them winners no matter who gets the trophy.
Some of the above topic comments are reflective of the many attitudes I see in today's world about winning a competition, not about what the military competition was "MEANT" to produce.
If nothing else, if these comments can get a "industry partner" to create a better piece of gear for our guys, then keep it moving.
Every match has problems and complainers, regardless of how far the match directors go to try and keep things even and/or fair. But life isn't fair.
While having separate divisions for open and issued weapons would be an idea, another possibility would be for competitors to select and then zero rifles from a rack. Of course they would have the chance to develop dope for the rifles and ammo. Accuracy international, Sako, Schmidt and Bender, Zeiss, Nightforce and a few other companies could supply gear and ammo for competitors from countries using 308, 300 Win mag, 338 Lapua caliber rifles. Of course doing this too would have problems, and necessitate yet a third division.
My point is that no matter what anyone does to try and keep the match competitive, fair, interesting, someone, somewhere will bitch about it.
While having separate divisions for open and issued weapons would be an idea, another possibility would be for competitors to select and then zero rifles from a rack. Of course they would have the chance to develop dope for the rifles and ammo. Accuracy international, Sako, Schmidt and Bender, Zeiss, Nightforce and a few other companies could supply gear and ammo for competitors from countries using 308, 300 Win mag, 338 Lapua caliber rifles. Of course doing this too would have problems, and necessitate yet a third division.
My point is that no matter what anyone does to try and keep the match competitive, fair, interesting, someone, somewhere will bitch about it.
ISC didn't exist while I was still AD, I was an M40A1 shooting dinosaur, but I did take it head to head against other units in matches and schools. Mags made a massive difference right off the bat, as did bipods. We couldn't think of hanging with the AI shooting Brit Royal Marine in the SS Adv Course on run and gun COFs, and with the USMC being so slow to change as the O-6 level and higher didn't give a shit about us, it took a lot of persistency by the community as a whole while the charge was led by the fine instructors at Quantico to get just the M40A3. We took back AARs and white letters from matches and submitted them up the chain to fall upon deaf ears, it's only publicity that gets attention.
ISC getting these units the publicity makes a difference, where commanders in the five sided building read how 6.5 calibers can actually outshoot a .308, and cross training along with competition brings a better fighting force.
I disagree with running the matches themselves with anything other than what a team has in their ToE that they would take on mission with them. A match like this isn't about fairness in competition via equipment any more than the Hide Cup is. It isn't High Power and the rule happy range nazis and match gamers who will never seen a two way range need to keep their noses out of this shit, nor is it about any particular equipment manufacturer getting highlighted by forcing all competitors to run their gear in the match because then it's just a one sided sales pitch. Have all the side shoots you can handle to demonstrate this equipment, but anything used in match better have an NSN and S/N assigned to your unit and the ammunition should be straight out of the ASP and combat authorized. Sure SOCOM/JSOC and the AMU with their unit credit cards and commander's openness to new equipment would have an advantage, but how else will the regular units be able to demonstrate to their commanders that better equipment and advanced training helps make better snipers?
Fuck bragging rights for who wins and fairness in competition, I want our country's snipers and thereby the free world to be the winner as we advance our capabilities to kill the enemy.
ISC getting these units the publicity makes a difference, where commanders in the five sided building read how 6.5 calibers can actually outshoot a .308, and cross training along with competition brings a better fighting force.
I disagree with running the matches themselves with anything other than what a team has in their ToE that they would take on mission with them. A match like this isn't about fairness in competition via equipment any more than the Hide Cup is. It isn't High Power and the rule happy range nazis and match gamers who will never seen a two way range need to keep their noses out of this shit, nor is it about any particular equipment manufacturer getting highlighted by forcing all competitors to run their gear in the match because then it's just a one sided sales pitch. Have all the side shoots you can handle to demonstrate this equipment, but anything used in match better have an NSN and S/N assigned to your unit and the ammunition should be straight out of the ASP and combat authorized. Sure SOCOM/JSOC and the AMU with their unit credit cards and commander's openness to new equipment would have an advantage, but how else will the regular units be able to demonstrate to their commanders that better equipment and advanced training helps make better snipers?
Fuck bragging rights for who wins and fairness in competition, I want our country's snipers and thereby the free world to be the winner as we advance our capabilities to kill the enemy.
Similar threads
