Bolt Trash, as I recall, the union General declared "they could not hit an elephant at this range" and those were his famous last words.
- Thread starter hrfunk
- Start date
I'm don't like the liberal usage of the word sniper, like how some random retard can automatically be labeled as one by more retards who have zero experience regarding anything law enforcement or military. I believe that there would be a better term. Even, active shooter, is a better fit.
I think it demeans both military and law enforcement snipers, to give the title of sniper to any criminal.
Last edited:
By "Historically Significant", it seems that the person should have had a profound effect on changing the course of history. This, in my opinion, is different than the "most famous" sniper, which would include many of the people mentioned in this thread. But, I think the one person who actually had the biggest effect on changing the course of history has got to be the Brit Ferguson. Had he taken the shot and killed Washington, we would not have persevered and won that bit of unpleasantness with England, and would still be eating boiled beef and all those other tasteless foods. If not for him, it's a good bet that none of our "famous" snipers would have emerged, as we would not have had the freedoms and creativity that allowed those giants to be who they became. "Most historically significant" has to go to the person who allowed Washington to live and continue to motivate and lead a rag-tag army in overcoming the greatest military power on the face of the earth at that point of time. And don't forget, if we hadn't won that conflict, even though there probably would have been another, later in time, we would have lost Jefferson, Madison, both Adams, Franklin, and all the rest that gave us our Constitution and Bill of Rights. They all would have been hanged as traitors.
Last edited:
The Union General in question here was MG John Sedgwick, and his last words were (as Mike said), "why, they couldn't hit an elephant at this dist . . .". Sedgwick was killed by a Confederate sharpshooter at Spotsylvania, 9 May, 1864. My favorite story to come from this one, though, regards the statue of Gen. Sedgwick at West Point. Supposedly, a Southern cadet was giving a tour to some dignitaries or other VIPs many decades later, when one of them asked about the statue. His reply was, "Sir, that is a monument to Southern Marksmanship." Gotta love a cadet who has retained a sense of humor, and the cajones to pull it off.
Better music and Raquel Welsh.
I don’t think it is really possible to argue with Lee Harvey Oswald. I understand that some of us believe there is holiness to the term “sniper”, however Oswald was a sniper in every sense of the term. He scouted is position, he built his nest, he laid in wait for his quarry and when it came time he put a minimum number of highly effective rounds on target and bugged out. That my friends is a Sniper! Was he a criminal? To many he was, however snipers are always criminals to some and heroes to others.
Historical Significance…He killed the leader of the free world! He ushered in the President that created welfare and is generally given credit for every major social program since FDR. So Oswald has impacted every individual in this country, those that receive benefits and those that pay taxes to subsidize those benefits. (I’ll stop it there so this is not a political rant)
Not to mention it was Johnson who escalated this country into the very conflict that gave Carlos Hathcock the opportunity to develop his abilities. However, who is say that if Kennedy had not remained president for an additional 6 years, he may have involved us in a full-scale global conflict or WW3. So you can make a strong case that Oswald’s 3 shots with a bolt action rifle touched nearly every individual on the planet
I understand the Hatchcock and others are significant, they are very significant to the community of marksman, snipers and the heroes that watched over and were able to come home due to their well place over watch. But Oswald changed the course of the planet.
Historical Significance…He killed the leader of the free world! He ushered in the President that created welfare and is generally given credit for every major social program since FDR. So Oswald has impacted every individual in this country, those that receive benefits and those that pay taxes to subsidize those benefits. (I’ll stop it there so this is not a political rant)
Not to mention it was Johnson who escalated this country into the very conflict that gave Carlos Hathcock the opportunity to develop his abilities. However, who is say that if Kennedy had not remained president for an additional 6 years, he may have involved us in a full-scale global conflict or WW3. So you can make a strong case that Oswald’s 3 shots with a bolt action rifle touched nearly every individual on the planet
I understand the Hatchcock and others are significant, they are very significant to the community of marksman, snipers and the heroes that watched over and were able to come home due to their well place over watch. But Oswald changed the course of the planet.
As for the British sniper Patrick Ferguson, does he fit your definition of sniper. The historical count was that he did not fire on someone that was not aware of his presence.
So upon seeing two American officers, he stood up and made his presence known and the officers turned and rode away. Ferguson, also adverse to shooting a man in the back did not fire.
He does not fire from concealment or cover, is he a sniper or just a well trained marksman?
I guess you can make a case for him as well.
So upon seeing two American officers, he stood up and made his presence known and the officers turned and rode away. Ferguson, also adverse to shooting a man in the back did not fire.
He does not fire from concealment or cover, is he a sniper or just a well trained marksman?
I guess you can make a case for him as well.
Don't forget the Grandest lady of them all. Ann Margret.
Maybe I missed it, but has there been even a single mention of Daniel Morgan and Morgan's Riflemen? Without them, we'd have had no victory at Saratoga, no French assistance in the Revolutionary War and we'd all be drinking tea... I don't bring up the riflemen at Lexington and Concord because that, in my book, was more of a "Rural Riot" than an organized military sharpshooting effort. But Morgan was so central to the Colonial battle plan at Saratoga that General Gates’ verbal order to his Colonial troops to begin the battle was: “Well, then, order on Morgan to begin the game.” (Rupert Furneaux, Saratoga: The Decisive Battle, PG 223).
Also strongly in agreement with the likes of McBride, Prichard, Ferguson, etc. in terms of their influence on the craft as well as history. As mentioned above, the question of "Historically Significant" can be interpreted in many ways...
And my $0.02 on Oswald... he was not a sniper, he was a presidential assassin (or dupe, depending on your tinfoil hat status) who used a rifle. I won't go into that debate. But I will stand by the idea that regardless, he was/is not a sniper and echo the sentiment that has been stated many times here on SH that a sniper is a military discipline, not a title you adopt or hand out because shooting things far away is something you happen to 'do' and because you have a rifle and a scope and have it painted all snipery. Again, my opinion and yours may be different...
Cheers,
Sirhr
Also strongly in agreement with the likes of McBride, Prichard, Ferguson, etc. in terms of their influence on the craft as well as history. As mentioned above, the question of "Historically Significant" can be interpreted in many ways...
And my $0.02 on Oswald... he was not a sniper, he was a presidential assassin (or dupe, depending on your tinfoil hat status) who used a rifle. I won't go into that debate. But I will stand by the idea that regardless, he was/is not a sniper and echo the sentiment that has been stated many times here on SH that a sniper is a military discipline, not a title you adopt or hand out because shooting things far away is something you happen to 'do' and because you have a rifle and a scope and have it painted all snipery. Again, my opinion and yours may be different...
Cheers,
Sirhr
but did it change history...... since the event is/was history to me, I've seen no historical course altering shift other than Kennedy's head " back and to the left". Don't get me wrong it was a tragedy and one of a few low points in our country's history but I don't see a "change history"......
I think the Cuban Missile Crisis taught Kennedy the value of diplomacy, and even though it was covert, it did wonders.
There's been considerable discussion about Kennedy's intent to de-escalate Vietnam, and reduce the numbers of advisors we had in theatre at the time of his death. LBJ went the other direction, and in the end we were 58,000 fewer American soldiers than when it began. Who knows? Had Kennedy lived, the Vietnam (as we know it) may never have occurred at all, rendering what we all know as history to be little more than an alternative timeline that never took place. And who knows what that might have caused? The more aggressive expansion of communism? A strengthened Soviet Union? A more aggressive China?
This all becomes little more than a wild-assed guess, since we can never fully account for all the variables in play here. At any rate, Oswald took (and made) the important shot, and the history that we DO know was the result.
This all becomes little more than a wild-assed guess, since we can never fully account for all the variables in play here. At any rate, Oswald took (and made) the important shot, and the history that we DO know was the result.
Well if you are only a sniper if you adhere to a certain "military discipline" or carry a tab or schooling that somehow bestows the art upon you then that would disqualify many of the other names mentioned.
I think the only real argument against Oswald, he was a single target objective. One he Killed Kennedy, he had no plans to continue "sniping". Other than that he pulled off a textbook, no pun intended, shot from concealment within a room.
This is a good read.
Mike @ CSTACTICAL
Mike @ CSTACTICAL
Or, as the British say, "Bobs your uncle..."
Interesting lines forming in this thread as well as the last few. Thanks HRFunk for the mind-opener.
I'm with Kraig in that I don't boil 'sniping' down to a military art only. Or a police art. Yes, the term is tossed around too much. But, it always defines one thing: A shooter concealed either by substance, material (objects) or distance, firing in ambush upon another party.
Oswald, or someone that could pin the blame on him, (depending on which story you believe), pulled off a very typical ambush from concealment. This is as Kraig says a "sniper".
Funny that a couple years back, we had many 'go-rounds' about the term "counter-sniper" and the cheap scopes that carried that name. And, how the term had become commercialized. Funny though, that before the term became a commercialized brand name, we used it (the term) when training for just such a thing. Routing out and eliminating 'snipers' was 'counter-sniping'. Just like 'counter-insurgency' was used. A name given to a type of operation that called for some specific equipment. Somebody played up the term and there we were.
Anyhow, this has taken the 'multitude of kills facet' against the 'what did you do since then' facet against the 'single event' facet. I never would have given the 6.5 Carcano the time of day as a sniper weapon except it (that specific rifle) did one thing. Took out a President and altered the course of history. Again, I could say one cartridge inspired all we use today, but the underpowered, generally lacklustered 6.5 Carcano did the job that fateful day. (again, if you think it was the only one) And Oswald, He's been covered. While none of the three matter in significance really in any other way, they matter because of one instance.
As a whole though, I took the meaning to mean something that has meant someone, and something specifically dedicated to the craft. And while I don't give Oswald the nod, I do say that incident is number one, if you look at it the other way.
Sandwarrior:
As always, you make a good and eloquent argument. That said, here's why I regard the term Sniper as being military (and this coming from an LE with a MO billet...)
You state, correctly that a sniper is "A shooter concealed either by substance, material (objects) or distance, firing in ambush upon another party." You'll not get any argument from me. But I would expand on this definition to point out that the mission of the military sniper is to cause attrition to the enemy; deny the enemy free movement over terrain and eliminate any level of safety; decapitate the enemy through the removal of officers, NCO's and other leaders; create psychological terror in an AO by being able to eliminate targets with no warning; act as a force-multiplier by being able to accomplish (through the execution first several items) what it would take a much larger force to do otherwise. Last, the Military sniper has the ability to act as a scout or the "eyes and ears of the commander." In doing this, they typically have a very high level of fieldcraft and an ability to move/operate in unprotected areas including in enemy-controlled areas.
The LE mission, I have long argued, is one-shot, short range, cold-bore marksmanship. Concealment is secondary, though occasionally needed. Cover is a plus. The LE marksman, almost always, is part of a larger SWAT or team engagement and the shooter is supported, covered and in a safe area, even though it may be forward. Typically, LE engagements are a sub-100 yard shot that meets the LE legal criteria of Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy -- the same criteria as any LE shoot, simply involving a long rifle vs. a duty handgun. Though the LE ranges are short, the LE mission has no margin for error. A body shot (as advocated in military sniper circles) is unacceptable as an instant Medulla-Oblongata stop is the requirement of an typical (not all... but typical) LE engagement. So in LE you replace a larger target at longer ranges with a small target at close ranges and you have few opportunities for a follow-up shot (or shots) which has become acceptable in MOUT and a lot of modern sniper combat (vs. earlier fire once and move sniper doctrine.)
What both disciplines have in common is their observation and reporting skills, because, again, in the case of LE, 99 percent of the mission is being the eyes and ears of the team or chief. In these cases, concealment remains critical, but in most LE engagements, the officer is not firing from concealment. Though we practice it, most of the concealment training is for observation work. The reality is that most engagements take place over the hood of a cruiser or from a lawn/under a bush.
In both Mil and LE instances, a high level of marksmanship skill is required, but it's a different skill set... or maybe more accurately a different training set. Because being able to do one... you should be able to do the other, but as an LEO in a MO billet, I spend no time training at 700 yards... at least not on the dept's budget... and little on fieldcraft. I've done long range shooting and fieldcraft at schools and a few competitions, but it's not what we are about... we train from 25 yards to 300 under our ROE and it's all about cold bore. And my military counterparts, at least the one's I've shot with at schools and competitions, spend little time training to make a cold-bore shot into a 1/2 inch dot at 50 yards (which I do this at least once every couple of weeks) but spend a ton of time on long-range shots and fieldcraft. It doesn't take long for each of us to adopt/emulate the others' skills once we start shooting... and my databook has dope out to over 1000. But there is a learning curve, both ways as we have different disciplines. Reading scope height over a bore for a short range shot comes instantaneously to me at any close range. Doping wind at 700 yards doesn't... but my mil. counterparts are like wizards when it comes to that.
The short way of putting it (and this is my definition... as there is no 'industry' standard) is that the military sniper is about eliminating the maximum number of enemy targets and he (she... counting Russians) does this with effective long-range marksmanship and an understanding of how to use their skills and fieldcraft and concealment skills to cause maximum disruption of an opposing force. The Law Enforcement marksman trains for a single shot, cold bore engagement at a target that meets a very high legal standard for an engagement, typically with no margin for error.
I am very proud of the Marksman/Observer tab, which I worked hard to earn, and which is on my LE SRT uniforms.... but I revere the military snipers. They work at the edge of the envelope, in the most dangerous spots on the planet and in conditions that no one should have to endure. Their overall marksmanship skills are, I believe, at a higher-level, because of the difficulty of the ballistic calculations involved in shooting at long ranges. And they do their work, often, deep in Indian country or in uncontrolled areas with little/no support. If I need a bottle of water or a Snickers Bar because things at an LE callout drag on for six hours, it's about 30 seconds away. In other words, in comparison to my counterparts in military uniforms... I do not believe that I am worthy of the title "sniper."
All that said... it's a free country. For someone who wants to take their rifle to the range and shoot things from cover and call themselves snipers... it's a big-tent term. You can probably make an argument for it and, honestly, I don't care what you call yourself. I also know lots of SRT guys who have LE "Sniper" tabs on their uniforms and I am fine with that. It's what their department wants to call it and is accurate under their definition. There's plenty of SWAT and SRT guys on the hide who are proud of their Sniper designations, too, and rightly so. We have different names for a skill set that, regardless of the name, is one that is hard-won and worthy of respect. And though I have personal issues with hanging the term "Sniper" on someone who shoots indiscriminately at presidents or civil rights leaders or University of Texas at Austin students... by some peoples' definitions, maybe the term applies. Who am I to say they are wrong?
Regardless, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
On a more important note... no defenders of Daniel Morgan and Morgan's Riflemen?
Cheers,
Sirhr
As always, you make a good and eloquent argument. That said, here's why I regard the term Sniper as being military (and this coming from an LE with a MO billet...)
You state, correctly that a sniper is "A shooter concealed either by substance, material (objects) or distance, firing in ambush upon another party." You'll not get any argument from me. But I would expand on this definition to point out that the mission of the military sniper is to cause attrition to the enemy; deny the enemy free movement over terrain and eliminate any level of safety; decapitate the enemy through the removal of officers, NCO's and other leaders; create psychological terror in an AO by being able to eliminate targets with no warning; act as a force-multiplier by being able to accomplish (through the execution first several items) what it would take a much larger force to do otherwise. Last, the Military sniper has the ability to act as a scout or the "eyes and ears of the commander." In doing this, they typically have a very high level of fieldcraft and an ability to move/operate in unprotected areas including in enemy-controlled areas.
The LE mission, I have long argued, is one-shot, short range, cold-bore marksmanship. Concealment is secondary, though occasionally needed. Cover is a plus. The LE marksman, almost always, is part of a larger SWAT or team engagement and the shooter is supported, covered and in a safe area, even though it may be forward. Typically, LE engagements are a sub-100 yard shot that meets the LE legal criteria of Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy -- the same criteria as any LE shoot, simply involving a long rifle vs. a duty handgun. Though the LE ranges are short, the LE mission has no margin for error. A body shot (as advocated in military sniper circles) is unacceptable as an instant Medulla-Oblongata stop is the requirement of an typical (not all... but typical) LE engagement. So in LE you replace a larger target at longer ranges with a small target at close ranges and you have few opportunities for a follow-up shot (or shots) which has become acceptable in MOUT and a lot of modern sniper combat (vs. earlier fire once and move sniper doctrine.)
What both disciplines have in common is their observation and reporting skills, because, again, in the case of LE, 99 percent of the mission is being the eyes and ears of the team or chief. In these cases, concealment remains critical, but in most LE engagements, the officer is not firing from concealment. Though we practice it, most of the concealment training is for observation work. The reality is that most engagements take place over the hood of a cruiser or from a lawn/under a bush.
In both Mil and LE instances, a high level of marksmanship skill is required, but it's a different skill set... or maybe more accurately a different training set. Because being able to do one... you should be able to do the other, but as an LEO in a MO billet, I spend no time training at 700 yards... at least not on the dept's budget... and little on fieldcraft. I've done long range shooting and fieldcraft at schools and a few competitions, but it's not what we are about... we train from 25 yards to 300 under our ROE and it's all about cold bore. And my military counterparts, at least the one's I've shot with at schools and competitions, spend little time training to make a cold-bore shot into a 1/2 inch dot at 50 yards (which I do this at least once every couple of weeks) but spend a ton of time on long-range shots and fieldcraft. It doesn't take long for each of us to adopt/emulate the others' skills once we start shooting... and my databook has dope out to over 1000. But there is a learning curve, both ways as we have different disciplines. Reading scope height over a bore for a short range shot comes instantaneously to me at any close range. Doping wind at 700 yards doesn't... but my mil. counterparts are like wizards when it comes to that.
The short way of putting it (and this is my definition... as there is no 'industry' standard) is that the military sniper is about eliminating the maximum number of enemy targets and he (she... counting Russians) does this with effective long-range marksmanship and an understanding of how to use their skills and fieldcraft and concealment skills to cause maximum disruption of an opposing force. The Law Enforcement marksman trains for a single shot, cold bore engagement at a target that meets a very high legal standard for an engagement, typically with no margin for error.
I am very proud of the Marksman/Observer tab, which I worked hard to earn, and which is on my LE SRT uniforms.... but I revere the military snipers. They work at the edge of the envelope, in the most dangerous spots on the planet and in conditions that no one should have to endure. Their overall marksmanship skills are, I believe, at a higher-level, because of the difficulty of the ballistic calculations involved in shooting at long ranges. And they do their work, often, deep in Indian country or in uncontrolled areas with little/no support. If I need a bottle of water or a Snickers Bar because things at an LE callout drag on for six hours, it's about 30 seconds away. In other words, in comparison to my counterparts in military uniforms... I do not believe that I am worthy of the title "sniper."
All that said... it's a free country. For someone who wants to take their rifle to the range and shoot things from cover and call themselves snipers... it's a big-tent term. You can probably make an argument for it and, honestly, I don't care what you call yourself. I also know lots of SRT guys who have LE "Sniper" tabs on their uniforms and I am fine with that. It's what their department wants to call it and is accurate under their definition. There's plenty of SWAT and SRT guys on the hide who are proud of their Sniper designations, too, and rightly so. We have different names for a skill set that, regardless of the name, is one that is hard-won and worthy of respect. And though I have personal issues with hanging the term "Sniper" on someone who shoots indiscriminately at presidents or civil rights leaders or University of Texas at Austin students... by some peoples' definitions, maybe the term applies. Who am I to say they are wrong?
Regardless, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
On a more important note... no defenders of Daniel Morgan and Morgan's Riflemen?
Cheers,
Sirhr
Sir,
I have a lot of respect for your humility. It speaks volumes of your character.
Bob Lee Swagger.
Too funny diderr!
sirhrmechanic,
I appreciate that you hold military snipers in the regard that you do. I do as well. It was something I had wished to accomplish in the Army, but did not get the chance. Actually, I did get the chance, but things intervened at home and I ended up not re-enlisting to take the chance. I also hold law enforcement snipers in high regard, as it is a difficult job. Maybe not so difficult physically as the military with their trips to the outer reaches of any life existence, but difficult enough. I also liken it usually to benchrest shooting...without the bench. Yes, short shots. But, hits don't count. Hit's to a very certain part of the anatomy count. Usually, nothing else. Occasionally, you get the situation we just had up here in Idaho, where the perp separates from the victim and "any hit counts". More often than not, the situation doesn't give you that luxury.
That said, looking back to the origin of the word, it was British soldiers giving the name to a 'hunter' (probably one of themselves) who could make the difficult shot of hitting any one of several long billed shore-birds. It delineated a good or creative shooter from an average one. When that kind of shooting (sniping at men) came up in the military, most military men were loathe to participate. Mostly as the honorable thing back then was not to shoot someone in surprise. While the term became accepted in the military, most were still not too open about being one. The general feeling was not one of joy about being in their company.
It was only after Viet Nam that there was a general acceptance of snipers. Most who had benefited from their work saw what they meant to themselves, but again the feeling of overcoming a consensus was not to try. After Viet Nam was when the world of sniping also opened up enough that civilians could see and understand the many lives they had saved. You can also keep in mind that those who had the power to denounce them did so as well. A particular DJ in the morning (Cities 97) back where I lived, had made several remarks about military snipers being murderers. Along with the opinion (expressed on air) that contractors were 'over there killing for kicks'. Many of whom were former military snipers.
In any case, long story short. I think it's a good thing you differentiate military snipers and law enforcement snipers from bad guys. But, I will say the term has grown to include "anyone who fires from cover or concealment in ambush of another party". I also understand you not liking the term, as Kraig put it, "Criminal Snipers". But, understand, even the enemy has decent, humane people in that field and people who lust for blood.
Put it this way, I look at the word 'sniper' as describing an individual who does as we described above. A second identifier, i.e. military, LE, Marine, Army, criminal, etc. can be used to clarify what he truly is.
I must give my nod towards Major Jim Land. Without his input, experience, and teaching, the US would not have a modern sniping program. Carlos Hathcock, Chris Kyle, Chuck Mawhinney would not exist as snipers without what Jim Land put in place so long ago. Sure, there have been great snipers throughout the world who had kills numbering over 400 - 600, confimreds numbering well over 300, but here in the US, without what Jim Land made happen, we would only have Soldiers and Marines, no snipers.
I was remiss in not mentioning Jim Land. I was in the army with a cousin of his ( a generation down). We saw each other last about 10 years ago at one of the Ranger reunions. Because of that reunion he went back into the National Guard and served a year in Iraq....as a sniper. This individual also won the 2002 Wimbledon Cup. Jim presented him with the trophy. He's pretty awesome in my book. Well, they both are.
Last edited:
Small world. It was Jim Land whose signature appears on my Distinguished Rifleman's certificate. Shot with his son a few times at Perry, and was coached by Carlos Hathcock (Gunney Hathcock's son) in the Long Range Firing School in 2000, while he was still shooting with the USMC team.
You know it is really hard to say for this reason, skill, patience, training, execution, are all secondary to destiny in most cases here. The stars have to align to the sniper, you have to have the opportunity to put it all together. Be it a chance to uncork one at over 2,000 meters, you have a chance to cut down 25-30 combatants at one time from a roof top, or being chosen to be the shooter on a high value target.
There have been some great ones in the past, some served for Armies that did not have much in the way of resources or relief and killed large amounts of enemies for their country. We tend to rotate people more often in the US services.
It is really tough, Vassily helped stop the Germans in their tracks, Simo had death on sale by volume, Carlos did it over and over again and taught the skill to many who followed him. The long distance guys, well, they executed well and got it done but many others could likely have accomplished the same back to destiny again. The US soldier with the crazy long kill with the 7.62, was a crazy accomplishment that directly saved lives taking out an active sniper from the top of one building to another many, many blocks away( though it was shorter was far more difficult to me than using a 50 or 338).
Good debate.
There have been some great ones in the past, some served for Armies that did not have much in the way of resources or relief and killed large amounts of enemies for their country. We tend to rotate people more often in the US services.
It is really tough, Vassily helped stop the Germans in their tracks, Simo had death on sale by volume, Carlos did it over and over again and taught the skill to many who followed him. The long distance guys, well, they executed well and got it done but many others could likely have accomplished the same back to destiny again. The US soldier with the crazy long kill with the 7.62, was a crazy accomplishment that directly saved lives taking out an active sniper from the top of one building to another many, many blocks away( though it was shorter was far more difficult to me than using a 50 or 338).
Good debate.
not so uncommon: when you jump from a plane, a low-altitude jump can be serious business, if confronted to a any higher-alt. jump...
So, since we're giving credence to the concept of criminal snipers, I submit the additional nomination of Lee Harvey Oswald.
IMHO the Gin Control Act of 1968 was a direct consequence of his actions, as well as the perpetual sequence of Foggy Bottom Outrages that have beset the shooting community ever since. If that hasn't been significant, what has?
Greg
PS Did I say 'Gin'? Silly me....
I'm not sure you could list Land and Russell as the fathers of Marine Corp Snipers. I think that title would go to Major Evans Carson and Lt. Claude Harris.
Carson was appointed commander of the "new' Raider BN. Carlson established the first Marine Sniper School for the BN in early 1943, and Harris was his chief instructor.
Harris developed a five week course where they were taught Marksmanship, camouflage techniques, observation and scouting, and field craft. They sent out three man teams, shooter, observer and reserve who could fill either role.
Like Carlos, both Carson and Harris came from the HP competitor crowd.
Carson was appointed commander of the "new' Raider BN. Carlson established the first Marine Sniper School for the BN in early 1943, and Harris was his chief instructor.
Harris developed a five week course where they were taught Marksmanship, camouflage techniques, observation and scouting, and field craft. They sent out three man teams, shooter, observer and reserve who could fill either role.
Like Carlos, both Carson and Harris came from the HP competitor crowd.
Greg:
GCA'68 can probably trace its lineage to Dallas '63... But the real impetus for it took place during the "Long Hot Summer" of 1968... that saw the assassination of MLK and RFK. Malcolm X had been assassinated in the interim in, I think, '65. The DNC riots in Chicago that summer also helped fuel the flames of "law and order." In the end, Johnson wasn't running again... he knew he could sign it with no repercussions and the wave of violence and assassinations between 1963 and 1968 pushed the right buttons.
Cheers,
Sirhr
GCA'68 can probably trace its lineage to Dallas '63... But the real impetus for it took place during the "Long Hot Summer" of 1968... that saw the assassination of MLK and RFK. Malcolm X had been assassinated in the interim in, I think, '65. The DNC riots in Chicago that summer also helped fuel the flames of "law and order." In the end, Johnson wasn't running again... he knew he could sign it with no repercussions and the wave of violence and assassinations between 1963 and 1968 pushed the right buttons.
Cheers,
Sirhr
That was funny, sharpsman!!
...now I'm tempted to try to find some proof about the scope mounted from David on his slingshot...
Yeah, David could definitely be in the running for his well placed shot to the fore head of Goliath. It took a demoralized Israeli Army and gave them the courage to fight and win the day, while the proud Philistine Army was reduced to fleeing in terror.
Which seems to be, more or less, what Oswald did when he tried to assassinate general Edwin Walker:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/walker.txt
I got it........haha
Popcorn anyone?
This is going to be fun.
Cheers,
Sirhr
This is going to be fun.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Jim Land and Carlos Hathcock made the sniper program stick after Vietnam, prior to that it disappeared after every war. We now have real equipment, ammunition, training and doctrine. They get my vote for impact in the US armed forces.
Jesse Ventura has to pee sitting down to hit the toilet. Taking his word on a marksmanship question is not likely to be a great idea.
Jesse Ventura has to pee sitting down to hit the toilet. Taking his word on a marksmanship question is not likely to be a great idea.
Based on that logic, you have to consider the Army Marksmanship Unit. They started their sniper schools right after Vietnam, and according to "THE ARMY MARKSMANSHIP UNIT: FIRST 50 YEARS" the Marines sent people to the AMY School to get cadre for their school. As well as everyone else, including the FBI, Secret Service, and other civilian police departments and Army National Guard Units.
Couple of interesting options, here are a few 'whys' ripped from good old Wikipedia:
Patrick Ferguson (American Revolutionary War) - developer of the world's first breech-loaded military rifle (which advanced sniping and sharpshooting tactics), fought with his Corps of Riflemen (recruited from the 6th and 14th Foot) at the Battle of Brandywine, where he may have passed up a chance to shoot George Washington
Major Frederick Russell Burnham - assassinated Mlimo, the Ndebele religious leader, in his cave in Matobo Hills, Rhodesia, effectively ending the Second Matabele War (1896).[75] Burnham started as a cowboy and Indian tracker in the American Old West, but he left the United States to scout in Africa and went on to command the British Army Scouts in the Second Boer War. For his ability to track, even at night, the Africans dubbed him, He-who-sees-in-the-dark,[76] but in the press he became more widely known as England's American Scout
Finnish Lance Corporal Simo Häyhä, aka "White Death", was a sniper during the Winter War and is regarded by many as the most effective sniper in the history of warfare, being credited with killing up to 705* (505 sniper kills, at least 200 sub-machine gun kills) Soviet soldiers accomplished in fewer than 100 days. Häyhä used a White Guard M/28 "Pystykorva" or "Spitz", variant of the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle, and iron sights.
*Keep in mind that the total estimated casualties for the Russians in the battle are around the 8,000 mark... meaning this one sniper accounted for over 6% of all Russian casualties with his sniping alone - almost 9% if his submachinegun kills are counted.
British Army CoH Craig Harrison of the Household Cavalry successfully engaged two Taliban machine gunners south of Musa Qala in Helmand Province in Afghanistan in November 2009 at a range of 2,475 m (2,707 yd), using a L115A3 Long Range Rifle rifle chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum. These are the longest recorded and confirmed sniper kills in history.
***
Very, very interesting stuff here, and that's not counting numerous American, Canadian, Soviet, German and Australian individuals responsible for remarkable feats of marksmanship.
- boingk
Patrick Ferguson (American Revolutionary War) - developer of the world's first breech-loaded military rifle (which advanced sniping and sharpshooting tactics), fought with his Corps of Riflemen (recruited from the 6th and 14th Foot) at the Battle of Brandywine, where he may have passed up a chance to shoot George Washington
Major Frederick Russell Burnham - assassinated Mlimo, the Ndebele religious leader, in his cave in Matobo Hills, Rhodesia, effectively ending the Second Matabele War (1896).[75] Burnham started as a cowboy and Indian tracker in the American Old West, but he left the United States to scout in Africa and went on to command the British Army Scouts in the Second Boer War. For his ability to track, even at night, the Africans dubbed him, He-who-sees-in-the-dark,[76] but in the press he became more widely known as England's American Scout
Finnish Lance Corporal Simo Häyhä, aka "White Death", was a sniper during the Winter War and is regarded by many as the most effective sniper in the history of warfare, being credited with killing up to 705* (505 sniper kills, at least 200 sub-machine gun kills) Soviet soldiers accomplished in fewer than 100 days. Häyhä used a White Guard M/28 "Pystykorva" or "Spitz", variant of the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle, and iron sights.
*Keep in mind that the total estimated casualties for the Russians in the battle are around the 8,000 mark... meaning this one sniper accounted for over 6% of all Russian casualties with his sniping alone - almost 9% if his submachinegun kills are counted.
British Army CoH Craig Harrison of the Household Cavalry successfully engaged two Taliban machine gunners south of Musa Qala in Helmand Province in Afghanistan in November 2009 at a range of 2,475 m (2,707 yd), using a L115A3 Long Range Rifle rifle chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum. These are the longest recorded and confirmed sniper kills in history.
***
Very, very interesting stuff here, and that's not counting numerous American, Canadian, Soviet, German and Australian individuals responsible for remarkable feats of marksmanship.
- boingk
Last edited:
That is an an excellent point. McBride's book was the basis for what a lot of guys do today. He also has a large number of kills in WWI.
I will gladly put Carlos Hathcock as the best there ever was, but it is trickier to get to "most historically significant". Both he and McBride taught the next generation. Both had a lasting impact. They are tied in my book.
I agree that Chief Kyle used his "fieldcraft" in sneaking in and out of populated, hostile towns. He also had a keen eye, which I gather from his book, enabled him to identify targets.
The other great snipers (from my reading) were more shooters than teachers. Others were more teachers than shooters. Which I why I choose McBride and Hathcock--they did both.
(But I have not made a study of sniper teachers, either).
BMT
Last edited:
Boingk,
Your casualty figures for the Winter War are way off. The Finns themselves lost some 25,000 dead, while the Russians suffered somewhere between 250,000 and one million, depending on which source you want to go with. The 250,000 figure was the Finns estimate, and is the lowest I've seen anywhere. Gen. Vorishilov and Nikita Kruschev have estimated one half, to one million, respectively. I suspect both were way over the true figures, and imagine the Finns themselves were probably the closest of the lot. No idea whether the Russians also included those 5,000+ prisoners the Finns took, who were executed when they were returned to Russia following Finland's surrender. The loses during the Continuation War ('42-'44) added to these numbers, but the Winter War was a very costly affair for both sides, especially when you consider that that 25,000 Finns constituted roughly 1% of their total population at the time.
Your casualty figures for the Winter War are way off. The Finns themselves lost some 25,000 dead, while the Russians suffered somewhere between 250,000 and one million, depending on which source you want to go with. The 250,000 figure was the Finns estimate, and is the lowest I've seen anywhere. Gen. Vorishilov and Nikita Kruschev have estimated one half, to one million, respectively. I suspect both were way over the true figures, and imagine the Finns themselves were probably the closest of the lot. No idea whether the Russians also included those 5,000+ prisoners the Finns took, who were executed when they were returned to Russia following Finland's surrender. The loses during the Continuation War ('42-'44) added to these numbers, but the Winter War was a very costly affair for both sides, especially when you consider that that 25,000 Finns constituted roughly 1% of their total population at the time.
Neat thread. Million good answers, not many wrong ones.
I'd have to say it wasn't one, but an effort by many snipers, and that would be the Siege of Leningrad. Some of those shooters had kills in the hundreds and some of those high body count shooters were women. Had Hitler taken USSR more easily, we'd all be eating sauerkraut and speaking German (at least our beer would have improved). Hitler would have been unstoppable if he enlisted Russians, linked up with Japan, and would have taken Britain next with ease.
He already had plans on how to invade US. Had long range bombers that could hit NYC. Supposedly working on his own bomb. D-Day could have been the other way around, ie, "Defeat Day" for us.
Also, I'm not so sure Oswald worked alone. Not into conspiracies, but not into lying to myself either. It just stinks to high heaven. What was Mitchell WerBell III doing there, btw? THE great all-American spook and former roomie of Oswald? And at a time when he was inventing modern rifle suppressors no doubt. Who better to have assist in a coverup? "I'm just a patsy" right before getting shot by Ruby. No trial, no secrets to come out.
Kennedy dead, no Vietnam, no me (so to me personally that may be the most significant sniper in recent history). No Civil Rights Act either.
Significant history has hinged on more than one or two snipers in the past. It's hard to say which are more important, as the farther back you go the more affect it will have on history.
Significant history can also change the other way around: alternate timelines we simply will never know about. For instance, how many future Newtons and Einsteins or other great scientists that dedicate their work to all mankind have been killed, say by a sniper, in past wars? Conversely, how many future Hitlers or Stalins have been killed? We'll simply never know that.
I'd have to say it wasn't one, but an effort by many snipers, and that would be the Siege of Leningrad. Some of those shooters had kills in the hundreds and some of those high body count shooters were women. Had Hitler taken USSR more easily, we'd all be eating sauerkraut and speaking German (at least our beer would have improved). Hitler would have been unstoppable if he enlisted Russians, linked up with Japan, and would have taken Britain next with ease.
He already had plans on how to invade US. Had long range bombers that could hit NYC. Supposedly working on his own bomb. D-Day could have been the other way around, ie, "Defeat Day" for us.
Also, I'm not so sure Oswald worked alone. Not into conspiracies, but not into lying to myself either. It just stinks to high heaven. What was Mitchell WerBell III doing there, btw? THE great all-American spook and former roomie of Oswald? And at a time when he was inventing modern rifle suppressors no doubt. Who better to have assist in a coverup? "I'm just a patsy" right before getting shot by Ruby. No trial, no secrets to come out.
Kennedy dead, no Vietnam, no me (so to me personally that may be the most significant sniper in recent history). No Civil Rights Act either.
Significant history has hinged on more than one or two snipers in the past. It's hard to say which are more important, as the farther back you go the more affect it will have on history.
Significant history can also change the other way around: alternate timelines we simply will never know about. For instance, how many future Newtons and Einsteins or other great scientists that dedicate their work to all mankind have been killed, say by a sniper, in past wars? Conversely, how many future Hitlers or Stalins have been killed? We'll simply never know that.
There is an excellent little article in the most recent edition of American Rifleman on the Winter War for anyone who is interested. Gives similar casualty figures.
There is a great quote in the article from a Finnish soldier, however. "There are so many Russians and we are such a small country... where are we going to bury them all?"
Article does point out that one of Stalin's strategies was that "the Finns will run out of bullets before I run out of men." They acted that way, too. And Stalin was right. At one point apparently, the Finnish military had ammunition stocks so low that the Russians had more soldiers to throw at the Finnish Maxims.
I have one of the French 37mm Hotchkiss Anti Tank guns used by the Finns in the Winter War. It was given to the Finns by Germany after the fall of France as part of their version of Lend Lease. It's live... DD and registered. Fully functional. And still painted in its original Finnish winter blue... I wish it could talk! (Though technically, it can bark!)
Cheers,
Sirhr
I saw that article, and while it had some interesting stuff in there, it was off in a few regards. The Winter War was a tough one for the Finns, and it would have been very hard to find a family that wasn't deeply touched by it in one way or another. There's a cemetery that has a monument to the men of Lapua, which is only a town of about 20,000, or a bit less. On my last visit there, I counted something near 400 names on that memorial, from Lapua alone. It was an interesting period of history, and one of the very few wars in which the lines between good guy and bad guy were so clearly drawn. The Finns, to this day, don't have a lot of use for Russia. Not exactly the best of neighbors over the years, and the Russian's were absolutely brutal during the course of the war.
Don't recall if the article mentioned this, but one example was the armistice itself. It was signed by both delegations, and the cease fire was agreed to be 1200 hrs a day or two later. The Russians moved up every artillery piece, and every round of ammunition they could muster for them, right to the front lines. At 1000 hrs, they launched a massive barrage, a full-on "mad minute" that lasted for the next two hours. at the stroke of 1200 hrs, they ceased fire and the guns fell silent. Just to be pricks about it. Yeah, no love lost there, and I don't blame the Finns a bit. They never got the land stolen by the Russians back, either.
Don't recall if the article mentioned this, but one example was the armistice itself. It was signed by both delegations, and the cease fire was agreed to be 1200 hrs a day or two later. The Russians moved up every artillery piece, and every round of ammunition they could muster for them, right to the front lines. At 1000 hrs, they launched a massive barrage, a full-on "mad minute" that lasted for the next two hours. at the stroke of 1200 hrs, they ceased fire and the guns fell silent. Just to be pricks about it. Yeah, no love lost there, and I don't blame the Finns a bit. They never got the land stolen by the Russians back, either.
And Jane Fonda! Oh, wait...
This is one of the best posts that I have read in a long time. Kudos!
Similar threads
Rifle Competition Events Major Land Sniper’s Cup
