Thread: : Snipers vs. Competition Shooters

one imagines they didnt fuck around while accessing things.Probably the bigger real point about this army test they were getting real about their shooting ability or lesser ability compared to the civvies they shot against . good on them as the honesty will see possible improvements in the skill levels

Originally Posted by el borracho

the funny thing is the retards that tested this were --Project White Feather is a U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)-sponsored effort to apply advanced sniper weapon fire control technology that will extend range and increase first round hit probability for special operations applications
but GIMP this is retarded

Lol can you seriously not see why it's stupid to think you can draw any conclusions from that 2-paragraph "article" ??

Originally Posted by el borracho

the funny thing is the retards that tested this were --Project White Feather is a U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)-sponsored effort to apply advanced sniper weapon fire control technology that will extend range and increase first round hit probability for special operations applications
but GIMP this is retarded

Lol can you seriously not see why it's stupid to think you can draw any conclusions from that 2-paragraph "article" ??

Originally Posted by el borracho

one imagines they didnt fuck around while accessing things.Probably the bigger real point about this army test they were getting real about their shooting ability or lesser ability compared to the civvies they shot against . good on them as the honesty will see possible improvements in the skill levels

this

Okay smartarse, since you obviously didn't actually read the paper it's talking about:

1: it's estimated

2: it's sourced from a 1990 paper, which I haven't bothered to read yet so let me know if it has any profound revelations

3: read the key to the table, specifically (a) and (b) and think about the selection bias in (b)

4: drawing worthwhile conclusions from that terrible page you linked isn't possible

5: I'm going to bed, please read things



Table from the paper:

Also the conclusions you've drawn from the page you linked are pretty hilariously totally unrelated to what the paper is actually about so thanks for proving my point

I dont know what your reading Gimp but ---According to their tests, the standard deviation of aiming error for the best, formally-trained operational snipers was three times worse than tested High Power and Long Range competition shooters sufficiently skilled to compete successfully in national level match competition at Camp Perry and the like. In fact, the worst competition shooters tested were as good or better than the best snipers in basic holding and shooting fundamentals.



Kraig Stuart
Aug 01, 2013 @ 15:14:18

Because I have a bit of experience in both sniping and competition I was asked my thoughts on this from a guy on another forum. As I said, I’m not surprised of the results. I’ve ran several sniper schools, the problem is once a person attends the school, they quit. I don’t mean totally, but they don’t practice their craft near to the point of a High Power shooter, both in practice and competition.

A high power shooter will practice several hours for each hour he spends in competition. You just don’t see that with snipers. I’ve had sniper students who “got hooked” and took up High Power, hitting me up for ammo and support ( I was also running the AK NG Marksmanship Unit as I was running sniper schools), Some, should I say most, I never heard of again unless they want to attend another course for “for a refresher”. The HP shooter/sniper didn’t need a refresher.

This only deals with the shooting aspect of sniping, not the observation/scouting aspect, but that too needs practice or its a lost art. I have guardsmen from urban areas and I had guardsmen from the Alaska Bush, mainly Alaska Natives who make their living off the land. Guess which one didn’t need refreshers in observation/scouting.

Kraig Stuart
Distinguished Rifle Badge #1071
USAMU Sniper School, Oct ’78

I'm reading the fucking paper the stupid page you linked is quoting, something you might benefit from doing instead of posting random quotes of comments some guy on the internet made on a shitty "article" that cherry-picks a bit of meaningless misinterpreted trivia from a paper about something entirely unrelated which actually completely ignores that piece of trivia in its own deliberations

In conclusion,

Originally Posted by gimp

5: please read things

Originally Posted by el borracho

one imagines they didnt fuck around while accessing things.

Nuff said in your case as far as the military side of the equation goes. The whole motive is to sell a product to fix something that is not broken. It is the US forces we are talking about after all.
No corruption or hand-outs happen to ensure a big military deal goes through there. It would never happen.

The test is flawed and irrelevant in so many ways but you simply fail to acknowledge it. How would the results read if there were moving targets at 3,5 and 600? If being able to plug a v bull on a range ever overshadowed field craft and numerous other qualities, there will be a lot of dead, fat, tweed wearing cunts, covered in their own shooting mats on future battlefields

R93: The point is there IS NO TEST


The page El B linked is a bullshit "article" totally misinterpreting a table in a study of something else, that the study actually decided wasn't important, and is sourced from a 1990 paper that estimated it (which I can't find online to read).

Originally Posted by gimp

R93: The point is there IS NO TEST


The page El B linked is a bullshit "article" totally misinterpreting a table in a study of something else, that the study actually decided wasn't important, and is sourced from a 1990 paper that estimated it (which I can't find online to read).

I know. I just cant help myself.

what your talking of Gimp isnt obvious as there is no hyper link to it --i found it but its 85pp -still some pertinent comment that back what im saying --practice more!ill look it over tomorrow

page 16 it where this stuff comes from it appears --look it up by cut and paste

weapon Fire Control Error Budget Analysis
Weapons & Materials Research Directorate, Army Research Laboratory
ARL-TR-2065

another interesting observation by the author on page 30

1: http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/1999/ARL-TR-2065.pdf is the paper that retarded link is talking about
2: the authors of the paper ignored the table of ~*snipers vs competition shooter*~ for the purposes of their paper (Because it doesn't say what the retarded link says, and it's only estimated)
3: the paper is from 1999
4: the paper is about estimating how a fire control system could increase hit probability, there is no testing, and it focuses entirely on other variables than the shooter
5: fucking jesus christ next time just take my word for it that it's retarded