Sniper shooter games Archives

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Odd wording

"During the Bosnian War, especially the Siege of Beirut, “sniper” referred to soldiers..."

Is it me or does this passage suggest that the Siege of Beirut was part of the Bosnian War? --80.41.36.181 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it used to read: In the Bosnian War, and for much of the Siege of Beirut, but it was changed in a user 72.244.121.114 on Feb 11. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deon Steyn (talk • contribs) 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Snipers in Fiction

?! 65.173.104.19 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Positioning

"Some snipers are able to shoot an observant target from less than 90 m (98 yd), while the target is searching for them, without being seen".

Does the writer of this have a particular environment in mind? Surely if a sniper is firing from dense forest, or is just in the shade, they may get much closer even than 90m and still not be spotted? Where has this threshold of 90m come from?

Or does it just mean that they can get that close without an observant target pinpointing their direction/location -- I can appreciate that there is a distance at which this becomes very difficult in principle. --217.18.21.2 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty cold-sounding

Sentences like this: "Corporals Matt and Sam Hughes, a two-man sniper team of the Royal Marines, armed with L96 sniper rifles each killed targets at a range...". How do you "kill a target", exactly? They shot people, let's not beat around the bush here... WikiReaderer 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• While WP:NPOV must be maintained, WikiReaderer makes a good point here. Unlike many other military appointments, snipers are specifically trained to kill people, whether in police situations or in warfare. (This differs from other military/police jobs that in theory may never involve direct killing, especially in the case of police (I think I read somewhere only about 0.5% of cops will ever actually take a life). Plus unlike most warfare killing that involves shooting from a distance and rarely any up-close contact with the target, snipers are "right there" with the sniper score, therefore they see in intimate detail what they have done. This article should include discussion of how snipers are psychologically trained -- or handled afterwards -- for what they are having to do. Did any of those snipers who killed hundreds of people ever have psychological problems afterwards? 68.146.47.196 15:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have read several autobigraphical accounts from snipers and I would say they take great pride in their assassinations and other killings. They enjoy the commrodory that is a part of their job and excitement that comes from overcoming the seemingly terrible odds against their success. Snipers believe in what they do and they believe it must be done. Essentially, snipers save the rest of us from bad people (from their viewpoint) and in so doing they make the world a better place, even for the bleeding hearts that don't appreciate their sacrofices or accomplishments. -- Ctatkinson 22:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

a target can be a person. it is a correct usage, and I believe the term used by the shooters themselves, and also indicates that they hit the person they were aiming for. Anyone who doesn't realize snipers kill people, are too dumb to read wikipedia anyway. Rds865 (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture/caption question

Re this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:040521-M-1012W-013usmc.jpg - On the sniper rifle page the caption says that the rifle is an M24, on this page it is stated to be an M40. Let's sort out the contradiction on way or the other. Geoff B 17:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well being Marines it is supposed to be an M40, the presence of the front sight would indicate an M24, BUT there are many product variants (this one has a camo stock for instance) to be sure one way or the other (the pic is also from 2004). The most important difference is the length of the action (M24 is longer) and if you look at original high res version of the photo I would say the action looks like the shorter M40's action ([1]) versus the longer M24 ([2]). So the action (shorter?) and the operator (Marine) would indicate an M40... perhaps there were some models or batches using different barrels? --Deon Steyn 09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Special Reaction Team (SRT) members US Marine Corps (USMC) Sergeant (SGT) Shannon C. Moye (foreground), sites through the scope on his 7.62mm M-86 sniper rifle as Corporal (CPL) Eddie L. Tesch, uses a spotting scope to read targets taken out during sniper (Released to Public)"

So according to Corporal Ryan Walker, USMC it is an M-86 sniper rifle. I have tweaked the caption to reflect the rifle, which is an M24 and neither an M86 sniper rifle or M40 sniper rifle. Please click on both images that I have posted. Then compare both images, observe the front post, shape of barrel, shape of stock (particullary the contours) and even the scope of both weapons.

There have been numerous cases where official Department of Defense captions has misidentified weapons which clearly does not reflect the actual weapon. A prime example is this one: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DASD0716195&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/2007/Army/DA-SD-07-16195.JPG Which states:

"Pfc. Matthew J Mongiove, from 10th Mountain Division, 4th Brigade, scans the area from the site of an M-249 squad automatic weapon (SAW) providing security in support of the 561st Military Police Company, 716th Military Police Battalion, 101st Airborne Di (Released to Public)"

This is an M240B machine gun and not a M249 SAW. It is apparent that SGT Andre Reynold, U.S. Army did not correctly cite the appropriate weapon.

Another example of an accidental mislabeling of a weapon is this one: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=061013-F-9429S-012&JPGPath=/JCCC/Still/2006/Air_Force/061013-F-9429S-012.JPG

"U.S. Air Force Airman 1st Class Travis Fillman watches over an entry control point with an M-60 machine gun during exercise Eagle Flag 07-1 on Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, N.J., Oct. 13, 2006. Fillman is a security forces journeyman from 817th Contingency Response Group, McGuire Air Force Base, N.J. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Scott T. Sturkol) (Released) (Released to Public)"

This is clearly not an M60 machine gun but a M240 machine gun. --TabooTikiGod 19:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have used Adobe Photoshop CS3 to combine the two images, it is evident from placing the overlay of the confirmed M24 SWS image over the photograph of the sniper rifle in question that both images line up and it is an M24 SWS and not an M40 or M86 sniper rifle. -TabooTikiGod 10:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Does look like an M24 to me, I just wasn't sure because the source announced it was Marines. Geoff B 20:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the photograph, it's on Okinawa so potentially it could be any service branch since the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force all have units based on the island. The photograph was taken in 2004 so the Marines still could have been using the battle dress uniform versus the MARPAT. There is not enough information in the photograph to definitively determine whether or not they are Marines, so the caption associated with the photograph(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:040521-M-1012W-013usmc.jpg), taken verbatim from the Department of Defense website (http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DMSD0510239&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/2005/Marines/DM-SD-05-10239.JPG) will remain as is. -TabooTikiGod 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We could just change it to a "typical Remington 700 based" or just remove reference to the type of rifle or simply substitute the pic with another? --Deon Steyn 05:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains, it is an M24 SWS, not a "typical Remington 700 based," I have already made the appropriate changes to identify the weapon. Personally, I don't think it is an exceptional sniper photograph--if you (Deon Steyn) would like to find a substitute photograph to replace this one, I won't stop you. -TabooTikiGod 09:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

World War II

I noticed that in the world war II section the entry on the united states is very Army-centric. The Marines didn't half-ass it like the army, and special note should be made of Marine scout-sniper platoons. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable Snipers

I have, twice now, inserted Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart. There is absolutely no way to debate that these two snipers are not notable. There is likewise no way to debate that with the exception of Hathcock and Zaitsev, they are probably the two most recognizable snipers in recent history. Everyone knows the story, their actions were immortalized in a massively successful movie, in a multitude of books and on countless documentaries. A simple google search indicates that their names are nearly always said in conjunction with the word 'sniper.' Furthermore, the subsection doesn't say "Snipers with the most kills and longest shots." It's a section where notable snipers are listed with a short synopsis of their feats and accolades. In addition, the fact that multiple users have inserted the information is proof positive enough that these two snipers are notable enough for inclusion on this page. I see that it was discussed earlier on, yet no consensus was ever reached on it. 74.142.88.126 (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Why are there no photos of Iraqi insurgents firing sniper shots? A sniper is a sniper, be he an Iraqi Islamist or an American Crusader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.133.54 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have one that follows copyright laws, we can discuss it. However, as you refer to American snipers as "Crusaders", I'm guessing you are just trying to stir up trouble. Also, having a rifle and being able to make a shot at a few hundred yards does not make one a sniper. If that were the case, pretty much every deer hunter here in America would qualify as a "sniper". As the lead of this article says, "A sniper requires skill in marksmanship, camouflage, and field craft." Marksmanship is one part of being a sniper.--Littleman_TAMU^(talk) 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgents aren't soldiers, and this article says snipers are only soldiers or police. plus, if they were smart wouldn't post pictures of themselves on the internet. the lead of a article should say "being a good sniper requires..." Also I think the definition should include an exception for hunters. That is a hunter targets animals, for sport or food, a sniper targets people, vehicles, and other strategic targets. Rds865 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say from my point of view I could accept photos of iraqi insurgents as snipers, if there were any available showing them acting exactly as that. However, I am yet to see one as photos in this regard are extremely sparse. Although we all have our own beliefs etc, a sniper is a sniper, regardless of their cause and does not need to be operating under a specific banner, just demonstrating the techniques of one. With the same reasoning, I am suggesting a couple of pictures be removed on here which do not show sufficient techniques of camoflage and concealment. I would agree that sniping only extends to the targeting of humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverstar189 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Cleanup: Measurment Correction

Under the targeting section (of what I've seen) the measurements are incorrect. I believe they are switched around, for 1 meter = 40 inches, as 1 yard = 36 inches. I'm pretty sure they're not correct as I use the metric system in my country. Thecutnut (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

B-Class review

This article needs many more citations to pass B-Class. See [[WP:V] for what to cite and WP:Cite for how to cite it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Robo-snipers

What do you too guys have against this section? Just because the person is not on the battlefield does not mean he is not a sniper just as I explained the operator of a predator is a pilot. Maybe I should make a separate page but can I put a link to this page?

Section

A modern sniper may now be thanks to technology far away from the battlefield using robots being deployed in Israel to police the Gaza border. At present each human operator can control up to 15 such weapons but future plans are too fully automate them.^[1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomon is Wise (talk • contribs) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead of the article has a specific, accepted definition of a sniper. A robot is not a service member. The services might use them, but they are tools. Your explanation of predator/pilot is faulty reasoning. The operator might be a pilot, I'm not here to argue that, but the UAV is not a pilot. In the same manner, the operator of a robot with a gun could be a sniper, but the robot isn't. According to this article, the operator of a robot with a gun would only be a sniper if he was trained in the areas of marksmanship, camo, & field craft, but just because the operator might be able to make a long shot using the robot does not mean he is a sniper and it certainly doesn't make the robot a sniper. Not by current definitions. Just because The Guardian uses the word "sniper" in its article doesn't mean the devices it is reporting on fit the accepted definition of a sniper. We can revisit those definitions, but right now, robots don't fit.--Littleman_TAMU^(talk) 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the definition, but even under it, robots apply. the gun is just remote controlled and the servicemen is shooting from a farther distance and better concealed. using a camera on a gun to shoot, would be using marksmanship, and the gun would be placed and concealed using the principles of camouflage and "field craft." Rds865 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Circular reference?

It looks like one reference for this article is a circular one. http:// hubpages.com/hub/World_War_II_Snipers is reference 1 and if you scroll to the bottom of that page, it cites its source as Wikipedia. At a glance, it looks like a copy of this article. Anyone care to comment?--Littleman_TAMU^(talk) 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the Wikipedia reference was just for Vasily Zaytsev, but I don't see a source for the beginning section of the hubpages article. Sections of this article are basically copies from the hubpages article, I don't know if hubpages copied from Wikipedia or the other way around. It's a problem since we don't really have a credible source either way. Either hubpages copied from us and it's a circular reference or Wikipedia copied from hubpages and we're violating its copyright (plus I don't think hubpages meets the credible source criteria).--Littleman_TAMU^(talk) 00:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that link is blacklisted

Snipers only Soldiers?

This article seems to imply that the word sniper only includes police a military snipers, not terrorists. I have thought anyone who shoots another person from a concealed position is a sniper. whether it be an expert solider, or a kid with a bb gun. Also, sniper can be applied outside of combat into war simulation games, such as paintball or video games. Rds865 (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The view this article takes is that a sniper has a specific meaning in military terms. A sniper has training in marksmanship, camouflage, and field craft. A person who can shoot well would be a marksman. I can shoot quite well with a rifle and make long shots, but that doesn't make me a sniper even though the media has confused the general public on the issue. In reference to paintball, there's already an article about woodsball marksmen. Basically, a sniper does much more than just shoot targets from distance. See the "Etymology" section of this article for a little more about the confusion. The word "sniper" can be applied to other areas and people like terrorists with rifles, but that doesn't make it a correct application of the word.--Littleman_TAMU^(talk) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say not being a good shot, doesn't make you not a sniper. I am not sure how saying that the media misuse the word proves it is misused. If you think Iraqi insurgents who are called snipers aren't snipers, show some proof. Sniper is widely used to refer to all concealed shooters, and since most people aren't soldiers it is used more often to refer to non solider, non police use. perhaps there should be an article about snipers, and one about the military designation. Rds865 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a specific quote in the article that you think is wrong and should be changed? WinterSpw (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rds865, if I carry around a .40 S&W, wear a navy blue jumpsuit and run around trying to protect the citizens of my city daily. Does that make me a police officer? Just because you put a tool in someones hand, and they mimic a certain action.. does not necessarily make them what they're wanting to become. An 'Iraqi insurgent' with a sniper rifle, in hiding.. isn't a sniper if they can't hit a damn thing. The word sniper denotes sharpshooter.. would you give a half-blind, one-armed, 80-year-old a sniper rifle? Hey, it doesn't matter if he can hit anything, he's hiding and he's got a long-range rifle.. he's a sniper! Give me a break. Also.. read before you right.. "Not being a good shot, doesn't make you not a sniper" Triple negatives.. fail. 97.102.11.143 (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Snipers/Sniping

perhaps some of the information already in the article could be organized in a criticism of sniping. Snipers tend not to be liked by their possible targets, understandably so. There seems to be a lack of fairness when sniping(yes, I know war isn't fair and compared to bombing and shelling, sniping is close range and is much more precise) Also, snipers have a reputation of being cold blooded hunters of men. Rds865 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "lack of fairness" with sniping. I don't think there's really a point in creating a section that states snipers are "disliked" and "criticized", and I don't think one of your statements is true: "...snipers have a reputation of being cold blooded hunters of men." WinterSpw (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WinterSpw. It seems that Rds865 has many opinions about this topic, but I haven't seen any sources yet.--Littleman_TAMU^(talk) 00:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sniping someone is less fair then, a duel. Other people had put in things about snipers being disliked. Snipers are depicted as such in the media. Often by critics of war. Tom Clancy compared snipers to hunters in The Bear and the Dragon. In the movie Enemy at the Gate it the main character tries to convince his love interest not to be a sniper because it requires being a certain amount of cold bloodedness, and the villain in that movie is cold blooded. certainly sniping is not a passionate way to kill someone. Rds865 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rds865, is there any way to kill someone "passionately"? I have not thought of one yet. Please think before you write.Brettroscoe (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettroscoe (talk • contribs) 00:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

two definitions of sniper

Ok I adjusted the definition to match the wikitionary one as well as the usage of the term outside of the context of military organization since no one has argued this. If this is unacceptable perhaps there needs to be two articles, even if one is about the media's "misusage" of the term. Since the English language has no governing body definitions can change if everyone uses the wrong one, the wrong one can become the right one. Rds865 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC) The reference to the Munich Olympic hostage crisis is incorrect. I worked in Munich in the late 70's and shot at the Hauptkonigliche Schutzengesellschaft each weekend.The club is one of the oldest in the world,founded about the 13th century for crossbow shooting. It boasted several Olympic Gold Medallists, one of whom was frequently a range master. He was a Police marksman involved in the hostage situation.The Munich Police did have specialist marksman.He said that from the first hours of the crisis he and his colleagues were covering some seven targets{as I recall].The orders were not to fire until all targets were simultaneously in the crosshairs. The controlling officer was calling around the shooters in sequence continuously asking for confirmation of target acquired. They got frequently up to five under the crosshairs and sometimes to six. The fear was that a surviving terrorist could kill hostages out of sight.He said it was the most stressful thing imaginable.Starting to take up pressure on a trigger then having to release it and carry on tracking your target. The exhausted marksmen were moved out to the airport ahead of the terrorist /hostage group. It was there that the order to fire was given [or heard]while not all targets were truly acquired. This resulted in a terrorist throwing a grenade into the helicopter.222.153.185.28 (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Splitting police section??

Who put that they wanted to split the 'Police' section into a new article? I wouldn't recommend splitting the section into another article though, because a new article just talking about police snipers versus military snipers is just bogus. WinterSpw (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the difference between military snipers and civilian law enforcement snipers warrants a separate article. I believe that in context, the law enforcement or police section should be exactly where it belongs, there is not enough content nor validity to create a separate article. -Signaleer (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Littleman_TAMU^(talk) 22:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "sniper" :
  • {{cite book |author=[[John Plaster]] |title=[[The Ultimate Sniper]]: An Advanced Training Manual For Military And Police Snipers |publisher=Paladin Press |year=2006 |pages=5 |id=ISBN 0-87364-704-1}}
  • {{cite book |author=John Plaster |title=[[The Ultimate Sniper]]: An Advanced Training Manual For Military And Police Snipers |publisher=Paladin Press |year=2006 |pages=5 |id=ISBN 0-87364-704-1}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Snipers of the Kystjegerkommandoen

I have just added this info under " range ":

" During the Operation Harekate Yolo mission in Afghanistan, A Norwegian sniper of the Kystjegerkommandoen aiming from a trench hit one of the Taliban insurgents ( Human Target ) from a distance of 1380 meters, using 12,7mm «multi-purpose»-ammunision " Mortyman (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Range and mention of Norwegian specialforces

I see that the info I posted regarding the range of one shot fired by a Norwegian specialforces soldier and the source of this info has been labelled with " ^{[unreliable source?]} ".

The info is correct and the article is siting sources within the Norwegian armed forces. The insident has actually been under investigation in Norway. Not because of the range of the shot, but because of the ammo used. it is normally not intended for soft human targets. If there was any false info regarding the range, I'm sure that that also would have been adressed. This source is in Norwegain, but I don't see how that can be a negativity to the article. If we were only to site English sources and regard that as the only truth in the world, then we would all have a serious problem. Please remove the label. Mortyman (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Zoom power

What are some usual zoom levels for a sniper rifle scope and how far can you shoot accuately for each zoom level? Wizrdwarts 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Most sniper rifles are at about 10x. DMR rifles can be as low as 3x or so, and a steyr aug is 1.5x. High power rifles go to as high as about 17x. Some specialized rifles may use higher power but that's rare. Qwasty 22:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The scope's magnification doesn't determine the rifle's accuracy, it only makes it easier to see targets further away. Target scopes (sometimes called "target/varmint") can be up to 40x magnification [1], but at these levels it becomes difficult to follow movement and the scope becomes larger, heavier and possibly more fragile. The happy medium with sniper rifles seem to be 6x to 12x. Deon Steyn 08:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Legality

Are there any special laws against sniper rifles similar to the laws on automatics (in the United States)? Or are they completly legal? Zachorious 04:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

currently there are no laws relating to sniper rifles specifically. There are laws about things such as flash hiders and suppressors that affect sniper rifles, however. Probably the main reason there are no laws regarding sniper rifles is that there is no distintive feature of sniper rifles that can be used to decide which rifles are legal and which are not. Consequently, any law addressing sniper rifles is likely to affect nearly everything. Qwasty 05:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the only difference between some sniper rifles and some hunting rifles is the targets to which they are applied. — DAGwyn 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, some of the the current crop of bolt-action models are civilian hunting or target types that have been modified to increase accuracy and adapt the mounting for optics to the more "universal" Picatinny rail. Restrictions on "sniper rifles" fould either have to be made on what the target is--which is essentially already done by laws regarding homocide--or rather nebulous traits like accuracy or accessories. Deathbunny 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much focus on US equipment?

Just an observation... all the images are of US military personnel and equipment... surely there are some suitable photos of military sharpshooters from other countries using their rifles as well?--Commander Zulu 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think so and it's not just the images, the content seems to have turned towards "modern US sniper rifle tactics and training". There are plenty of other images out there, more focused on RIFLES and not snipers (which belong on the sniper page. I will source some better images from other articles. Deon Steyn 14:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the two images at the top of the article with one showing a typical sniper, which I feel is more appropriate since the articl's subject is the rifles and not people shooting them only and this is a typical sniper rifle. I have also found a historical pic and added it to that section and further one replaced one of an M14 with another of a French FRF2 which is also bolt-action. Deon Steyn 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell whether that french rifle has a magazine or not. At first glance it appeared that it did and I was about to note that some bolt actions have magazines similar to semi-autos, but the other photo on the page for that rifle doesn't appear to show a magazine. Neither photo is clear enough to tell for sure.

The article started out being too US centric, and it's gradually improving. As far as photos go, it's hard to find photos of non-US stuff on wikipedia sometimes.

Qwasty 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Types of sniper rifles

How can we class the different types of sniper rifles? Here's a list of what is possible:

• antipersonnel
• antimateriel
• military
• police
• covert urban, assassin
• criminal
• semi auto
• bolt action
• small caliber and ultra-quiet (used equally for for materiel such as lights, personnel, and other living things like dogs and birds)

Any other ideas? I'm not sure if it's even possible to come up with a consistent classification method

Qwasty 21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not much of a classification method, since most of the "categories" you listed are overlaping. For instance, a military sniper rifle may be anti-personnel or anti-materiel, bolt-action or gas-operated (semi-automatic), and so on. Also, I don't think "covert urban/assassin" and "criminal" are much of a categorization either.

If we have to come up with a classification method, it has to begin with the most general "classes", which in my opinion consists of military and law enforcement types, and then breaking these two categories down into more specific types. A separate section/subsection could then be used for weapons that don't fit on neither categories. —Squalla 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why categorise them at all? "Military" and "Police" really seems to sum it up pretty well- there are no "Civilian" Sniper Rifles, AFAIK, beyond commercial hunting rifles which have been accurised and had a scope mounted on them. While we're here, there seems to be a little bit of Tom Clancy-esque Ninja Fanboy tone to the general article- it's 1000 percent better than it was before, but I can't help but feel the article still seems to be aimed at people who play CounterStrike a lot... I'm just not entirely sure what I can add to the article, since modern weapons really aren't my area of expertise. --Commander Zulu 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Commander Zulu. The commonly accepted categories are the ones I left after cleaning up the section, namely military, police and anti-materiel. It is also a categorization used by other sources like World Guns (although he calls uses large caliber instead of anti-materiel), see [2]. This covers all types of "sniper rifes" in the scope of this article without including completely different weapons that snipers might also use (pistol, suitcase guns and goodness knows what else) that is outside of the scope of this article, but might be relevant to the sniper article. Deon Steyn 08:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we decide on, I think there ought to be a "special" category to cover the oddball weapons that don't fit neatly in any category. The ideal example of this, with common usage all over the world, is the suppressed .22 long rifle. That weapon is used equally for anti-materiel and anti-personnel, and both by military and police. The rifle-caliber thomson contender pistols are another good example. There may be others that I haven't thought of.

For example, the scoped crossbow was used before the suppressed .22 became popular, so if there's odd weapons like that, I'm sure there's others that don't immediately come to mind. I have heard that the scoped crossbows are still used by countries that can't buy the suppressed .22's due to sanctions or whatever. So, while not a rifle, it fills the same niche as the .22 and may deserve a mention if it turns out that it's still actually getting used somewhere

Qwasty 20:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Introductory definition

We need consensus on the introductory definition. Firstly, I think we should remove any mention of "stealth" or "from a concealed position", because these rifles are not specially designed to cater for this (any more so than any other rifle). "Agree" or "Oppose"? Please keep answers as short as possible. Deon Steyn 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. (Refer to the "Intro" discussion for reasons.) —Squalla 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

They are designed for stealth. The stock's butts usually have a butt hook, and a relief bevel, that are solely for use in the prone position. (mcmillan A3, A4, and a few others). The forends are flattened rather than rounded so they're more suited to resting on something that helps conceal the sniper, such as a window sill, rucksack, logs, etc. (hunting rifles have round forends to be rested on a hand).

We've argued this back and forth for a while now, and to me it seems obvious that a sniper rifle would be intended for exclusive use in a concealed fashion. Otherwise, the lousy bolt action must compete with machine guns. The only times I've seen snipers operate unconcealed is when they're part of a force that has already so-thoroughly dominated their enemies that they can get away with it. That's more like shooting fish in a barrel than true sniping, and I've only seen it happen in extremely one-sided conflicts involving the USA somewhere (although the sniper may be canadian, or whatever).

Qwasty 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The stock and forearm of a sniper rifle are designed for comfort/stance reasons, not "stealth". You should stop making these narrow-minded statements about sniper rifles being used exclusively by snipers in a "stealthy" fashion—this is simply not true.

—Squalla 21:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My narrow minded statements about stocks having features designed for stealth are industry facts you fool. Talk to Rock Mcmillan at Mcbros and try to convince him you know more about it than he does (Yes, I have done it myself). Here's his phone number: 623 582 9635.

We've already expanded the definition of "sniper rifle" to include marksman rifles. If you expand the definition of sniper rifles to rifles not used for sniping (or not designed for it), then there is no longer any such thing as a sniper rifle. The subtle differences blur away very quickly. I haven't written the stocks section yet, but I'm nearly ready to, and when I do, you'll see more clearly. Or, you can start it yourself, and I'll pick up on it later today. Here's a starting point for you (all of these features aid stealth):

• The rounded forearms on civilian hunting rifles neatly fit into v-shaped padded rifle bags.
• The flat forearms of a typical modern sniper rifle stock does not fit in v-shaped rifle bags, but is better suited to impromptu rests such as a log, rock, rucksack, etc.
• The butt of a civilian hunting stock is rounded on the bottom to better fit in fancy shooting bags
• The butt of the sniper's stock is flat on the bottom so a sand sock or micrometer can be used to change the vertical aim point
• The civilian usually fires from a standing position ("stance"), or from a sitting position with bags on a shooting bench
• The sniper usually fires from a low-observable prone position, the stock has bevels and cutouts to support that ("comfort")

Or, if you prefer, watch some TV and play some computer games to come up with your ideas about what a sniper rifle is. As for me, I have more knowledge on this topic than all the other editors combined, including you. That's not a jab at anyone, it's a fact. This article has exploded with a tremendous amount of information since I started editing it. Look at the history if you want to know who's been putting it all in. On top of that, I've found cites without fail on every fact where I've been disputed, and eventually I'll put in cites (or information that makes it obvious) for everything we're talking about here.

Qwasty 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does everything you wrote in your reply directly relate sniper rifles to stealth? It relates them to the stance they are supposed/normally fired from—a prone position—which is exactly what I stated. "Prone position" does not equal "stealth". You have just confirmed my point, which is kinda ironic when you consider yourself such a good writer and expert on the subject.

By the way, I'm not exactly sure, but I think personal attacks aren't exactly encouraged in Wikipedia. Keep the attitude up and I'll find out about it. —Squalla 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You called me narrow minded. You could have said "narrow statements" instead of "narrow-minded statements".

Back to the stealthy stocks issue. Lets see if I can make this more clear for you:

• Stocks on sniper rifles have features to accomodate the prone position
• The prone position accomodates stealth more than any other position
• Sniper's use the prone position more often than any other position

As you said, the features I mentioned don't directly relate to stealth. But, as a matter of fact, little if anything about a sniper rifle does. As I've said before, sniper rifles aren't much different from any other rifle, and so if we don't include some reference to "used by a sniper" as part of the distinguishing criterion, we don't have much to write about. I think it's ridiculous I have to argue this in an article called Sniper rifle.

Additionally, if the rifle is not used stealthily, then:

• It's not being used for sniping (which requires stealth, by definition)
• A "sniper rifle" is not required

And then the scope opens to include pretty much everything. I accept the inclusion of DMR and marksman rifles because they are closely related, and are frequently used in sniper roles, and so they sometimes have correspondingly suitable features - but not always!

Sniper rifle logic leading to a definition, with article scope breakdown:

• Used by a sniper - see Sniper
  • Sniper uses his rifle stealthily - details on usage, see Sniper
  • Rifle features must accomodate stealthy usage - within scope of this article
• Not used by a sniper - outside scope, and not a sniper rifle, see Rifle

There's no defining physical feature of a sniper rifle that makes it unequivocally identifiable as a sniper rifle. Here's some things that do not count towards defining a rifle as a sniper rifle, with examples:

• Caliber - BB, .22 Long Rifle, .338 Lapua
• Range - 3 inches, 5 meters, 2500 meters
• Accuracy - 40 MOA, 1 MOA, .5 MOA, .25 MOA
• Sights - 1.5x scope, 40x scope, iron sights, laser sight, dot sight, none at all
• Model numbers - M40A3, M21, Remington 700
• Model names - Tasco Super Sniper Scope, Remington PSS (Police Sniper System)
• Who uses it - US Army, LAPD, Charles Whitman, Carlos Hathcock, Vasily Zaitsev

So, to sum up, there's only 3 canonical rules of what a sniper rifle is, and that this article should be primarily built around:

1. Rifle is used for sniping
2. Rifle is used stealthily
3. Rifle features accomodate stealthy usage

Qwasty 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

...Which brings us back to the previous "Intro" discussion. You refuse to accept that a sniper rifle is not necessarily used by a sniper, and thus is not necessarily used in a "stealthy" fashion. There are several physical features that set what we call a sniper rifle apart from other types of rifles. As with pratically any other type of firearm, there is rarely a consensus for classification; as an encyclopedia article, the page should offer reasonable distinctions that set a sniper rifle apart from other weapons, and as much as you want to convince me otherwise, "stealth" is not a very reasonable one. I've said it before, and I'll say it one last time: a sniper rifle, despite its name, is not necessarily A) used by a sniper, B) used in a "stealthy"/concealed fashion, and C) designed to accomodate stealthy usage (but rather stance, which may not necessarily be prone). I'm not the only one who thinks you are wrong, but you refuse to accept anyone else's opinions, and this is getting old, really. You can't just pick an article and do whatever you feel like with it, especially when there are other users repeatedly questioning your opinions and editing work. —Squalla 01:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Stealth" is definitely the wrong word to be using here, IMO... it has far too many "l337 CounterStrike pl4y0r" connotations in this context for an academic work. FWIW, I'd argue that a Sniper Rifle can be defined thusly:

• Rifle is specifically designed or modified for accuracy;
• Used by Military or Police
• Has a telescopic or other special purpose sight.

The "Military or Police" thing is very important, IMO... after all, simply bolting a Leupold 3-9x40 scope and a bipod onto an over-the-counter Remington 700 does not automatically make it a "Sniper Rifle" (unless you're one of those people who hang out at rifle ranges with a backwards "SWAT" hat or USMC cover on, yet are not actually in the police or military), and the article should reflect that. Otherwise, I Agree with Squalla. --Commander Zulu 02:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the older version that said the rifle is used from a concealed position, but since we've expanded the scope of this article to include DMR's and marksman rifles, "stealth" covers everything without implying it's required.

Your definition is incorrect:

• Rifle is specifically designed or modified for accuracy - This applies to most rifles, but may exclude some like .22 cal sniper rifles
• Used by Military or Police - plenty of organizations and individuals use sniper rifles that are not formally part of any government recognized military or police organization
• Has a telescopic or other special purpose sight. - Once again, this applies to most bolt action rifles, but may exclude .22 cal sniper rifles

Qwasty 02:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the phrase "obsolete antiques" in the opening paragraph to "obsolete miltary surplus or sporting arms"- "Antique" has a specific definition in the Arms Laws of most countries, being any gun (or modern replica thereof) manufactured before 1898 in the US, and any gun (for which cartridge ammunition is not available) manufactured before either 1901 (in Australia) or is more than 100 years old (New Zealand, UK?). Whilst some of the muzzleloading rifles- such as the 1853 Enfield and the Kentucky Rifle- were capable of incredible accuracy (for their day), they're not even close to the accuracy levels required by "Modern" Sniper rifles- but most of the WWI/WWII rifles are, hence the change to clarify this, without changing the overall thrust of the intro. --Commander Zulu 02:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence where you changed that is about civilian arms, not military surplus, so I changed it back, but I also changed the phrase "obsolete antiques" to "obsolete models" to avoid definitional vagaries. That should fulfill your intent in fewer words. Qwasty 03:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right- "obsolete models" does make more sense in context and is a better term. --Commander Zulu 03:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So myself, Commander Zulu and Squalla agree that the term "stealth" and "concealed position" be removed from the definition on the following grounds

• This article doesn't cover all weapons used for sniping
• By far the greatest majority of sniper rifles around the world and throughout history have had no special features designed to aid stealth or concealment.

I will change the intro accordingly. Deon Steyn 05:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Those changes are outside the scope of sniping. I will revert until the cows come home. I would like to add that the sentence refers to requirements, so if it makes you feel better, just think of sniper rifles as rifles that aren't required to be used stealthily (however wrong that may be). Qwasty 06:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The next item in the definition I feel should be removed is selective engagement of specific targets. This is redundant when the subject is already defined as a rifle which by implication is used to engage a target of the shooter's selection and therefore this definition can apply to pistols, missiles or clubs ans as such serves no purpose. Remove this? Agree or Oppose? Deon Steyn 06:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Sniper rifles are the most selective in their targets, of all other rifles. Since this article is primarily about rifles, comparisons to clubs and missiles don't really apply. Qwasty 06:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree in Principle. I agree that Sniper rifles are designed for precision accuracy (and are considerably more selective than, say, an AK-47), but the phrase "selective engagement of specific targets" sounds like the PR department of the US DoD came up with it- it should be changed to something a bit less "doublespeak", IMO. --Commander Zulu 06:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support changing the word selective to tactical, since that leads to some more depth of meaning than is immediately apparent from the word selectiveQwasty 06:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again Qwasty attempts to divert attention from the issues at hand. tactical makes even less sense. Deon Steyn 06:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maximum effective range ammunition table

I'd like to see some check boxes in the table for police and military usage so that people can see that police usage is mostly 7.62 and under, and military usage is mostly 7.62 and over, with the crossover being at 7.62. Maybe just add two columns titled "military usage" and "police usage" with asterisks in each cell corresponding to each category? Qwasty 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Gadget Guns???

Sorry, what have these got to do with Sniper Rifles? That sort of stuff belongs in James Bond Movies, not a serious article on Sniper Rifles... besides, the fact that they aren't scoped and have to be used at close range kind of precludes them as being classified as "Sniper Rifles". Opinions? --Commander Zulu 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Range isn't really relevant. .22 caliber sniper rifles have ranges of only about 10 meters. Some of the gadget guns are fully functional scoped sniper rifles. I'm looking for more cites, but I've seen some that were assembled from pieces that looked like common objects: The scope was a flashlight, the stock was a book, and the rifle was a cane. Granted, since this stuff tends to be highly clandestine, not much info on modern weapons is available, but I included a wikipedia link to a man who was assassinated with an umbrella gun, and I've seen video of one of Saddam Hussein's secret police machine shops where a much more capable umbrella gun was found partly-finished. Qwasty 02:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think they qualify as "Sniper Rifles"... "Assassination Weapons", yes, but the two terms aren't synonyms. Why not start a new article- Assassination Weapons- link it to the main Sniper Rifle article, and then put the Gadget Guns information in the Assassination Weapons article? That way, it's still tangentially linked to "Sniper Rifles" without straying un-necessarily into James Bond territory. --Commander Zulu 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That phrase about gadget guns is there to illustrate the wide scope of sniper weapons. It's only a few words long, and while they are known to exist, not enough specific information is available on them to justify a seperate article. Qwasty 03:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the point you are missing, this is not a page for sniper's weapons, that can be discussed on te sniper page. This page if for a specific type of rifle (who happens to share it's name with it's most common user), but it by no means defined by only one of the groups who use these rifles or the way they use them. Deon Steyn 06:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

.22 caliber sniper rifles

Doesn't ".22 calibre sniper rifle" strike you as an oxymoron? A .22 rifle has trouble killing a hare at 40yds, never mind being able to kill a person. If you're referring to the sort of .22 rifle used in The Day Of The Jackal (loaded with special ammunition) then maybe- but if it hasn't got a telescopic sight, then it's either a standard commerical .22 rifle (and thus not a Sniper Rifle), or it's designed to be used at point-blank range, in which case it's an assassination weapon- which is an entirely different kettle of fish to a Sniper Rifle. Some sniper rifles are assassination weapons, but not all assassination weapons are sniper rifles. "Military" can include "Paramilitary" organisations, but "individuals" with sniper rifles are either target shooters (most of whom dislike being called "Snipers" because of the Tom Clancy fanclub), or Assassins. Can you give me an example of a ".22 calibre Sniper Rifle"? Quite frankly, I really don't see how any gun that has to be used at point-blank range- even if it is from cover or concealment- can really qualify as a "Sniper Rifle". --Commander Zulu 03:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Click on the cited references. Also read some of the other references in the article, they get a lot of press. They can be quite lethal, even with subsonic rounds. They have replaced crossbows for ultra quiet work, and in fact they are even quieter. .22 cal sniper rifles do pretty much everything:

• anti-materiel on lights, radios, etc
• anti-personnel on sentries
• "anti-guard-animal" on dogs and other critters

As I've said before, sniping is about stealth, not power, range, or even accuracy. In many ways, the suppressed .22 is the ultimate sniper rifle since it can do ANY task that ANY other type of sniper rifle can do, albeit at much shorter ranges.

Qwasty 04:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think we're talking at cross-purposes, especially with regards to what a sniper is. A soldier picking off enemy soldiers across no-man's land with a scoped rifle is a sniper. Someone hiding behind a tree and shooting a guard dog from 6ft away with a silenced .22 is not a sniper, IMO. I strongly disagree that sniping is solely about stealth. Remaining concealed is a part of what a sniper does, but you're making them out to be some kind of "Ninja with a tricked out gun", which I don't think is right. Snipers are supposed to be able to hit a target with unerring precision on the first shot, and in many cases- for example, involving police marksmen/snipers- it's actually an advantage for the sniper to be visible, so the (potential) target realises what they are up against. --Commander Zulu 04:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

These weapons fall completely outside of the scope of this article, Qwasty you have been directed to the sniper page several times. If these weapons are user by snipers as you claim, feel free to add it to that article. Deon Steyn 06:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They aren't outside the scope. I've already added several cites. Maybe you haven't read them? Qwasty 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They are outside of the scope, perhaps you haven't read my reply and this relates to your concerns over "stealth" and other topics too. This article is not about the "rifles of snipers" is is a specific type of rifle, that happens to include the word "sniper". Deon Steyn 06:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard so far today. I can't reason with ideas like that. I think what you want is an article about sniper rifles as shown in the entertainment media. Qwasty 06:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't reason with ideas like this, because you continue to make basic mistakes in logic and you continue to ignore consensus opinion. Deon Steyn 06:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)