Talk:Sniper/Archive 2

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 versus the longer M24 . 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)


 * I have seen the source of the image http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DMSD0510239&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/2005/Marines/DM-SD-05-10239.JPG which says:


 * "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.


 * [[Image:M24 SWS.jpg|right|250px]]
 * 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)
 * [[Image:Overlay_of_Sniper_Photo_in_Question_copy.jpg|right|250px]]


 * 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. -- R OGER D AVIES  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. —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)

Munich Olympics
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 :) DumZiBoT (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "sniper" :

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 " ".

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)