"Sniper" training

I know there are several professional schools that teach (qualified) civilians sniper skills. I don't really get it, except as something 'fun' to learn, or as a military/history buff; but from what I understand, being a military sniper is a lot of work, very dangerous work; even the training would be super challenging for even the fittest among us. So why are these courses popular with civilians?


Chinese snipers:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-05/23/content_16523553_7.htm


Here's a very current article discussing the different types of sniper training: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/01/28/pointers-learning-snipercraft/

I've deployed many times (when I was on active duty); several times getting predeployment training and equipment issue on a military base right next to the Army sniper training school. I've spent hours watching them in action and training; I'm sure some of you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Also,
In light of the recent, horrible ambush on LEO's (man hunt still ongoing last I heard); wouldn't taking training like this be tantamount to seeking training to make improvised explosives, poisons, or some other 'evil' skill? Sorry, I just don't get it. Not saying it should be illegal or stupid; I just don't understand why a legit civilian would put in all that work, crawling, etc. for a skill that they will never use.

Some crazy Bangladesh Army sniper training (you've got to see this):
http://www.use.com/Bangladesh_Army_Sniper_Training_81f7556724733b3b9200
I think they are doing something wrong, LOL.

Having said that, lets say there is a good reason; what schools do you recommend, have attended, or think would be good?

Actual military sniper school is not something I would want to do. If I recall I remember seeing something on TV documenting what they go through. They had to basically lay in the same spot for over a day and keep eyes on a target without making enough movement to be detected....

But i would love to learn how to shoot like them. They are highly skilled

My SEAL friend is one. His last sniper class was about 6 weeks long. Prefers a 300 WinMag and bangs out 1,000 yard moving target shots. I won't post pictures of some of his "hides", but I have to say, a couple in broad daylight were virtually invisible.

I think civilian "sniper schools" are more about learning how to sight and not so much cool ghillie suits and making hides. As a matter of fact I would say most do not even highlight the camouflaging skills.

I think the term "sniper" is as misused as "operator". Unless you're hunting "man" in a military setting, the training should be called "long range precision". Military training delves more into other aspects that civilian training wont touch... Stalking, camouflage, movement, etc. LEO and civilian shooters often outshoot military shooters in competitions. Why? Because the military shooter isnt concerned with extreme accuracy. That's only part of their skill set.

Ive taken a few of those courses and, for me, it is all about the fun.

A military sniper isn't concerned with extreme accuracy? I'm confused by that statement

Evojoeix said:

A military sniper isn't concerned with extreme accuracy? I'm confused by that statement

Click to expand...

Center of Mass shots aren't exactly "extreme accuracy" - they have to be taken under adverse conditions at times - but a COM shot isn't like putting rounds thru the same hole.

COM shots have become more of the standard since head shots are more risky, and can have less than ideal effects on the shooter's long-term mental state.

Saurez International offers true Guerilla Sniper Skills. Taking your argument and applying it more conspicuously, most Americans don't need assault rifles and concealable pistols. Hell, most Americans couldn't physically assault anything farther than 100 yards away and can't conceal a pistol without a fanny pack (but I digress).
Realistically is it likely to be used? No. But then again would you rather waste 10 rounds at 1000 and have time to skedaddle in a bad situation or run a much higher risk with 10 rounds at 10 yards.
Then there's former snipers wishing to keep skills fresh. Then there's LE snipers and counters snipers who seek additional training for work.

As far as the legal aspect of everything. There's an old saying "if you do it right you don't need to worry about legalities".
Realistically asides from the Colorado theater shooting, very few of these sensationalized incidents have shown extensive planning. And they're all mainly shoestring affairs absent large quantities of money. I am not going to worry about the guy that spends $5000 on a rifle and $3000 on training. I'm going to worry about the guy that doesn't know how to diagnose and fix (field expedient or otherwise) problems with his weapon safely and properly. And hasn't made the effort to learn and understand the basic rules of safety.

Oh I see what your saying

Minuteman said:

I know there are several professional schools that teach (qualified) civilians sniper skills. I don't really get it, except as something 'fun' to learn, or as a military/history buff; but from what I understand, being a military sniper is a lot of work, very dangerous work; even the training would be super challenging for even the fittest among us. So why are these courses popular with civilians?

Click to expand...

I don't know of any really reputable schools that teach fieldcraft or tactics to those not in the profession. I suspect there may be some ambiguity about what actually constitutes "sniper training". There is a HUGE amount to know and do besides just crawling and shooting.

That said, there is always a segment of the population that attempts to emulate what are often skills and/or achievements associated with power and authority. People pretend to be SF or SEAL or other warrior. My ex-BIL claimed to the girls to be a cop at parties. Being a sniper is just another favorite fantasy.

Chinese snipers:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-05/23/content_16523553_7.htm

Click to expand...

NOT very stealthy....

Here's a very current article discussing the different types of sniper training: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/01/28/pointers-learning-snipercraft/

Click to expand...

While Volk is an overall good guy, this article is not his best work. He could have at least given the correct origin of the term.

Another facet of the article I disagree with has to do with extrapolating close range accuracy to long distances when the challenges are absent. Because a person, their rifle and their ammo can deliver 1 moa at 100 yards has little to do with how they shoot at 1,000 and/or their odds of a first round hit in a variable environment.

A good read: http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/1999/ARL-TR-2065.pdf

...<snip>...
Also,
In light of the recent, horrible ambush on LEO's (man hunt still ongoing last I heard); wouldn't taking training like this be tantamount to seeking training to make improvised explosives, poisons, or some other 'evil' skill?

Click to expand...

This assumes a LOT and draws a correlation where none really exists. Is everyone here who ever discussed and/or enjoyed Tannerite or fireworks a latent terr*rist b*mber? Probably not. Evil is in the mind, and one man's stump removal is another man's carnage.

Sorry, I just don't get it. Not saying it should be illegal or stupid; I just don't understand why a legit civilian would put in all that work, crawling, etc. for a skill that they will never use.

Click to expand...

I'd agree that in normal times, such a skill set isn't needed. Nor is cowboy action shooting, three gun, IDPA, camping, land navigation, martial arts, high power competition and a host of other questionable activities currently enjoyed by the masses.

There is always the remote possibility that times may not always be "normal".

Many people are oblivious to the fact that life isn't foolproof and that no one is immune to disaster or aggression. Conversely, there are a great many people who take courses and buy equipment that help prepare them to do more for themselves and community in case of some life changing event(s). They train for the worst and hope for the best. You'll see them at first aid/CPR workshops, self defense classes, EmComm events, defensive carbine/pistol classes, snow transportation hubs for hospital personnel and other related events.

Some crazy Bangladesh Army sniper training (you've got to see this):
http://www.use.com/Bangladesh_Army_Sniper_Training_81f7556724733b3b9200
I think they are doing something wrong, LOL.

Click to expand...

If not, I hope they never do.

+1 to everything Mr.Shell said.

Thanks Ed, good stuff.

When I attended the High Risk Personnel Course (many years ago now), with Storm Mountain in WVA, they offered a sniper course. Then they also offered a 'gentleman's' version of the course where the instructors treat you better, there is little to no stalking, and everything is a bit easier. Still excellent riflemanship training.

Yoshi said:

I think the term "sniper" is as misused as "operator". Unless you're hunting "man" in a military setting, the training should be called "long range precision". Military training delves more into other aspects that civilian training wont touch... Stalking, camouflage, movement, etc. LEO and civilian shooters often outshoot military shooters in competitions. Why? Because the military shooter isnt concerned with extreme accuracy. That's only part of their skill set.

Ive taken a few of those courses and, for me, it is all about the fun.

Click to expand...

Gunny Carlos would probably disagree......... best guess if he were alive.

Wonderful post Mr. Shell, with regards to information and overall philosophy.

BlackBart said:

Gunny Carlos would probably disagree......... best guess if he were alive.

Click to expand...

In any field, there are a few people who will stand above the crowd. And then there IS the crowd...

The average milspec sniper today is an excellent shot, but the USMC qualification test course is not impossibly demanding (my daughter and I have both passed it) and long distance shooting is but one fraction of the extremely demanding training package.

The qualification target is a 19" wide by about 40" tall torso (indistinct bottom margin) and it is engaged out to 700 yards while stationary, moving or bobbing.

FWIW, 19 x 40 at 700 yards is 2.6 moa x 5.4 moa - not exactly what one would call a precision target when competent F-Class competitors regularly nail a 10" 10 ring at 1k. Many good shots will turn in at least 50% 'X' ring hits, which is only 5". Of course, F-Class is only shot on a one way range.

There are many things the professional guys do that are well beyond my own capability and that of the average guy, but graduating sniper school does not automatically assure one of being a world class shooter. Like most schools, it trains you to learn. The guys who shoot exceptionally well do so because they are driven by their own interest, not necessarily by their training. We shoot with several former snipers and they run the full range from barely competent to truly gifted.

E.Shell said:

In any field, there are a few people who will stand above the crowd. And then there IS the crowd...

The average milspec sniper today is an excellent shot, but the USMC qualification test course is not impossibly demanding (my daughter and I have both passed it) and long distance shooting is but one fraction of the extremely demanding training package.

The qualification target is a 19" wide by about 40" tall torso (indistinct bottom margin) and it is engaged out to 700 yards while stationary, moving or bobbing.

FWIW, 19 x 40 at 700 yards is 2.6 moa x 5.4 moa - not exactly what one would call a precision target when competent F-Class competitors regularly nail a 10" 10 ring at 1k. Many good shots will turn in at least 50% 'X' ring hits, which is only 5". Of course, F-Class is only shot on a one way range.

There are many things the professional guys do that are well beyond my own capability and that of the average guy, but graduating sniper school does not automatically assure one of being a world class shooter. Like most schools, it trains you to learn. The guys who shoot exceptionally well do so because they are driven by their own interest, not necessarily by their training. We shoot with several former snipers and they run the full range from barely competent to truly gifted.

Click to expand...

Define extreme accuracy as Yoshi did. You said "graduating sniper school does not automatically assure one of being a world class shooter" and that's probably true BUT it would at least certify one as being at least pretty damn good. Hathcock and those like him... yes world class, Olympic medalist.... maybe but they don't have someone shooting back.

BlackBart said:

Define extreme accuracy as Yoshi did.

Click to expand...

The 10" or 5" at 1k I mentioned above is a pretty clear definition and probably close enough to "extreme" if we stop short of benchrest.

You said "graduating sniper school does not automatically assure one of being a world class shooter" and that's probably true BUT it would at least certify one as being at least pretty damn good.

Click to expand...

I can see where one might have that impression, but graduation simply means they passed all of the requirements, including the rifle qualification course. It means they are 'good enough', no more, no less. As with any school, those who struggle to pass and those who ace in their sleep it will both get their diplomas.

There is a lot of information out there that contributes to our perceptions. One thing to keep in mind is that just about any TV show one sees on our military capability is someplace between "docu-drama" and "propaganda".

Hathcock and those like him... yes world class, Olympic medalist.... maybe but they don't have someone shooting back.

Click to expand...

Hathcock was indeed a special case, and as such, cannot be considered average. Were his accomplishments truly representative of the craft and considered average in his field, he would not be so celebrated.

I am in no way trying to detract from Mr. Hathcock or any accomplished milspec sniper, I'm just trying to keep it real. Any cross section of humanity will have the good, the bad and the average. As above and from direct personal experience, many of the guys are quite talented and probably have Hathcock's potential, given the same opportunities, but quite a few are not especially noteworthy shots and while they can indeed do the job, "extreme precision" isn't necessarily their forte`. The good news is that extreme precision isn't really what they spend most of their time doing and their battlefield accuracy is what counts in the end.

Speaking of "battlefield accuracy", did you get a chance to read any of the "Army Sniper Error Budget" report I linked above? Did you see where they budget 99 misses at 1,000 yards for every hit with a .308 sniper rifle? The report is a little dated (1999), but shoulder-fired rifle technology hasn't moved much since then and we're still using the same rifles and ammo.

Fair nuff Ed.... I see your point and cannot dispute what you say. Always the gentleman......

E.Shell said:

There is always the remote possibility that times may not always be "normal".

Many people are oblivious to the fact that life isn't foolproof and that no one is immune to disaster or aggression. Conversely, there are a great many people who take courses and buy equipment that help prepare them to do more for themselves and community in case of some life changing event(s). They train for the worst and hope for the best. You'll see them at first aid/CPR workshops, self defense classes, EmComm events, defensive carbine/pistol classes, snow transportation hubs for hospital personnel and other related events.If not, I hope they never do.

Click to expand...

It is suprising to show up to drive docs and nurses and find a crowd of 4wd's there to serve. Some of them my fellow CERT team members.
Well spoken Ed, thanks for the input.

I would think that the Sgt York's and the Gunny Hathcock's of the world that have been shooting and putting food on the table since they were younger than ten, probably didn't struggle with too much. Since many of the skills came naturally to them. Maybe some of the educational parts but most was probably just a wold in the park.
But,
Speaking of ole Sgt York, he was actually a religious objector ( if we can believe that old black and white film about him ) hahahahah and had to be talked into joining. But, I have read that story also, so, it is probably true.

Mr Hathcock would have been a legandary shooter simply from winning the Wimbeldon Cup , even if he had never deployed to Vietnam.

But more as to the origional posting in this thread :

Anybody with reasonably competent rifle skills would be described in the media as an evil sniper . Deer hunting across fields or along power lines , varmit hunters , F Class competerors. While not the same field intellegence gathering skills as military scout-snipers , bow hunters and turkey hunters camoflague them selves to blend in to the environment.

As far as seeming evil viewed through the eyes of the media , look no farther than the beloved "Carbine Class" nothing but teaching the public how to murder a theater full of vistims , or storm a rival drug house in a turf battle.