The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 20, 2016, 02:58 PM   #26
roashooter
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Posts: 508
from the looks of it...you all scared the OP away............not a word since the first post
roashooter is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 07:24 PM   #27
johnwilliamson062
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
He just forgot his PW.

Jimro,
Let me clarify. WWII US "snipers" were not trained to conceal themselves, move discretely, stalk, record observed intelligence, along with many other skills a modern "sniper" fills. At least not to the proficiency of their contemporaries and certainly not modern "snipers." They were simply thrown out there to add another long-range option. Many, like Ted Gundy, were simply issued a scoped rifle with no additional training because they had the highest riflery score in qualifications.

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; September 20, 2016 at 08:26 PM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 07:45 PM   #28
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,824
M-1D Garand.

Pros: 30-06. Ballistic advantage. Longer range. Parts interchangeable with other M-1 Garands.

Cons: Over 10 lbs. Long. Heavier ammo. $$$. M-1Ds are not cheap (heck, M-1s aren't cheap for that matter).

SKS /w scope.

Pros: Carbine length, medium weight. Higher capacity internal magazine. Lighter ammo. Inexpensive set up.

Cons: Shorter range. If equipped with receiver cover mounted scope, it will be inherently inaccurate since the receiver cover can shift. If the scope is mounted on the rear sight base, then no back up rear sight and the user is limited to long eye relief scopes.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 07:54 PM   #29
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,824
BTW, WW II American "sniper" was an iffy thing at best. In the US Army, there was one rifle per company and the man who received it wasn't necessarily trained as a sniper. I discuss this in Chapter 14 of my book on sharpshooters. There was some sniper training and formal sniper platoon establishment (think USMC).

Our equipment wasn't the best either. The 03A4 had that miserable M73 Weaver scope that wasn't nitrogen filled. The Lyman Alaskan was better, but scarce. The M-84 was better than the M73, but the M-1C and M-1D were very late comers in the war.

Both the M-1C and M-1D were tested at the same time. As we know, the M-1C required the receiver to be drilled and tapped before hardening. This required the receiver to be sent to Griffin & Howe and then returned to Springfield for hardening. Awkward at best but politics played its role and the NY Senator who got Griffin & Howe the contract wasn't interested in efficiency. John Garand himself invented the M-1D and thought it was superior as all that needed to be done was to modify the barrel and handguard. Quick and simple and everything could be done in-house at Springfield Armory.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old September 21, 2016, 03:03 PM   #30
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
Quote:
Jimro,
Let me clarify. WWII US "snipers" were not trained to conceal themselves, move discretely, stalk, record observed intelligence, along with many other skills a modern "sniper" fills. At least not to the proficiency of their contemporaries and certainly not modern "snipers." They were simply thrown out there to add another long-range option. Many, like Ted Gundy, were simply issued a scoped rifle with no additional training because they had the highest riflery score in qualifications.
Sort of. You aren't wrong, but you aren't telling the whole story. Since there isn't space here to tell the whole story, once again I'll try to be as brief as possible to cover just the pertinent information.

The US Army did not have a "program of record" for sniper training in WWII. That left units, generally at the Division level, to conduct their own sniper training. This was the norm for the US Army until the Army Markmsanship Unit created their program, which was eventually replaced by the US Army Infantry School's Sniper qualification course in the mid 1980s.

Some units that spent a great deal of time in England before D-Day received British sniper training, which is essentially what we have today. Others as you said were simply given a rifle and told to go sniper, and just like our early pilots (the ones who came back became Senior Pilots and then Instructors) our Snipers did the same thing in other units and theaters. To this day the Army still maintains some "Division Schools" programs that aren't Army programs of record, although I haven't kept track of the 25th ID's Jungle Warfare school to see if TRADOC has adopted the POI as sacred text just yet.

Modern SDM training, which was first formalized by the AMU and later replaced by the Infantry School's SDM qualification course, has done the same thing. Except instead of following the British sniper school model it follows a "combat marksmanship" curriculum. Essentially more ballistics, more shooting positions, and getting good at them. The SDM program of today could have been any one of dozens of division sniper schools if the Division had wanted to train people that way, but there were never enough sniper rifles in the Army to issue one per squad, so I don't know of any Division sniper school that followed the SDM model as we recognize it today.

But my previous point still stands, snipers are lead by Commanders and SDMs are lead by Squad Leaders. The actual equipment they use is often the same. Even today some nations have different roles for Snipers, placing them down to the Platoon level the way the Russians do, and others don't bother giving a Sniper section to anyone less than a Battle Group (BN equivalent) commander. It may seem like an artificial distinction, but in reality it is not, there just is too much difference in how you employ them (no matter what training pipeline they came out of) to confuse the two.

Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.
Jimro is offline  
Old September 22, 2016, 09:19 AM   #31
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
An interesting read, if you can find of is the "50 year History of the AMU"

The military in general was not interested in peace time sniper training. The AMU took the ball and ran with it during Vietnam, and kept it going post war.

The goal of the AMU sniper school was to train snipers to take the craft back to their home units to conduct their own program.

Before I was accepted to attend I had to present a letter from the AK AR-NG confirming my plan to conduct such a program.

The AMU Sniper Course during the 70s provided training of cadre for the SS, FBI, Civilian PDs and yes, the Marine Corp.

I had an advantage as I had the recommendation of Wayne Young, who was the AMU Armor for the Sniper Program they sent to Vietnam, and Vigril Umpenhower who was on my rifle team. Umpenhower was the OIC of the Americal Sniper Program trained by the AMU.

The AMU school was replaced by Infantry School Sniper School in 1989 but the AMU is still involved.

The book, 'THE RED CIRCLE' by Brandon Webb, about the Navy SEAL sniper program talks of still using the AMU for the marksmanship phase of their program.

You have to hand it to the Army Marksmanship Unit, without them we wouldn't have the sniper programs we have today.

President Eisenhower learned the value of marksmanship during his command of Allied forces in WWII, so as president, he created the AMU in 1956.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old September 22, 2016, 02:05 PM   #32
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,824
Capt. Kraigwy - I thought post Vietnam the Army and the USMC shut down the sniper training and that it was restarted sometime later. Can you please clarify the history?
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old September 22, 2016, 03:37 PM   #33
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
Quote:
Capt. Kraigwy - I thought post Vietnam the Army and the USMC shut down the sniper training and that it was restarted sometime later. Can you please clarify the history?
Not Kraigwy here..

Brief history of USMC Scout Sniper program

http://www.bobrohrer.com/sea_stories...per_school.pdf

The modern US Army Sniper program traces it's lineage back to 1968 in Vietnam when the AMU and 9th ID put on the first in country Sniper school. The 9th Infantry Division later went on to be one of the Army's "Test Bed" units at Fort Lewis, WA (now Joint Base Lewis McChord) and I have no record of 9th ID continuing with a Division sniper program, although the AMU continued to offer Sniper training continuously up until the adoption of the "official" Army sniper school in the late 80s. The 9th was deactivated as part of the original "peace dividend" following the collapse of the USSR.

Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.
Jimro is offline  
Old September 22, 2016, 04:10 PM   #34
Gunplummer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
There were issue sniper rifles in the Corp after Viet Nam, but if I remember correctly, it was something like one to a company.
Gunplummer is offline  
Reply

Tags
dmr , milsurp , open debate

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.04375 seconds with 10 queries