From my research and interviews with former verified Spetnaz snipers and historians who have gone deep into this subject, when they were designing the SVD and PSO-1 system, they basically wanted a more reliable SVT-40 with a better optic that was very practical for combat, with controls common to the Kalashnikov for standardization of training. They did not want a heavy target rifle that could shoot amazing groups, so there was a conscious compromise on accuracy vs portability and fighting. This is where you see the mandate on Dragunov to make a medium-thin barrel profile vs a more target-friendly heavy contour.
That specification was derived from the experiences of Soviet snipers on various fronts throughout the war. They really wanted to be able to maneuver with the rifle, just like the SVT-40 afforded. The Soviet archives are surprisingly-thorough and voluminous in their lessons from "The Great Patriotic War”, though not widely published during the Soviet times.
Former KGB Helsinki Station Cheif’s SVD:
They figured that most engagement distances would be within a certain range, and that a sniper has to displace frequently or face the incoming mortar or artillery fire anyway. That was and still is a very common counter-sniper tactic. Lyudmila Pavlichenko was one of many snipers who suffered mortar barrages in the battles of Odessa and Sevestapol, leading to her medical retirement from serving on the front anymore.
Decades later, when the US finally broke through the institutional resistance within the USMC and US Army to establish permanent sniping schools and purpose-built rifles and optics, we leaned on the heavier barrel profile driven by the competition-based shooting from the USMC and Army Marksmanship programs with their shooting teams.
This also influenced the emphasis on the shooter/spotter concept.
One of the comments from the Russians was that when 2 Snipers were working together, they might focus on shooting multiple targets as quickly as possible as a combat-multiplier, rather than 2 guys focused on the same TGT.
They also dispelled the idea that they were more of a designated marksman, since they went through an entire sniper training program after crucible during initial entry into conscription. These were all guys who shot as much as they could in their local high school shooting teams before being conscripted.
Within the first 2 weeks of crucible, they were evaluated on their performance with the standard service rifle. For those that could hit 3 separate silhouette targets on automatic fire with the AK74 and only 9 rounds, they were then handed an SVD, given a quick class on the PSO-1, and tested on how well they could group and then engage targets at distance with the rifle/scope, under the supervision by a Warrant Officer Sniper Instructor who had many years of almost nothing but sniper training and employment.
If they performed well enough, then they would go into sniper training during their individual skills conscript service, and incorporate with the rest of their cohorts during field and final combined live fire exercises.
Their sniper training was modeled after the German program of the 1920s/1930s, then tweaked after the War, so for anyone who has gone through sniper training in a NATO country, it would be so familiar as to be indistinguishable in most ways but one. While we have a heavy emphasis on radio work for recon, surveillance, call for fire, CASEVAC, and CAS, they had specific fire support officers who were tasked with that.
Interesting subject for sure though.
