IMO it's apples vs oranges - both are fruit from a tree
prius vs. corvette - both have four tires and steering wheel
hobby vs. a job - one you choose to do one for recreation, the other is something that has to be done to survive and put food on the table and a roof overhead
chef vs. cook - one makes an elegant array of specialty goodies, the other gets basic food on a plate for consumption, but in the end everyone gets fed.
comparing the two in the topic is about the same as the fruit, cars, and what you do during the day - that's just about where the comparisons end.
Being a sniper is getting to your targer without you being killed, killing your target and then, getting AWAY without being killed. It aint about punching holes in a paper targert at "X" yards.
a couple of the biggest differences that come to mind are 1) paper doesn't shoot back; whole different world as far as stress level is concerned, and 2) the paper isn't moving. For a sniper who may have spent years learning to perform under conditions of extraordinary stress, often against targets that are moving, it isn't all that surprising that shooting groups against a stationary paper target may not be their greatest skill set.
Shooting on the range is one thing, shooting at someone when, if you miss can get you killed, is quite another.
Shooting a person with an average range of 400 yards is a lot different than focusing on a 1/2 MOA - "X" Ring, so while you can define Shooting in this context as "accuracy on a sub MOA target" the working sniper isn't held to those tolerances or standards. More like to 2 to 4 MOA on average as opposed to 1/2 or 1 MOA. This is why you are a seeing a 3x better result. You're target or focus is 3x smaller with a competition shooter.
so stopping an undesireable action from happening on soft targets consistantly is the goal for the sniper / designated marksman, and as commented frequently with the other duties as assigned, that is sufficient, and if sufficient enough to stop that undesireable action and not cause collateral losses, mission accomplished, top of game in that field.
hitting little X's at usually known distances where only an entry fee, a trophy for the mantle, and maybe a cash prize, points, and ego are at stake is a bit different. doing it consistantly is a different set of mindset and skills, and doing it consistantly mission accomplished, top of game in that field.
both have a foundation in marksmanship skill and understanding, but the level of which varies in the degree of competency for the requirements.
The difference is PRACTICE. My question is, how to get people out practicing their trade, but seems all I'm getting is excuses why they don't.
So I'll ask this, instead of excuses how about changing this topic, or starting a new one on how to improve the situation?
you answered your own question. it's up to the individual to not only meet, but also to "crosstrain" in each to excel past the basic requirements to consistantly perform each needing a large amount of personal dedication and responsibility, that is if they want to and actually when lives are concerned, probably should. it weighs as a larger responsibility but not requirement for the LEO / military sniper / DM, however with other duties as assigned perhaps not practical to accomplish.
in the amount of time spent of talking the talk on the forum today in instead of walking the walk at the range today means that i am delinquent too, should have been triggering today rather than typing, how many are in that same boat?
but i still highly doubt (except in very rare cases), that sniper/DMs and competiton shooters will be as profecient in BOTH enough to be at the top of the game in either. at least they will have a better knowledge / understanding of both elevating the degree of skill in both when having to perform either, but certainly not as high of a level as if dedicating themselves to one or the other. the highest golfer in your regional weekend golf league probably will not stand a chance against tiger woods who practices and golfs 12 hours a day.
put a firearms recreational shooter who does well that is also a member of PETA in a treestand and see what you get, practice / training is a key, but the mindset / motivation to accomplish the task at hand is even more of an underlying factor through executing the act.
i'm not a sniper or full blown rifle competition shooter by any means, however a million years ago when i hunted and competed with archery gear, i could not hold a candle to those that just shot paper exclusively. i placed mid rankings but not enough to go to the top. on the same token taking those guys out in a treestand or stalk, they rarely filled a tag or got close enough to doing so, while i was back at camp field dressing mine by 0930, year after year. unknown ranges and the fact that the quarry wasn't static tossed arrows over and under or succumbed to the "bambi" effect with mindset.
then when trying to get to the top of the ranks in competition, it took away time from excercising my hunting skills (scouting and all the little nuances needed to be extremely consistant and successful) which hurt my hunting success, but improved my paper shooting. went back to concentrating on hunting, paper X's skills started to erode though better than before venturing into X's only territory. - not to mention the equipment varied due to the nature of the job trying to be accomplished.
the two are related no doubt, but still is an apples to oranges comparison depending on the type of juice you want to drink. what i get out of the report is not actually good data to show differences or advantages between competition shooters vs operational snipers just a blurb on table 4. it appears at least to me the intent of the report is to get approval / funding to pursue further development or use a new sighting system to compensate where the sniper is, per the report's table,
PERCEIVED to be lacking in skills when that fish is out of it's own pond and compared to cometition shooters in competition conditions, or to somehow trying to make orapple juice.
some of the criteria in the report in section 4 under the table further skews the data, "unlimited time, from a bench" and a few other points further hints to me that the deck was slightly stacked and modified, as most govt reports are, depending on who's agenda wants to be met. the title of the table itself: "unstressed, un-operational conditions"
with average entry level sniper vs.
"able to compete successfully in national level match competition" - so is placing second to last a successful showing? it's not defined. plus that was vs. the
top level of bench
shooters. and even those numbers were estimated, not actual. seems to me the deck was more than stacked, anyone take note of that?
perhaps a comparison of "competition shooter in non competition conditions vs. operational sniper" should have been done in fairness, but the report that stemmed this topic is not evaluating the marksmanship skills of a sniper vs. competition shooter in the first place! the report seems to be leaning toward getting a new automatic ballistic correction sighting / firing system approved, vs. manual calculations. using the a few errors of an operational sniper in competition conditions vs. a competitor in competition conditions, which were estimations, an not really sniper vs. compeition shooter side by side. read the small print, they actually put their own down on the report a little vs. civilian shooters, but at least they did it in an attempt to get the better equipment they wanted, in order to close that "
perceived" gap.
actually when reading the report that stemmed this topic again, no where in it is a sniper and a competition shooter shooting side by side, and the aiming errors are
estimates based on....what? it's not defined.
i have no doubt the competition shooters are better apt at creating smaller groups and less aiming errors at known distances in controlled circumstances, through sheer repetitous excercising of marksmanship skills, but that is their forte especially in "unstressed, un-operational conditions"
in the end, i would not want to be the soft target in the optic of either comp shooter or sniper at any distance or weather condition, but moreso in the sniper / DM's optic when the conditions are more extreme, and more is on the line other than a trophy or a national ranking, there is no bench or familiar comfortable firing point to shoot from, and if the shot has to be taken in seconds, which is the sniper / DMs forte especially in "stressed operational conditions", and is further commented about by the author in 4.2.4 of the report.
actually when you read the report, not once did it say a round was actually fired, either by a sniper or competition shooter... read it over and over...not one round fired. it's an report using analysis of known data of weapon systems, ammo, and environmental characteristics, computing it, and with a little speculation how they should be improved by by implementation of the new sighting system. read it again with that in mind. not 1 round fired to back up anything briefed in the report. just a bunch of ballistic data, charts, graphs, and some speculation to use as justification for further exploration of a automatic adjusting sighting system for better first round hit probability.
the report is just spitting out results of what we take for granted today through ballistic programs and iphones - a bunch of data computted and compiled, without a shot taken, with a little drama to help spur approval for the sighting system.
though an interesting thread topic, the report referenced that spurred the thread is a "virtual" one not executed in reality, with no proof in it of one type of shooter being better than the other. i would not want my lawyer to use it in a court of law.
sounds alot like the begining of asking for something what is now the BORS, with some sort of wind estimating laser sensor added.
