The death of one shot one kill

[Gungnir Precision]

Would you touch on the intricacies that have sculpted the modern day sniper tactics and shifted the curriculum away from the one shot one kill mindset to the use of the Horus reticle and the application of precision by volume of fire. What do you believe contributed most to the shift? Was it a necessary evil and should the concept remain at the tip of the spear or do you feel that there is a need for a return to zero in the instruction and the mindset in the field back to the origins of the white feather days?

 

[Lowlight]

Blame T.H.

He has no background in sniping, he was a cowboy action shooter from TX who took one class from Rifles Only and now writes the curriculum for the military. When in doubt, cone of lead solves the problem.

Money is the real answer, he had Horus Casino money and like Howard Hughes described way back when, until the rules against buying off decision makers happens, money will talk. Free hunting trips to TX, plane rides across the country free of charge, free Larue OBRs and other gifts hold a lot of sway with guys on fixed military incomes.

It's not 100% accepted anymore, I have seen pushback, but I highly doubt it will change anytime soon as they invested too much money in the system. It's pretty comical to the point even Mike @ MHSA is getting phone calls from members of the military asking to clarify how we do things to make it easier for them as what is being taught is confusing and not being put forth well. When you have teams calling in because we simplified it on a podcast, you have to ask, WTF. With that said, there are still plenty of defenders unwilling to accept criticism over what they are receiving. If you knew what the military is paying for this training you'd shit a brick, it's 4x more than what they paid previously.

The current contracts are written so only A1st can teach it because they are the only SME when it comes to Mils, nobody else can teach it. Says so in the requisition requests.

 

[kocoa88]

Blame T.H.

He has no background in sniping, he was a cowboy action shooter from TX who took one class from Rifles Only and now writes the curriculum for the military. When in doubt, cone of lead solves the problem.

Money is the real answer, he had Horus Casino money and like Howard Hughes described way back when, until the rules against buying off decision makers happens, money will talk. Free hunting trips to TX, plane rides across the country free of charge, free Larue OBRs and other gifts hold a lot of sway with guys on fixed military incomes.

It's not 100% accepted anymore, I have seen pushback, but I highly doubt it will change anytime soon as they invested too much money in the system. It's pretty comical to the point even Mike @ MHSA is getting phone calls from members of the military asking to clarify how we do things to make it easier for them as what is being taught is confusing and not being put forth well. When you have teams calling in because we simplified it on a podcast, you have to ask, WTF. With that said, there are still plenty of defenders unwilling to accept criticism over what they are receiving. If you knew what the military is paying for this training you'd shit a brick, it's 4x more than what they paid previously.

The current contracts are written so only A1st can teach it because they are the only SME when it comes to Mils, nobody else can teach it. Says so in the requisition requests.

This is true on so many levels. The Fundamentals have failed to be taught in his courses. It is a "try to keep up with me course while I dazzle you with my formulas and condescend the class if you don't" COI. If you can call it that. Frank hits the nail on the head. Master the fundamentals and the rest will fall into place. In fact, after a good fundamentals tune up or initial learning marksmanship will accelerate your ability to accurately engage targets in austere environments. I would also suggest to listen to the pod cast that Frank put out while interviewing Caylen Wojeck.

 

[brianf]

its also the way that most of them are being deployed/used.
most of the action has been in cities, so they are used as over watch from a fixed FP.
no need to worry about follow up shots if your not exacing anyway.
of course we want 1st round hits to protect the squad walking down some shit ally, but up on roof top for several days strait and the whole world knows where we are.

 

[FatBoy]

You could see games driving the equipment starting 10 years ago. Now, it looks like that same mindset is creeping into doctrine. Wonder how long it'll be until you see a Jarhead running around with 5 more bags strapped to his vest/armor?

If things pan out like they have over the last 100 years, the budget will get chopped to nothing, gear will all get neglected and become unserviceable and the next time shit kicks off big we'll end up starting basically from 2nd base.

 

[Unknown]

While PRS matches do a great deal to further precision shooting techniques, equipment, and to a degree tactics, I still believe that the first shot is critically important. It would be interesting if a PRS style match started out with one single shot at a fairly long distance (600-1200 yards) that would be a large portion of the score for the entire match. The target could have a quarter MOA 10 ring, and scoring rings from 20 down to zero. Shooters would learn just how far off their first shot was. Having that first shot count for 25-50% of the match score would really drive home the importance of knowing where your cold bore shot will land.

 

[j-huskey]

I've watched and participated in the shooting games for years.
I have seen how field afteraction reports drove competition for a period,
then event creators started "almost" one up on who could create the toughest fastest hardest courses,
to some standardizing in PRS.

Then some training started to mirror the race to harder faster tougher, and got away from real world tactics.

I've seen it in military and law enforcement. When the training for competition started affecting field performance, it was time to re-think the purpose. I stopped some competition participation when is started affecting my job performance "thought process".

The old "one shot, one kill" is an absolute requirement in law enforcement. There is no option for second shot correction in most LE sniper shootings.

There are military options on high value targets where one shot one kill is an absolute necessity. There are times when is absolutely psychologically neccessary.

And there is the old FEB, forward edge of battle, sniping where 2nd shot correction is suited, and much of the military action in Iraq, Syria, Horn of Africa, and some parts of Afghanistan was FEB standard.

One shot one kill needs to be kept. And the thinking behind it needs to be taught and kept alive.
If mustache boy (th) puts it in the background and not where it needs to be, he needs to move on.

One shot one kill is still the absolute most effective sniper tactic for force multiplication.

Rapid fire shots, "sniper style" correct off misses, is room for improvement and something a designated marksman could do just as well without the "sniper doctrine" training required.

My WW2 combat vet Dad would say the current "correct off splash" thing of today was beneath his generations "kill it with one shot, but kill a bunch of them", and go home, shooting and missing was for green troops.

One shot, one kill, is still the professional standard.

 

[Sixfivesavage]

"Horus....proving that you CAN miss fast enough to win a gunfight!"

 

[Unknown]

The cold bore shot requirement for a match seems to me to be a very important test of how well a shooter has learned the factors that are required to make a successful shot. Match directors/course designers who incorporate the cold bore shot put a true test before the competitors. The missions of military snipers, designated marksmen, and law enforcement rifle shooters are all different, but those who can make a good cold bore shot at 600 yards/meters are either damned lucky, or know their stuff.

 

[sinister]

One shot - one kill has always been the standard. If you're not getting a first round hit you can very well compromise your position and blow your chances for a follow-up.

The semi-auto was supposed to support a BUNCH of one-shot kills as opposed to being limited to 5 shots.

The HORRID reticle is a system, plain and simple. Like any system it's only as good as the user's mastery of it. Having a Christmas tree for holds (vice knowing and/or dialing) and follow-on shots (i.e., you blew the first shot) contributes to half-assism.

 

[Geno C.]

A match I used to go to had a cold bore and follow up shot at 600. It wasn't weighted that heavy but I thought it was a step in the right direction. They only had that shot a couple times and then it stopped. Not sure why

 

[MarinePMI]

While PRS matches do a great deal to further precision shooting techniques, equipment, and to a degree tactics, I still believe that the first shot is critically important. It would be interesting if a PRS style match started out with one single shot at a fairly long distance (600-1200 yards) that would be a large portion of the score for the entire match. The target could have a quarter MOA 10 ring, and scoring rings from 20 down to zero. Shooters would learn just how far off their first shot was. Having that first shot count for 25-50% of the match score would really drive home the importance of knowing where your cold bore shot will land.

We've started our local matches this way a few times. A single CB shot at a IPSC Silhouette with a heart shot flapper at 480yds. Only a heart shot counts. Makes for some interesting viewing.

 

[RTH1800]

So why does “TH” remain nameless?

 

[McCrazy]

One Shot, One Kill comes from the days when Snipers were being used offensively. Often going out in 2-man teams, stalking through the area trying to find people to kill. They were out-gunned and out-numbered while often being in enemy territory. Firing multiple times would give away your position and rapidly increase your chances to end up dead.

In more recent times, Snipers and Designated Marksmen have been used in more of a defensive role where they are providing security for a larger element. When they fire they may have a platoon, company, or entire forward operating base to back them up. The amount of fire that they use will then depend on their capability as well as the threat presented. Maybe they have one insurgent to shoot. Maybe there are a hundred insurgents to shoot.

Bottom line, completely different methods of employment require different techniques. Rapid follow-up shots are more stressed in training than they once were because they need to be. However, precision will always be important.

 

[Lowlight]

The above is not what we are talking about,

We had guys come to Rifles Only and after they shoot the first shot, they would immediately follow up with a "Cone of Lead" shooting a group in rapid fashion in a cone pattern. That is what we are talking about, it's not a tactic, it's a mindset. When they expect one outcome and that does not happen, they immediately default to volume.

That is the point, not an offensive vs defensive tactic, but a marksmanship issue.

 

[Lowlight]

So why does “TH” remain nameless?

Why promote a salesman that is why.

 

[RTH1800]

Ok, but here it would be more of a body slam. ?

 

[McCrazy]

The above is not what we are talking about,

We had guys come to Rifles Only and after they shoot the first shot, they would immediately follow up with a "Cone of Lead" shooting a group in rapid fashion in a cone pattern. That is what we are talking about, it's not a tactic, it's a mindset. When they expect one outcome and that does not happen, they immediately default to volume.

That is the point, not an offensive vs defensive tactic, but a marksmanship issue.

That is pretty amusing if that is the case.

Still though, the OP referenced "modern day Sniper tactics", "the tip of the spear", and "the White Feather days" so I figured he was talking about actual Sniper employment and techniques instead of civilian marksmanship issues.

 

[Lowlight]

Totally true, seen it with my own eyes more than once.

They are not taught marksmanship in the way you think, instead, they focus on volume and rapid follow-ups, unfortunately, that has become a Cone of Lead mindset for many. The money is invested in learning a system and not learning better marksmanship. They ignore it and simply look at results, whether that result is 2, 5, or 8 shots, a hit is a hit becomes the mindset.

It's how the system is taught, Take the first shot, spot your impact and correct for a follow-up, but many times you don't spot your impact so they default to volume to make up for the lack of report downrange. It's a speed + volume = successful mentality.

 

[RTH1800]

This might be off topic but from the descriptions I see of PRS it is also focused on speed. That is why I have not prioritized attending matches.

 

[Squat]

One shot one kill..... really guys??? WDo you even consider engagement ranges? Do you think a SWAT “sniper” is dropping the gas station hostage taker at 1200??
Not even going into why grid reticles are useful, if you don’t, you won’t. Cone of lead is a bit of a reach when you have a 0-500 yard engagement zone and are trying to hold a position against an ingressing “army” you need to keep on the glass and trigger no one is looking for an eyeball shot they want to stop the push

All the rest of what’s being said is just amusing. Just had a team of USMC snipers come through and ...... I’ll just end and leave this thread by saying. Stop watching so many movies. No one is putting one round through a mountainous region with swirling wind into a scope and eyeball. Stop dreaming. My mention of mountainous regions should help you with how, why, where, who, we observe at long range because RARELY are we sending in a sniper to do something besides OBSERVATION. Hate on the generals all you want... but they aren’t sending in a sniper team to do something a missile can do better... and the snipers at the tier one groups aren’t whining about Todd. Not disagreeing with Frank on his thoughts on someone’s character but let’s stop with the one shot one kill. The snipers in Vietnam had a 1:3 ratio

 

[Lowlight]

They are not whining because they can't, plenty are complaining but the way the contracts are written they have no point. The money spent on this "Training" is huge so of course very few will complain.

I can absolutely show you complaints that reach my inbox. as well guys stood up in front of a military crowd and did so, that has a huge topic at SHOT. Not everyone agrees, it's just the dissenters have been shut down from publicly commenting. That is a fact. Just me mentioning the complaints after SHOT was met with a host of attacks, including a request I remove the retelling.

This is about marksmanship skills that are being ignored because the mindset has shifted. Fundamentals are being compromised because the system is being sold as a magic bullet solution.

 

[Lowlight]

PS,

Guys called Mike at MHSA this past month after hearing our Podcast, they were deployed and asked him to explain the wind work we were doing, they forwarded what they were taught and given by TH and immediately said, WTF, our ways said a similar thing a lot easier. If this was not an issue, why would they listen to a podcast, call back to the States and ask for a class over the phone?

Things that make you go...

 

[Rudy Gonsior]

These threads kinda crack me up a bit. The idea that "one shot, one kill" capability is dead or gone is genreally seems to be promoted by grumpy old farts who haven't a rifle in decades or young dudes that don't have a clue because the've had their hands glued to their xbox controllers for the last 17 years.

New flash, modern snipers are doing just fine in our craft without the uninformed or antquied opinions of outsiders. Its not that anyone is hurting our feelings with their speculation and mental masterbation of what we are up to, but let me just trying to save you the breath and whatever embarrassment it might bring you.

1.) If you're that old grumpy fuck that I mentioned and you want to continue to be a productive part of the sniper community then by all means do so. Your experience is invaluable especially concerning our history, human behavior, fundamentals, etc. a lot of those aspects of our craft will never change. HOWEVER...other aspects are changing. We've been discovering over the last 17 years some of the old stuff being taught at the begining of the GWOT was straight Bull Shit, not true or now out dated and impractical compared to newer techniques. Its not personal, its just that necessity of the situation trumps nostalgia. The battle field has change and we have change in order to increase our lethality and survivability. Please don't tell me all I need is 24-26" bolt action in .308 with a 5 round internal box magazine with a fixed 10x optic. If you can't understand why I want a 16-20" gas-gun in 6.5/.260 with a 20 round mag and 3-20x optic and NV capability then you being willfully ignorant (this last bit is not referencing any body here in the thread but conversation that gets had fairly often).

If anyone needs an example, Frank does a pretty good job of being the right kinda of old grumpy fart. Love him or hate his fundamentals are solid, his passion for the craft is evident and his curiosity keeps him on the horizon. Doesn't mean I think he's always right but he hasn't settled into being a has been just yet.

2.) If you're a military age male thats never bothered serving as a sniper despite that fact we've been at war for that last 17 years, then please just do your best to be quite and to observe, it will save us the strain of having to roll our eyes into the backs of our heads. I can appreciate the curiosity of the craft and most of us don't distain that in any way. The list of dudes that have supported and influenced our commuinty indirectly without every putting on a uniform is long and expansive. HOWEVER...don't take that as an opportunity to try and make yourself relevant by soliciting us with bull shit (looking at you Todd). If we think you might have something to offer, we'll probably ask, most of us are not above seeking out SMEs from other fields. I just want to politely remind you that we are professional SMEs in killing bad guys. So even if you're working in simular field (say you're a cowboy action shooter or something like that) then great, but just remember that without the ability to observe our occupation in specific context, your going to be making a lot of assumptions. Its not like we are up to some super secrect shit, its just sniping is complex work and 90% of it probably has nothing to do with shooting. Again curiosity is fine, just be aware of how your framing it do you don't come off as some mall ninja weirdo who read all those bull shit stories about Carlos Hathcock one to many times.

 

[Lowlight]

News flash,

Not everyone is an old fart or grumpy, some guys posting here in the negative are active or just recently inactive.

You can still accomplish the mission without a 20 round magazine, I was actively teaching the military up to 2011 (7 years), that is when I stepped down from RO. So old is relative in this case.

And I talk to active duty guys all the time, feedback is continuous and because I am public (Read easy to find) I get calls and emails all the time from guys who don't agree with the training they are currently receiving.

( I will agree with your opinion of me, no issue with anything you wrote, I am old(er) but my curiosity level is high as well as my access to current warfighters. )

Certain tactics are tested by time, just because people can deviate from them does not make it better or worse, just different. Accurate fire is never a bad thing and if someone moves and a single shot drops them enough times they will think better of it. (granted some of the current enemies are too stupid to take cover, but that is a different conversation)

 

[Unknown]

I guess I always thought that change is the one constant. Long ago, a proper prone position (albeit sling and iron sights, not bipod and optics) had the shooter at an angle to his rifle, and now being directly behind the rifle is being taught for PRS type shooting. Perhaps the difference is the type of shooting, or maybe it is just that as we continue to learn, tactics, techniques, and what we know, or thought we knew changes as we learn more.

While knowing how to perform a cold bore shot is of value, it is certainly not the only technique of value.

 

[308pirate]

Long ago, a proper prone position (albeit sling and iron sights, not bipod and optics) had the shooter at an angle to his rifle, and now being directly behind the rifle is being taught for PRS type shooting. Perhaps the difference is the type of shooting, or maybe it is just that as we continue to learn, tactics, techniques, and what we know, or thought we knew changes as we learn more.

There are significant biomechanical reasons why the prone position when using a sling is different than the one used when one is not bound by it and using a bipod or other external support.

A better example would be the progression in sling supported prone position over the years. The prone position I used to use to shoot highpower had very little offset from the bore line and was much more like what international smallbore shooters use. It is not angled way off to the side like you see in the old Army manuals.

However, if I get what Lowlight is saying, it has nothing to do with adapting to a better technique and more to do with letting gear and parochial thinking take the place of marksmanship fundamentals.

 

[Rudy Gonsior]

News flash,

Not everyone is an old fart or grumpy, some guys posting here in the negative are active or just recently inactive.

You can still accomplish the mission without a 20 round magazine, I was actively teaching the military up to 2011 (7 years), that is when I stepped down from RO. So old is relative in this case.

And I talk to active duty guys all the time, feedback is continuous and because I am public (Read easy to find) I get calls and emails all the time from guys who don't agree with the training they are currently receiving.

( I will agree with your opinion of me, no issue with anything you wrote, I am old(er) but my curiosity level is high as well as my access to current warfighters. )

Certain tactics are tested by time, just because people can deviate from them does not make it better or worse, just different. Accurate fire is never a bad thing and if someone moves and a single shot drops them enough times they will think better of it. (granted some of the current enemies are too stupid to take cover, but that is a different conversation)

In response to "old is relative", you're correct, I casted a pretty wide net with that rant but the core of what I was addressing is snipers allowing their situational awareness of new technology and techniques to degrade and decay as time passes. When I hear cries to return to the the old days of "one shot, one kill and phrases like "White Feather Days" it's often an indicator that somebody is stuck in a nostalgic fantasy, sometimes it's older senior snipers that seem incapable of embracing and adapting, sometimes its dudes that have no idea what their talking about. Again wide net and probably a unfair generalization for most caught in it.

As for accomplishing the mission without a 20 round magazine, I suppose it depends doctrinally on where you look. Stictly observing traditional precision interdiction roles, no, 20 rounds on tap is rarely need but. Looking at my experience coming from a special operations background and the mission sets we support, I truly believe the capabilities that a SASS brings to the table is mission essential. The ability of a SASS to continually project precision fires at intervals 2 to 4x the rate over a bolt-gun is an undeniable advantage whether supporting unilateral Direct Action raids or herding commandos during clearing ops. In 2012 I literally had the misfortune of having to press a M24 back in service as a primary SWS in support of DA raid, yeah she did work but top feeding rounds while I could/should be at work, is not a great feeling.

On top of that I'd double down on the argument for SASS/SPR's as mission essential when considering maneuver aspects of current conflicts. Running and gun with a bolt gun vs. gas gun is a no brainer. Now I know I'm preaching to the choir with you Frank, you may have been born at night but it wasn't last night but allow me to underline and restate a truth for others: You simply cannot shoot and movie a bolt gun as dynamically at the same speeds you can run a gas gun. Once you get off your face and are running a bolt gun in extremis, it probably requires a transition to carbine or pistol, the former becoming a weight penalty (my Mk18 came in at 12.5lbs loaded out the other day) or in case of that latter your taking a range and lethality penalty. With the SASS/SPR's you have the answer right in your hands, I not advocating CQC with SWS's but a SASS gives you options a bolt won't.

For those that think that this in extremis situation is an unlikely or irregular even for small isolated maneuver elements operating along the forward edge of battle or well beyond in support assets in denied areas, I'd ask you to look hard at our current conflicts and the way our forces are prosecuting missions. I'm not sure I've ever been employed in support of a BN size operation, even while serving in the Marines and beyond some major operations durning the early years of GWOT, I feel that the vast majority of snipers are supporting operations at the company level. Personally most of my sniper employment experience consist of 2 to 6 PAX elements operation beyond orgainc support of the main effort. In fact only ever seen a sniper platoon employed as whole once while assisting Aussie 2nd Commandos.

Coming back around to "one shot, one kill" capability and mentality...it's never gone anywhere as far as I can tell. Every sniper school I've attended observed or instructed has placed, a premium on first round impacts in regards to sniper marksmanship. I know for a fact SOTIC/SFSC has maintained POIs that require a minimum of 50% first run hits durning the KD and UKND exams out to 1000m. I also believe the live fire low precentage shot was Go/No Go cold bore shot but I cant remember. Even the SASS exam at Lv. I pretty much dictates 50% first round hits from alternate positions, on both deliberates, snaps and movers out to 600m under time.

Talking with peers from other services, I'm fairly confidant that other school house such as Big Army and Marine Corps have not dramatically shifted curriculum to support "cone of lead". Not sure what SEALS are up to though, but they rarely lead the field in innovation when it comes to sniper TTPs.

On that note Frank, I'm honestly interested in where you see the shift in mindset towards the "cone of lead"? Without argument your perspective and exposure teaching at RO offers a broader coverage then most of us have but I'm not seeing it at the institutional levels and Todds sphere of influance seems to have waned considerably since 13'ish timeframe, at least in the circles I travel. Most dudes (less some impressionable Rangers) have realized Todd for what he is regardless of how the contracts are writen.

 

[W54/XM-388]

I guess I always thought that change is the one constant. Long ago, a proper prone position (albeit sling and iron sights, not bipod and optics) had the shooter at an angle to his rifle, and now being directly behind the rifle is being taught for PRS type shooting. Perhaps the difference is the type of shooting, or maybe it is just that as we continue to learn, tactics, techniques, and what we know, or thought we knew changes as we learn more..

A part of that can also be attributed to the recoil of the rifle & how much more equipment is on them now.
If you are shooting a 30-06 in an 8 pound bolt rifle with no brake & a metal buttplate, and nothing but the rifle & a sling, you'll find that you want the old school position.
Now when you are shooting a 20 pound rifle stabilized with a bipod and rear back and equipped with a brake or suppressor and it's pushing a .308 or a 6.5CM / 6mm you can use positions that will knock your brains around in a heavy recoiling rifle.

 

[j-huskey]

Rudy is extremely well nuanced, and reflects what my current level of exposure is seeing. I'm 100% on board with post 29 above.
Thank you for a well written response.

 

[Lowlight]

In response to "old is relative", you're correct, I casted a pretty wide net with that rant but the core of what I was addressing is snipers allowing their situational awareness of new technology and techniques to degrade and decay as time passes. When I hear cries to return to the the old days of "one shot, one kill and phrases like "White Feather Days" it's often an indicator that somebody is stuck in a nostalgic fantasy, sometimes it's older senior snipers that seem incapable of embracing and adapting, sometimes its dudes that have no idea what their talking about. Again wide net and probably a unfair generalization for most caught in it.

As for accomplishing the mission without a 20 round magazine, I suppose it depends doctrinally on where you look. Stictly observing traditional precision interdiction roles, no, 20 rounds on tap is rarely need but. Looking at my experience coming from a special operations background and the mission sets we support, I truly believe the capabilities that a SASS brings to the table is mission essential. The ability of a SASS to continually project precision fires at intervals 2 to 4x the rate over a bolt-gun is an undeniable advantage whether supporting unilateral Direct Action raids or herding commandos during clearing ops. In 2012 I literally had the misfortune of having to press a M24 back in service as a primary SWS in support of DA raid, yeah she did work but top feeding rounds while I could/should be at work, is not a great feeling.

On top of that I'd double down on the argument for SASS/SPR's as mission essential when considering maneuver aspects of current conflicts. Running and gun with a bolt gun vs. gas gun is a no brainer. Now I know I'm preaching to the choir with you Frank, you may have been born at night but it wasn't last night but allow me to underline and restate a truth for others: You simply cannot shoot and movie a bolt gun as dynamically at the same speeds you can run a gas gun. Once you get off your face and are running a bolt gun in extremis, it probably requires a transition to carbine or pistol, the former becoming a weight penalty (my Mk18 came in at 12.5lbs loaded out the other day) or in case of that latter your taking a range and lethality penalty. With the SASS/SPR's you have the answer right in your hands, I not advocating CQC with SWS's but a SASS gives you options a bolt won't.

For those that think that this in extremis situation is an unlikely or irregular even for small isolated maneuver elements operating along the forward edge of battle or well beyond in support assets in denied areas, I'd ask you to look hard at our current conflicts and the way our forces are prosecuting missions. I'm not sure I've ever been employed in support of a BN size operation, even while serving in the Marines and beyond some major operations durning the early years of GWOT, I feel that the vast majority of snipers are supporting operations at the company level. Personally most of my sniper employment experience consist of 2 to 6 PAX elements operation beyond orgainc support of the main effort. In fact only ever seen a sniper platoon employed as whole once while assisting Aussie 2nd Commandos.

Coming back around to "one shot, one kill" capability and mentality...it's never gone anywhere as far as I can tell. Every sniper school I've attended observed or instructed has placed, a premium on first round impacts in regards to sniper marksmanship. I know for a fact SOTIC/SFSC has maintained POIs that require a minimum of 50% first run hits durning the KD and UKND exams out to 1000m. I also believe the live fire low precentage shot was Go/No Go cold bore shot but I cant remember. Even the SASS exam at Lv. I pretty much dictates 50% first round hits from alternate positions, on both deliberates, snaps and movers out to 600m under time.

Talking with peers from other services, I'm fairly confidant that other school house such as Big Army and Marine Corps have not dramatically shifted curriculum to support "cone of lead". Not sure what SEALS are up to though, but they rarely lead the field in innovation when it comes to sniper TTPs.

On that note Frank, I'm honestly interested in where you see the shift in mindset towards the "cone of lead"? Without argument your perspective and exposure teaching at RO offers a broader coverage then most of us have but I'm not seeing it at the institutional levels and Todds sphere of influance seems to have waned considerably since 13'ish timeframe, at least in the circles I travel. Most dudes (less some impressionable Rangers) have realized Todd for what he is regardless of how the contracts are writen.

We were training all 3 Ranger Bats pretty religiously and the “cone of lead” I first saw came from them. I think it was an extetion of the 3Gun Guys influence, like the Jerry the Burner classes they took. After that it was part of the 12” drill that was being done with the Horus/Tremor.

I think aside from the 3 gun influence, it came down to the hands off, go out and shoot the “system” without any real instruction beyond the system. We were a heavy focus on the fundamentals, but we also had to deal with the cross over effects of guys coming from the assaulter ranks. Let to our devices and without the focus on marksmanship guys will fill in their own gaps. Or as I have seen, just defaulting to what works, which is the cone of lead.

I saw it much more with the Mk11 and Mk12 systems for sure, it’s hard to do that with the 13s, but then again maybe 2 guys used that more often than the SASS systems. When you consider the time and money spent on the system training, not putting just as much effort into the marksmanship side of things is what hurt the programs a bit.

I think the terms, “One Shot / One Kill” is just description a mindset and not being used to describe a doctrine. I get it completely, you are not laying up out of sight looking for that perfect shot when a large focus on the mission is a raid. There you hit the ground and go, covering the doorkickers you have to be dynamic. But in the overwatch positions we did a bit too much focus on walking the rounds in. I even went to Irwin with 3rd Ranger Bat working with them during NTC or whatever the Army calls it out there in the Desert. Our goal to extend the effective range and reduce exposure by Limiting the number of rounds on target.

Unfortunately we don’t have professional snipers like a lot of foreign countries do, we step into the roll and for the USMC you are out once you make SSGT. They stick you on recruiting duty or Drill, then when get back off that you might have a chance to be a PLT SGT but doubtful so guys get out.

In my mind Snipers should be the ultimate example of marksmanship when you consider the money spent on training for the optics system and kestrel. Those devices are being sold to the military as magic wands which will solve the problems that actually are better suited for the fundamentals. It’s my opinion, and not 100% right for everyone but i bet I am 90% there. We created the Fundamental Evals because we saw a hole in this aspect of the mission. It was our thingy to do, get a idea of what the group brings to the table and focus on fixing that. We didn’t cross over into tactics except to create drills that met the mission. Prime example is we built an Alley system and walls to help fight the guys that dashed door to door between an alley. We used the Robot we had to race across the opening. That kind of intel helped us craft a solution.

So I would not take the terms as being antiquated, but only being used to describe a missed opportunity.

 

[0Ulegen]

I think it really depends on the unit/shoolhouse/course. Most of the original school houses still teach proper shot placement for the 1st shot, and the classic mildot reticles.

 

[Unknown]

My point was that equipment, tactics, techniques all change over time as more is learned. The older knowledge and tactics don't need to be discounted, denigrated ,or tossed aside, rather new things should be added onto the knowledge base.

I think my point got side tracked by the example I used.

 

[sinister]

Junior snipers and OJT sniper -in-training will most often default to "Cone of lead" after the first few misses, trying to keep squirters from running away or out of engage-able view.
I'd rather my snipers take out a hundred rounds with a 90% kill rate than double basic loads at less than 50% hits.