BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[Don Fischer]

I believe that scout/snipers are marines.

[cam69conv]

Team 9- S.E.A.L.'S ... We went through the same school as the Marines in most cases. I think nowadays they have their own programs though. Not sure. Been out for MANY years now.

[remington]

Really? What was your BUD/S Class #?

[91xlt]

military sniping and hunting have nothing to do with one another.

talk about comparing apples to oranges....

[remington]

I respectfully beg to differ sir. It is the most dangerous hunting of all. The hunting of a human is no little thing. Out smarting a deer, elk, moose bear ect is nothing compared when you have to out smart a human. During WWII the British were taught stalking techs and then used said techs to stalk and kill deer for training. While I will agree it is different type of hunting it is still hunting (as is hunting whitetails and cape buff). Camo, concealment, cover and even sent are taken into account. Being a sniper is not just being a good marksmans or trigger puller (not that there is anything wrong with that) , It's a combination of several different skills that make them the ultamate hunter. A large percentage of snipers I have schooled with as well as instructed are big game hunters and use these skills in the field as a "practice".

Don't forget to buckle up.

[Highflyer]

I'd say looking at the history of sniping they pretty well go hand in hand. The first sniper units both here and abroad were formed by hunters and both hunting and sniping have fed extensively off of each other from the beginning in terms of equipment, field craft, and general shooting principles. For example, the gilly suit was originally a piece of hunting equipment and the rifles and cartridges / projectiles have been feeding off both sides from the beginning. I can't see any real differences at all unless I'm missing something? In fact, I can think of very few - if any - pieces of equipment or skill sets on either side of the fence that haven't been influenced by one another.

[CVC]

Quote: rifles and cartridges / projectiles have been feeding off both sides from the beginning.

Interesting and correct in my opinion. Consider that the 30.06 was a military cartridge that is widely accepted for hunting and that the first sniper rifles were hunting rifles I'd say you are right on.

[Don Fischer]

I think a big difference between sniping and hunting would be in the miss. You miss the deer it runs away, you miss the man and he come's looking for you; intentionally. The problem I have with relating hunting to sniping is that one is about sport and the other war.

The discussion about long range hunting should probably really be about long range shooting. When the target is identified and you set up for a shot, you have quit hunting and are now shooting. Doesn't matter if it's 50' or 500 yds. I think it was JC that said, the sniper get's close as he can and still has an exceptable escape route. Long range hunters get to a distence they feel comfortable taking the shot from reguardless if they can get closer.

[Highflyer]

Sure one is war and one is hunting, but the argument in it's essence about hitting a target at long range and whether it should be attempted or not. My point being there are people who shoot for a living (it just happens that they shoot people) that say things become unsure beyond the 500 yard range, so what business does the average hunter (who practices a lot less) have shooting at long ranges? I see it as a perfectly valid argument, but the guy who just purchased the "How to Kill an Elk at Ridiculous Range" video along with a super duper magnum, a 1200 yard range finder, and a scope with a reticle more complicated than the space shuttle landing system is not going to like hearing it. It's just an observation.

P.S. nothing against magnums or range finders if used sensibly.

[remington]

[quote="Don Fischer"] The problem I have with relating hunting to sniping is that one is about sport and the other war. quote

interesting comment and making me think

[remington]

[quote="remington"][quote="Don Fischer"] The problem I have with relating hunting to sniping is that one is about sport and the other war. quote

interesting comment and making me think[/quote]


wait for it.......

[remington]

[quote="remington"][quote="remington"][quote="Don Fischer"] The problem I have with relating hunting to sniping is that one is about sport and the other war. quote

interesting comment and making me think[/quote]


wait for it.......[/quote]


Yea, I got nothing. :laugh:

[91xlt]

This has become a somewhat facinating thread to me...

The question...

91xlt wrote: Was wondering which long range hunting cal., make and model rifle you are using?

has sparked 5 pages of conversation containing,

if my counting is correct,
72 posts, 8 of which actually gave an answer to the question asked.

with topics ranging from,

-some bashing,
-some load, recipe and site in data,
-general pro/con discussion of the long range hunting topic,
-varmint hunting
-and now snipers.

i realize this comparison has been discussed on the web before.
i do not understand why the comparison arrises.

i know there are some skills that intertwine, stalking, camo, proper shot placement, fieldcraft, and the list can go on, but that is it. some common skills/tools.
a book keeper and a CPA certainly use some same skills and tools, but are not compared.

the more you compare a sniper and hunter, the less similar they become...

* a military sniper
-is generally following orders,
-well trained,
-well practiced,
-and not always trying to deliver a "kill" shot., a "hit" can sometimes be a success, eliminating the target at least temporary, aiding in pschological warfare, distraction, disabling equipment or other strategic roles.etc..etc...

i have no idea of how much range time a sniper gets in, but i would be willing to bet, it is ALOT more than most hunters put in.

*a hunter
-has a choice, has not been ordered or commanded to "take the shot"
-an ethical responsability to harvest game in as quick and clean manner as possible

and these lists, in my opinion can go on, and on.

everyone has and is entitled to there own opinion, there is no magic distance, making one persons opinion right, or anothers wrong.
each hunter should realize there limitations, of skill and equipment.

like i said, this has become a really facinating thread to me

[Highflyer]

Normal human conversation evolves. The conversation flows and veers and everyone interjects their opinions and more often than not it digresses into different points - some of them relevant and some not. Sorry if you don't see the correlation between hitting a target by trained professionals versus less practiced individuals. To me it's clear as day, and apparently since it keeps coming up on other threads a lot of other people see the correlation as well.

[CVC]

I don't think that the military sniper does was suggested to be the same as long range hunting, but instead used as the standard for long range shooting; suggesting that if the "gold standard" doesn't do it why would the average hunter think he can?

The military sets standards that civilians follow. For example, it would be no different than two pilots talking about an acrobatic move and one saying, "whoa, what makes you think you can attempt it when even the Blue Angels won't attempt that manuever?"

I am sure bookkeepers look to the standards set by CPA as a guide to what they do. If an accounting practice is unacceptable to CPAs then one could suggest that it be unacceptable to bookkeepers to. Just as it makes sense to suggest that if a military sniper will try to keep their shots under 500 yards then so should the civilian who generally has less skills than the professional military sniper.