Hunters and the Army - Page 2




 
--
 
November 2nd, 2004  
Big_Z
 
 
If you look back at the past some of the best snipers were hunters as kids. But I agree that it takes far more than hunting skills to be a good soldier.
November 2nd, 2004  
ravensword227
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Z
If you look back at the past some of the best snipers were hunters as kids.
I bet Simo Häyhä of Finland was a hunter too, but unfortunately, it is hard to find information on him.
http://www.snipercountry.com/BVT_Rev...WhiteDeath.asp

Oh wait, I found something interesting:
Quote:
A Finn farmer turned civil guardsman still holds the highest kill record of any sniper in history. Simo Häyhä, as recounted in the book, was responsible for the demise of 505 Russian soldiers!
What!? He wasn't in the military!?
November 2nd, 2004  
Big_Z
 
 
I dont think anyone doubts the skill of a hunter, if you told me the best shot in the world was a hunter I would not be surprised. I think it boils down to if that hunter just seen his best friend get shot in the face, is his hand still going to be steady?
--
November 2nd, 2004  
ravensword227
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Z
I dont think anyone doubts the skill of a hunter, if you told me the best shot in the world was a hunter I would not be surprised. I think it boils down to if that hunter just seen his best friend get shot in the face is his hand still going to be steady?
Dude that’s just horrifying to anyone; and not just hunter civilians are effected. You can read Marine Sniper: 93 Confirmed Kills and learn that the VC and NVA were scared out of their minds by Hathcock. Basically, the psychological effect would be to shoot a person in the brain because it is going to cause violent spasms. If persons head is shot with say a .50 caliber, then it will explode with enough force that bone fragments can wound/kill people near by.

Carlos Hathcock, in his book never mentioned intentionally shooting for specific body parts, and he zeroed his rifle at 700 yards and aimed at a person’s belt buckle. Which by the way, the military uses variable scopes and they click them over to different ranges and abhor “Kentucky” windage/elevation. This is yet another example of how the military is not always right in their thinking. You click over a variable and you f--k your accuracy up beacuse the scope does not settle in until after you fire a shot, and even then it's not exactly right. The military doesn’t pick up on the nuances, but civilian shooters and hunters do.
November 2nd, 2004  
egoz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravensword227
Carlos Hathcock, in his book never mentioned intentionally shooting for specific body parts, and he zeroed his rifle at 700 yards and aimed at a person’s belt buckle. Which by the way, the military uses variable scopes and they click them over to different ranges and abhor “Kentucky” windage/elevation. This is yet another example of how the military is not always right in their thinking.
Actually I believe the reason snipers aim at things like the belt buckle and canteen or whatever other piece of equipment a soldier has on them, is because the .50 cal round is intended to be an antimaterial round and the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of such weapons on a human target. At least that's what an Army DS has told me.
But I do realize that before the .338 Lapua came to be the .50BMG was the only bullet capable of extremely long distance shots.
November 2nd, 2004  
ravensword227
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by egoz
Actually I believe the reason snipers aim at things like the belt buckle and canteen or whatever other piece of equipment a soldier has on them, is because the .50 cal round is intended to be an antimaterial round and the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of such weapons on a human target. At least that's what an Army DS has told me.
I don't think so. You're not supposed to shoot explosive or incendiary rounds at troops if the rounds are less than 37mm. http://home.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000210.htm
November 2nd, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravensword227
Basically, the psychological effect would be to shoot a person in the brain because it is going to cause violent spasms.
This is incorrect, if the spinal cord is severed, no action potentials will be transmitted and therefore the body will not move at all, let alone in "violent spasms."


If you are not sure of what you are posting, do not feel that you are in fact rquired to make that post, you won't lose any cool points for admitting to not knowing something.

And the subject is hunters and the military, not distance shooting.
November 2nd, 2004  
ravensword227
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
This is incorrect, if the spinal cord is severed, no action potentials will be transmitted and therefore the body will not move at all, let alone in "violent spasms."
I said brain, not spinal cord. Have you ever heard the expression somethings going crazy like a "shot rabbit"? That was what is in the book, Marine Sniper.

Quote:
If you are not sure of what you are posting, do not feel that you are in fact rquired to make that post, you won't lose any cool points for admitting to not knowing something.

And the subject is hunters and the military, not distance shooting.
If you could give me just a little leeway, I would be grateful. I am trying to stay on topic while dispelling myths and educating people. I am willing to present the facts and proof to back my statements.
November 2nd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
So can anyone say conclusively whether a background in hunting, guns and shooting makes a better soldier or ruins the soldier in advance? I wonder if there's ever been a study of any sort on it?

One thing is for certain. Like or hate em, lots of Americans have their own guns. That fact makes the United States one of the least desireable places to invade on the planet.
November 2nd, 2004  
ravensword227
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
So can anyone say conclusively whether a background in hunting, guns and shooting makes a better soldier or ruins the soldier in advance? I wonder if there's ever been a study of any sort on it?
Every other commercial on the outdoor hunting channel where I live is Army advertisements. I think that says a lot right there.