KVoimakas wrote:This, of course, brought an interesting reaction from a couple of guys there (one ex-mil, Afghan vet). How dare I impugn the awesomeness of the AR platform?

Only one in 10 infantry riflemen are snipers. It is a specialty weapon. You are comparing apples and oranges. It would be better to compare to the Nagant to the M24. The Vet had direct experience in Afghanistan and knows that an AR is more effective in a real situation than a bolt action Nagants for most situations he encountered.

Zenmason wrote:

KVoimakas wrote:This, of course, brought an interesting reaction from a couple of guys there (one ex-mil, Afghan vet). How dare I impugn the awesomeness of the AR platform?

Only one in 10 infantry riflemen are snipers. It is a specialty weapon. You are comparing apples and oranges. It would be better to compare to the Nagant to the M24. The Vet had direct experience in Afghanistan and knows that an AR is more effective in a real situation than a bolt action Nagants for most situations he encountered.

That's why my first mention was the AK.

I suppose the guys shooting and being shot at would have some bases for choosing one over another. It might be good to ask them why.

Zenmason wrote:I suppose the guys shooting and being shot at would have some bases for choosing one over another. It might be good to ask them why.

See, I know a few guys who (out of the military) went straight to the AK. They couldn't stand the AR series of rifles in the service; especially cleaning them. (One is a fellow certified instructor.)

I guess it depends on who you talk to. Just like with anything else.

Simo Hayha is definately the best IMHO,I would also say he is followed closely by Visily Zaytsev and Carlos Hathcock,in that order

Here's a thought. Snipers aren't there simply to kill people, they are there to control, effect and shape the course of the future, be it war in some instances, business (illegal Business of course). So why not measure them by their impact. For instance if A sniper had taken hitler out in 1942 would he not be held greater than simo or vasily?

gendoikari87 wrote:Here's a thought. Snipers aren't there simply to kill people, they are there to control, effect and shape the course of the future, be it war in some instances, business (illegal Business of course). So why not measure them by their impact. For instance if A sniper had taken hitler out in 1942 would he not be held greater than simo or vasily?

a sniper that kills 505 men in about 100 days has a huge impact on the morale of the enemy,how far from camp would you wanna go with Simo in the woods?

Vodkin wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Here's a thought. Snipers aren't there simply to kill people, they are there to control, effect and shape the course of the future, be it war in some instances, business (illegal Business of course). So why not measure them by their impact. For instance if A sniper had taken hitler out in 1942 would he not be held greater than simo or vasily?

a sniper that kills 505 men in about 100 days has a huge impact on the morale of the enemy,how far from camp would you wanna go with Simo in the woods?

They called him "The White Death" and sent several platoons out after him at a time. The Soviets spent a very considerable amount of manpower and resources hunting down a single man with a Mosin Nagant.

Haya killed numerous counter-snipers and eliminated entire squads.

Because of Haya, the Soviets had to fight far more cautiously on the Kollaa River. They spent tons of artillery flushing out Simo Haya instead of bombarding the Finnish troops. They sent manpower on hunts for Simo Haya instead of fighting the Finnish troops. The Kollaa line was considered indefensible by many. However due in large part to the massive diversion of forces and resources to get a single sniper, Kollaa held. I'd say he's a pretty f'm successful sniper. The man was arguably the greatest Finnish hero in history.