Thank you for watching and please don't forget to subscribe! Also, Vintage Rifles T-Shirts help to gather funds for all the videos! Link to T-Shirts is here: www.shop.akoperatorsunionlocal4774.com/Vintage-Rifles-Shooters-Club-T-Shirt-VRSC-T-Shirt.htm
@AllanFolm
2 жыл бұрын
Have you seen this? kzitem.info/news/bejne/sqSwv4mrsYZymZg
@MrConspark
2 жыл бұрын
This is for US customers only. How do I get a t-shirt sent to Australia? Please I want to wear this to my range and be cool like Rob 🤣
@Bayan1905
3 жыл бұрын
Speaking of some of the shooters who were hunters/backwoodsman, there were two good examples. One was Simo Hayha who was an excellent rifle shot and remember, he never used a scope on his rifle, and the other was Shifty Powers, 101st Airborne Easy Company. Although Shifty wasn't a sniper (he probably should have been), there was the incident where he took out a German sniper with a head shot with a Garand and open sights when no one else could get to him. It isn't just the marksmanship, it's also the instincts that hunters have as well, they know about sitting still, how to stalk game for the most part.
@mikes622
3 жыл бұрын
Most of Simo Hayha shots were 200-300 or less and he was in what was said as a target rich environment and over just 100 days . He was a great soldier but some of the advantiages he had was camo . He wore white and the Russians were still wearing green . Would be a tough call to say who was the better winter fighter over all .
@toddk1377
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, shooting isn't the only aspect of being a sniper. Camouflage is also a huge aspect of it. Simo used camo but with what happened to him, that shows how dangerous that position is, as snipers are a prized target to eliminate as they pose a great threat.
@stefanwesterberg5319
3 жыл бұрын
Full respect to the old school WWII marksmen in regard of how limited parameters they actually had to work within with and still managed to do the job!! Down with the hat!! 4X magnification is standard for airguns and rimfire nowdays. Nowdays mildots, laser rangefinders, bipods, etc. etc. making the shooting procedurs much easier and conformable. In real life and in war today all this is a different story..
@gavinm1347
3 жыл бұрын
@CLOV3R713 mate push it out to 400, 200 with irons is easy.
@lukewarmwater6412
3 жыл бұрын
yeah. I would agree. the snipers didnt suck, the equipment did. and they were doing the job with half the information modern shooters have. also, the combat was much closer then than it is now, possibly because the equipment they were using had less range.
@pcka12
2 жыл бұрын
@@lukewarmwater6412 both Lee Enfield & Mauser 96 happily ‘pick off’ man size targets at 600 yards! & some of those guns are well over 100 years old now.
@gerdmuller2516
3 жыл бұрын
To begin with : I love your channel . As a trained " Sharpshooter " ( G3 ZF Schütze) l learned how accurate a G3 can be.We shoot up to 800 mtr,and we destroyd our targets ( with AB 22 Ordinary Ball Ammo ) My Rifle was sighted in like it was in the late german Army,( the tip of the chin at the horizontal Post) . So I don,t have to worry about the correct Range . At different Range It was a Hit . What you are saying in your Video works antil today,with regards a " German Sniper "
@occasionalmarksman4865
3 жыл бұрын
Do you recall the make, model and magiifaction of the scope mounted to your trusty G3?
@gerdmuller2516
3 жыл бұрын
@@occasionalmarksman4865 Hello,yes I do.The Scope we were using,was a 4 times Hensold.And I must admit the Barrels on our Rifles were brandnew.In fact the whole Guns were made over by H&K.Depending on the fact that the Scopes range was limited to 600 meters,we had to figer out the " holdover" up to 800 meters.I hope I anserd your Questions,friendly regards
@klackon1
2 жыл бұрын
Gerd Muller. 800m, wow! I used to use my SLR at 600m with battle sights during British Army competions: we took turns to shoot and spot for the shooter through binoculars, but I doubt I would have even seen the target at 800m. Well done.
@nikitaananjevas1614
2 жыл бұрын
@@klackon1 shot AK4 (Swedish licensed-made G3) iron up to 600 m as well as SLR in the very same way you did. IMHO German iron sights are better, being diopter combined with vertical post, so you get sort of a cross-check :) And SLR's back ring was a bit wobbling.
@whiskeymike7364
2 жыл бұрын
9-Hole exposed me to Rob and Vintage Rifle Shooters Club maybe less than a month ago. A momentous day. I have been watching your videos since. Some of your shots make me sit up and cheer (only the cat hears me and he KNOWS I am off).😄
@timbow50
Жыл бұрын
Great discussion. Several years ago I became interested in old scopes and their various reticle design. It was amazing the poor design of these reticles from nearly every country/scope manufacturer. Your conversation here is exactly what I discovered. IMO, those scopes were barely better than battle sights. The rear peep is a valuable asset when one has the time to get setup. We all know how accurate shots can be made on a man sized target at 300+ yards. True story” no bullsht guys”- 1972 I bought a new .270 Remington LH 700. For a few months I couldn’t afford a $40 cheap Bushnell scope or mount. Back then you could shoot on national parks and forest lands and I learned to hit a paper desert plate easily at 100+ yards while standing. I would hang them in bushes at various distances and then walk along the little two track road just shooting. Later I could hit a paper dinner plate at two hundred + from sitting, on one knee and laying down naturally. In prone on a good day I set up the rear blade adjustable sight for what was approximately 200 yards as there were no fancy range finders then lol. I used those iron sights for several years because killing a deer was not a problem for me. I was 22 years old then.
@jimkaspar8320
3 жыл бұрын
Great video with actual viewpoints from actual snipers.
@mp6163
3 жыл бұрын
Love nothing better that taking a WW1 and WW2 out to the range. Keep up you fantastic content.
@MercutioUK2006
3 жыл бұрын
The ammunition was fine, the rifles were good, the snipers were excellent marksmen.......and whilst the scopes weren't universally great the main limit was simply the nature of the engagements. Of course there WERE longer-range targets....read "With British Snipers to the Rheine" or the memoirs of Sepp Allerberger......there are a lot of misconeptions, even now.
@robertstewart1464
3 жыл бұрын
I've read both of the books, capt. Shore does a great analysis and shares his thoughts on the individual rifles used by the nations. Sepps book shows off Germanys almost lack of snipers up until 1943(i think) and also gives insight on the often overlooked barbarism of the Russian troops as they advanced through Eastern Europe. They seemed to treat everyone whether they be wehrmact, SS or civilians the same
@allangibson2408
2 жыл бұрын
In South East Asia you couldn’t see further than 200m anywhere and 20m more usually…
@jamesladybrand
3 жыл бұрын
thank you for the knowledge again. hello to mr tony. hopefully now more respect can be given to these brave and SKILLED men and women who dealt in death from distance.
@WImob420
3 жыл бұрын
Simo Häyhä, & Lyudmila Pavlichenko and the other Ladies of the eastern front come to mind. very skilled. wonder how much more they could do if had our moden tech 😳
@jamesladybrand
3 жыл бұрын
@@WImob420 imagine simo with a modern weapon.....
@ChaplainHaladriel
3 жыл бұрын
Fantastic discussion! The combat records speak for themselves, on all sides of the war. They were terribly effective with their craft, no matter how you slice it.
@ruge48
Жыл бұрын
It is very easy to judge when you are safe home and most of the xperience is obtained from shooting club where the target does not shoot back! excellent answer thanks guys!!
@tplyons5459
3 жыл бұрын
My uncle (who also taught me to shoot) was a sniper in WW2. He had a Springfield with an 8 power Unertle scope. He said that besides people he used to put a bullet into the bad guys radiators and disable their vehicles.
@thomasjamison2050
2 жыл бұрын
Bear in mind that when the other side is adequately trained and armed, you can't be too picky about making shots. In Afghanistan when we see snipers picking off untrained amateurs on the other side, it's a very different situation from the one in which you seriously have to worry about being a sniper target yourself. in those circumstances, the greater the chance you miss the shot, the greater the chance you get spotted. As I write this I notice the video is making the same point.
@chucknoris7648
2 жыл бұрын
That’s the truth it’s really a designated marksman role or over watch roles. Look at lone survivor situation they got wiped out
@dealerofburningsalt3649
3 жыл бұрын
Love your videos as always ! Bro who did a number on your hair lmao, its like you got a half off haircut hahahahahaha!
@VintageRiflesShootersClub
3 жыл бұрын
Lol, this is my old trusted barber, I try to support his small, local shop as much as I can, but sometimes things don't go well...ha!
@dealerofburningsalt3649
3 жыл бұрын
@@VintageRiflesShootersClub I'm just busting your balls a little. Thanks for all the time and effort you put in to your videos!
@andybelcher1767
3 жыл бұрын
I watched your video with great respect and read many comments below. I totally agree with what you are saying. As an amateur historian I can repeat comments from WWI German snipers that they were under orders to shoot at "skinny legs" which is how officers could be identified at great distances. Thank you for your informed discussion. When I was at school I was not a great shot, I was reserve in the rifle team using standard No 4s with aperture sights, but I was rarely outside the black right out to 1200 yards. If you can't see it you can't hit it.
@Briselance
2 жыл бұрын
"If you can't see it you can't hit it." This might not be as true as first assumed.
@grumpyboomer61
3 жыл бұрын
300 meters is an average. Not the maximum, or minimum ranges that kills were made. The main factor would have been the environment that the engagements took place in. Cities, forests, jungles... all limiting the distances targets could be seen, much less hit.
@rexdelta3367
3 жыл бұрын
White Death: *laughs in invisible*
@cheesenoodles8316
3 жыл бұрын
It is much easier from a bench at known ranges. The internet and Hollywood do their best.
@YoungGunsCanada
3 жыл бұрын
06:42 - As a former Army radio operator, we used to joke in training that we were sniper bait
@VintageRiflesShootersClub
3 жыл бұрын
Lol, that is correct sir! Ha!
@YoungGunsCanada
3 жыл бұрын
@@VintageRiflesShootersClub Thanks so much for making this video. I just started getting into mid range shooting this year and it's really interesting getting this sort of historical context. At 300 yards I'm pretty confident I could consistently land head shots with my 3 "mid-range" rifles. Pushing out to 400 and 500, I wouldn't feel comfortable hitting anything other then centre of mass. That's running modern glass, modern rifles, my own reloads, off a bench.
@alganhar1
2 жыл бұрын
@@YoungGunsCanada I am the other way, I shoot pretty much entirely WWI and WWII rifles over iron sights. I get really, really happy if I headshot at 300 yards... then remember I was aiming centre mass! Hell, at 300 yards over iron sights its kinda difficult to actually see the target! So I am generally happy if I hit it at all!
@jongruen7854
3 жыл бұрын
Possibly the greatest all time sniper Simo Hayha. Refused to use an optic on his 28/30. Says a lot about the individual skills to excel in the sniper environment. I acknowledge that he had numerous kills with the Suomi KP/-31 sub machine gun as well. Very interesting information in your video Rob.
@josephhomen
3 жыл бұрын
Very few people know or talk about him using a sub-gun
@jongruen7854
3 жыл бұрын
@@josephhomen Up to a few years ago I was one of them. Simo was a one of a kind. He did things that I'm not aware that others did. He sure made himself the number one distraction to the Germans.
@donaldsheckler3636
3 жыл бұрын
Well there is also the difference between more use of fieldcraft and shorter range shots vs longer range requiring more accuracy but less fieldcraft. Simo and also the Russians and Japanese all seemed to me more of the former focusing on closer range engagement requiring more fieldcraft.
@nirfz
2 жыл бұрын
@@jongruen7854 Mr Häyhä didn't distract the germans at all sir. Wrong side. He was fighting against soldiers from the USSR.
@danieldriscoll849
3 жыл бұрын
I stumbled onto this series by accident. I bookmark the website. KZitem will never notify me of a new video. Again, great video Bob Ski.
@DevilbyMoonlight
3 жыл бұрын
WW2 Brit snipers zero'd at 300 and left their rifles at that, using hold overs or unders for closer or further targets, this is what I was told 40 years later when I was trained on the L42
@VintageRiflesShootersClub
3 жыл бұрын
Hi Andy, yes, this was the common practice (zero at 300). Btw, how did you like to serve with L42A1?
@pebo8306
3 жыл бұрын
I just wonder,why there is not a single British sniper mention in history of WW2???? There are the Germans,the Russians,and the Finns,who each killed hundreds.But not a single British!
@alexandermarken7639
3 жыл бұрын
@@pebo8306 The snipers the British had have not had movies made about them. The Lee Enfield 0.303 was an accurate battlefield rifle as was the K98, Springfield rifle etc. The scopes used in conjunction with the issued telescopes along with each sniper team/sniper. The British had sniper schools and they got sent out at 2 per company. The practice of counting kills may have been against the British way of fighting and recognising men.
@kiloalphasierra
3 жыл бұрын
I’ve read several accounts from WW2 British snipers that specifically mentioned that they dialed the range into the scope to shoot. One even mentions four snipers were in a hide and they disagreed about the range to a German forward observer. One thought is was 400 yards, one though 450 and another thought 500. They settled the argument the gentlemanly way. One sniper each dialed in the range they thought and did a coordinated shoot while the fourth observed. End result was one dead FO and all the snipers who were arguing the range could claim they shot him.
@pebo8306
3 жыл бұрын
@@kiloalphasierra What a BS! 3 snipers bunched up and arguing!--Yeah probably got that story from a beano-book from the sixties! If not,mention names and location!!
@Ranger4321
3 жыл бұрын
A 300 meter zero makes sense when you think about the typical AO a sniper would deal with. Cities, small towns, maybe some farmland between towns and forests.
@Oldhogleg
2 жыл бұрын
Good analysis. It's true they were good shots because the militaries of the world typically only recruited those who were already proven to be the best shots with in their ranks. But it's also true 300 yards isn't sniping because you're still within what is typically considered effective range of the typical conscript (more or less). I personally would classify them as Designated Marksmen, not Snipers. Not for the lack of skill, but the limitations of optic technology of the day. As I understand it, during our war of independence, snipers had to be effective up to a quarter mile, and that's with iron sighted muzzle loaders! It always amazed me how the Germans managed to maintain a monopoly on fluoride coated optics through two world wars. People typically poo poo my philosophy that there's no such thing as too much power for a variable power scope for long range shoots, because you always adjust the power to the site and time of day conditions. The reason is what you pointed out in being able to identify small targets at long ranges. Sure sun induced will limit the usable power of the scope due to mirage; but damn, at the crack of dawn until the sun is begins to shine on and heat the landscape, I can "literally" watch ants walking on bush branches at over 200 yards. The air is perfectly still, making the resolution breathtaking!
@KathrynLiz1
3 жыл бұрын
Yes..... a good tuned rifle of those days would shoot maybe 1.5 - 2 MoA with service ammo...which gives a 6" group at 300... more than accurate enough and not range critical at that distance. The optics of those days were pretty abysmal by today's standards... no coated lenses for anyone but the Germans later in the war once Karl Zeiss discovered how to do it. 2-4x is not a lot at 300 yards, even on a clear range target.... a camouflaged target at 300 is damned hard to see at all. We practiced on such during my military training in 1961 with the Lee Enfield rifle and Mk7 ammo...and that 300 yard target of a soldier prone behind a rifle, and about the same colour as the background, over open sights (we had Mk4s with the aperture sights at least... so much harder with the MK3 sights) was borderline impossible in all but the brightest sunlight. Shooters these days are a bit spoiled, with laser range finder, 'dopable' scopes, bipods and ammunition of a grade of excellence unknown in the 1940s. I don't think our modern guys would do as well as the old timers using the same equipment....or certainly no better.
@GeorgiaBoy1961
3 жыл бұрын
@KathrynLiz1: Re: "Shooters these days are a bit spoiled, with laser range finder, 'dopable' scopes, bipods and ammunition of a grade of excellence unknown in the 1940s. I don't think our modern guys would do as well as the old timers using the same equipment....or certainly no better." That's probably true. There's an old saying which pertains: "It isn't the tool, it is the craftsman," which I take to mean that a proficient, skilled craftsman can overcome mediocre tools to get the job done, whereas a mediocre man holding the tool won't be able to do the job even with the finest equipment. I used to work in the retail FA & accessories business - I do not anymore - but it is astounding how good even budget equipment and optics are today, even compared with twenty or thirty years ago. And the cheapest budget deer-hunting scope at the local big-box store is certainly better than most of the finest gear U.S. troops (Army and Marine Corps) took into the field in Vietnam a half-century ago. But those men, like the ones in WWI and WWII, found ways of transcending the limitations of their gear, weapons, ammo and equipment - to get the job done. Emphasizing gear over the man - that's a common mistake newbies make. In reality, the human factor is almost always more decisive than mere equipment.
@NoNo_IStay
3 жыл бұрын
Absolutely not. And I suspect that is reason behind a lot of innovation. To stifle skill purposely. Have their skill depend on electronics and just give it time. It's like taking candy (fancy candy at that) from a baby
@gearhead682010
3 жыл бұрын
I’ve never relied on a rangefinder or anything like all that but I’ve taken a 1937 Russian Mosin Nagant and shot a 3 round group of less than 3/4” inch open sights and with military ammunition. With a Russian Pu scope I can guarantee that a 300 yard shot shouldn’t be anything out of the ordinary for this particular rifle
@Predalien195
3 жыл бұрын
I wouldn't think that's true. While having range finders, bi-pods, and ammunition of higher grades are all nice. None of those offer an advantage to somebody who doesn't know how to use it. So I believe if they were given some time to train on the rifle they would do as well if not possibly better. Nobody can really say for sure as we can't go back in time and implement modern ideology and doctrine on the battlefield. Still, I believe if modern shooters were given time they could indeed make it work. As you said, they would likely do no better. But I doubt they would do worse unless they had some sort of astigmatism.
@robinharris6771
Жыл бұрын
@@Predalien195 Was the WW2 training for sniper anything like today's sniper schools? Or did it evolve once the need was recognized?
@richb.4374
2 жыл бұрын
Sniping an enemy is a lot harder when they are shooting back.
@gordonland9110
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for doing these videos!
@janesmith4017
3 жыл бұрын
I subscribed for the great content and Rob Ski.
@alexsandersmith1880
3 жыл бұрын
Great discussion . I found your site a few weeks back and subscribed. Watched the vid on N0. 4 T, well done.
@thescarletpumpernel3305
3 жыл бұрын
Try sniping under the constant pressure of being discovered by the enemy and you won't risk anything but absolute certain kill shots.
@deejayimm
2 жыл бұрын
Isn't Rob a sniper IRL? Are you?
@WImob420
3 жыл бұрын
always a wealth of knowledge. 👍
@tmartin3151
3 жыл бұрын
I wouldn’t want to challenge the accuracy of any sniper, let alone a ww2 sniper.
@michaelguerin56
Жыл бұрын
Thank you Rob and Tony for this common sense video. Your points have been made repeatedly in books and article BUT as I have been saying for a while ‘the dangerous contagion known to man is stupidity’.
@claytonpaul7670
3 жыл бұрын
Excellent...thanks for the info.
@firestorm8471
3 жыл бұрын
Your Knowledge is impressive,, Subscribed .
@GeorgiaBoy1961
3 жыл бұрын
On the basis of confirmed kills in combat, Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä (1905-2002), a.k.a. "The White Death," is the deadliest sniper/precision marksman in history. Häyhä attained over five-hundred confirmed KIA of invading Red Army soldiers during the Winter War of 1939-1940, where tiny Finland for a time held off the immense Soviet Army before the weight of numbers told and Finland was forced to sue for terms of surrender. Later, Finland took part in the "Continuation War," fighting alongside Germany against the Russians. A crack shot and woodsman since childhood - Häyhäpreferred to stalk patiently toward the enemy, well-camouflaged, as much as possible, in order to insure clean, close shots. The Finn preferred iron sights, believing that a scope was too conspicuous and raised his profile when prone needlessly. Häyhä scored a substantial number of his score using a submachine gun, which is indicative of how close he sometimes got to his quarry before opening fire. Häyhä's luck finally ran out in 1940, when he was severely wounded, sustaining a severe wound to his face and jaw which maimed him permanently - but the hearty Finn was too tough to die, living to the ripe old age of 97 before finally slipping away. A thorough professional, Häyhä preferred to make every shot count, so he relied upon his field-craft, excellent camouflage and skills as an outdoorsman to get him in close to the enemy. While he undoubtedly possessed the skills to make longer shots, he got closer to remove as much doubt or uncertainty as possible from the equation.
@robingibson7503
3 жыл бұрын
Excellent program!!! I learned a lot!!! Your enthusiasm is catching, not like covid though.
@oif3vetk9
3 жыл бұрын
Excellent video. Anyone that thinks ww2 snipers sucked just doesn't know what they are talking about. They did outstanding work considering their equipment. We are worlds above and beyond what they had. I just got into long range shooting last year. (Took several handloading and shooting classes instructed by a former SF sniper) I started out with a semi accurized M1A. I then got into shooting PRS matches. (Those matches are great fun) The M1A, while fun and can be effective, after 700 yds during a match it can be very difficult to consistently put rounds on target. I recently switched to a AR chambered in 6mm ARC, the difference is night and day. 1,020 yds shots are not a problem. (Mind you these matches are timed and most of the time you will have several targets of different shapes/sizes and multiple ranges and will only have 75-90 seconds to engage as many as you can and shooting is rarely done from prone.) The point of this? Comparing old technology (M1A) to modern technology. (The AR with a new caliber) If the snipers in ww2 would have had all the tech we do now the threat of them would have been much higher. (They were already a big threat but it would have been worse.)
@Daniel-vl8mx
3 жыл бұрын
FWIW here in Oz, and of course in other countries, target shooting out to ranges much further than 300m was popular. Here it went out to 1000 yards, and was shot with service rifles - SMLEs until the 1950s - though for competition these were usually fitted with a finely-machined peep sight of which there were a good number of makers. Clearly the service rifle could make good hits out to these distances, and there's no doubt that the bullet would kill or at least seriously disable with a hit. The limiting factor mainly seems to be that there's a big difference between a fixed target on a KD range and hitting a soldier who is at a distance you have to judge by eye in most cases (though range cards were used, probably only briefly exposed and maybe moving, hard to distinguish from the background, without wind flags etc. A fairly poor optic, by modern standards, is only part of it. There's also the terrain and cover to consider - in some engagements such as in urban environments, or jungle, you may simply not be able to see very far, and may be engaging at quite close range. One of my relatives for example did his work in New Guinea at some very close ranges. I've shot out to 1000 yards, in competition and service, and if enemy soldiers would only stand out in the open, preferably wearing something which contrasted nicely with their background and clearly identified them as a high value target, standing nice and still to let me get set up and find my neutral point of aim, check range and wind, take a couple of breaths, and slowly take up pressure on the trigger knowing they aren't going to move, then it would be easy to drop them.
@neodutch
2 жыл бұрын
I shot a No 4 conversion for 800 and 900 up until the early 90's.
@johnrayner1643
2 жыл бұрын
As Daniel indicates the difference is that targets don't randomly move.
@MrConspark
2 жыл бұрын
Oh hardy ha ha Rob, good joke saying that WW2 Snipers sucked! Good one, got us all to jump in and watch your excellent video once again 🍻😍
@joshuaamado559
3 жыл бұрын
This channel is awesome!
@mp6163
3 жыл бұрын
For sure.
@milsurprifleguy7091
3 жыл бұрын
I have several WWI & WWII bolt action rifles from Japan , Russia , Italy , USA , Chinese , Britain , France . Use if iron sights even at 70 yards , when my target is in the shadows or when the sun is to either side , the ear protectors cause a shadow on the front sight post , it is hard to see the target to get good grouping with my shot placement . So even with a scope as you explained they had their difficulties to deal with
@Bigfezzig
3 жыл бұрын
Is that Kim Jong Il dressed as Rob for Halloween? Love the vids!
@liverpoolscottish6430
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting analysis, but I think one key factor has been omitted from this video- namely the type of environment fighting occurred in. In Europe and Russia, much fighting took place in urban environments, rather than open country. Ranges in cities and towns were therefore less than engagements that occurred in open country. Jungle terrain- close range engagements would be most common. Great video though- keep up the excellent work!
@billybreuer3224
3 жыл бұрын
Very informative. Thank you .
@northman77
3 жыл бұрын
Talking about box test... Could you do the box test with these old scope? I am curious!
@VintageRiflesShootersClub
3 жыл бұрын
Ha! Well, for screw driven scopes, this would be rather impossible to perform because their mechanisms were setup for elevation adjustment based on the pre calculated BDC. That being said, I guess I could test some old British and US made scopes with "clicks"...
@endutubecensorship
3 жыл бұрын
Hey Rob and Vintage Rifles crew, are you planning on doing a video on the FN49/SAFN ? I would enjoy your take on this ol girl
@VintageRiflesShootersClub
3 жыл бұрын
Yes, that is going to happen for sure!
@endutubecensorship
3 жыл бұрын
@@VintageRiflesShootersClub Awesome to hear!!
@yfelwulf
2 жыл бұрын
5here were plenty of targets close by. One Australian Sniper refused to use a scope under 300 yards
@SurvivalRussia
2 жыл бұрын
Subscribed.
@louiscaudron1857
3 жыл бұрын
Ow dear my lee enfield sniper edition makes a very nice grouping over 300 meters. Original with a parker hale diopter. So no topic love the stuff you do sir
@OLYMPICx22x
2 жыл бұрын
Great information, thanks for the insight guys!
@MikeBanks2003
2 жыл бұрын
Bollocks. One shot kill three times out of five at 800 yards. That was entry level.
@les3449
2 жыл бұрын
My late father-in-law was a BAR gunner in WW2. He told me that he was one of a few soldiers in boot camp assigned to "qualify" the rest of his company. By that he meant he was to shoot THEIR targets so they would be "qualified" with the M1. He also shot clothes pins at 100 yards with the BAR. His name was C.J. York and he was Alvin York's cousin.
@steringp1434
2 жыл бұрын
So he cheated so that unqualified soldiers would be sent to the front lines even if they couldn't shoot. How many of them were killed in fire fights because they weren't really qualified with a rifle. He must have known that what he was doing was wrong and prohibited. I wouldn't be bragging about what he did.
@les3449
2 жыл бұрын
@@steringp1434 Well, I don't know where you got the idea he was bragging OR had a choice. HE and other expert riflemen were ORDERED to do that AND he wasn't bragging about it. I was trying to illustrate how desperate the U.S. Army was for infantrymen. YOU can shove your self righteousness up YOUR ass!
@steringp1434
2 жыл бұрын
@@les3449 Well why did he tell anyone, including you, about it if he wasn't bragging just a little? If it was an order, then it was an illegal order and he didn't have to follow it. Do you think that his superior officer would actually bring him up on charges for refusing to cheat on what is probably the single most important test to determine if a soldier would live or die in combat. The superior office would then be the one in trouble. You either don't understand or don't want to understand, that he wasn't helping anyone by doing that. If they were soldiers that he would later go the front to fight with, then he will be fighting with soldiers that can't shoot very well. You do not want to be with soldiers that can't shoot well. YOU can shove that up YOUR ass!
@les3449
2 жыл бұрын
@@steringp1434 were YOU ever in the U.S. Army or ANY military? I was in the U.S. Army and can tell you that YOU don't UNDERSTAND the era and situation we, as a nation, were in. Was my father-in-law just supposed to refuse and go to the stockade? How old are you any way? You sound like an idealistic teenager who has NOT seen the reality of the military. My direction to you concerning your idealistic, childish opinion still stands.
@steringp1434
2 жыл бұрын
@@les3449 You weren't living in that era either (WW2). But somehow you understand it and other people don't because they weren't living in that era...are you serious? Do you not see the flawed logic that you are trying to use. Do you believe that you have some special abilities that other humans don't have to understand other eras? I'll say it one more time only because you either don't want to understand or you are not capable of understanding my point. Who did he benefit by having soldiers that couldn't shoot well be sent to the front lines? Your original comment was that he was "assigned" now you are saying that he was ordered and not obeying would result in him being locked up in the stockade? Which one is it? If he was ordered, then he could have done the correct and moral thing and missed when he shot at other peoples' targets. No soldier could be sent to the stockade for missing a target, otherwise all of the soldiers that he was "helping" would be in the stockade too. You seem to want to think of your father in some romanticized way that is not based in reality. Just because he was a good shot, he was not doing the right thing. The truth is that he was either "helping" other soldiers, or only helping himself to stay out of the stockade. If you have the mental ability, imagine that it was not your father that partook in some sick conspiracy to allow unqualified soldiers to go into battle. Who know how many of them were killed because of his "help." Who did he benefit by having soldiers that couldn't shoot well be sent to the front lines?
@nzgunnie
2 жыл бұрын
It had more to do with average engagement ranges. You wont need to shoot the enemy much further than 300yds if all the enemy is at that range or closer. It doesn't matter how accurate you are at 1000yds if there's no enemy at that range to shoot at. The British compensated for the quality of the optics by having a spotter with a telescope, which he would use to locate and talk on the sniper to the target, even if the sniper couldn't make out the target. This technique had been perfected during the first world war. Read Hesketh-Pritchard's excellent book Sniping in France.
@royshobe6642
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for making this video
@thomasdiamond9458
2 жыл бұрын
I talk with a number of Canadian WW2 Vets and they for the most part came under sniper fire very rarely, they did come under fire from riflemen taking a shot when someone exposed themselves, which was confused as from a sniper. That is not to saw that they didn't come under sniper fire but it was rare.
@brianfuller757
2 жыл бұрын
My dad was a sniper in WW2 and Korea and rarely engaged at more than 300m. These snipers were great shots.
@TravisMcKnight-lk7gg
Ай бұрын
For example a sniper hidden could see the ranges set 📐 up for enemy mortars and where they hit 🎯 . If you shot just out side of that envelope you have minutes and seconds for adjustments being made to move that arch , just moments , to fire and move . Before the mortars/ artillery will shift and pepper your POS.
@CarlsonWDane
2 жыл бұрын
Wow that arisaka scope reticle seems way ahead of it time, very cool.
@Seminex222
2 жыл бұрын
"if you hear the shot - it was not meant for you!"
@dangerman007
3 жыл бұрын
I would immediately dismiss anyone as an utter fool who would say that Simo Hayha or Vasily Zaitsev sucked.
@VintageRiflesShootersClub
3 жыл бұрын
People have their opinions and sometimes is just hard to argue because these days nobody is open to any arguments at all…discussing things seems to be the thing of the past. It’s either “my way or a Highway “…lol
@ericteipen
3 жыл бұрын
It doesn't take a genius to know that they were doing the best they could with what they had. Kinda stupid even asking such a question.
@timbow50
Жыл бұрын
I can’t imagine taking a chance of being seen because you are moving around to dial the turret.
@chrisbrent7487
3 жыл бұрын
Ian Robertson was sniping Chinese and North Koreans in the Korean war for a whole week during the fighting around a feature known as 614 with the 3rd Battalion Royal Australia Regiment. He was picking them off at much further distances than 300 meters. He was hitting them between 900 and 1200 yards according to the maps using a Lithgow built SMLE with a scope that only had elevation marked to 1000 yards. He said he never counted how many he dropped but he did it over and over at that range every time he went out for the whole week. I suspect that his DOPE was pretty fine tuned after the first few given that the enemy were always on the same ridge lines across from the 3 RAR positions. Even back in WW1 there were men like Billy Sing who killed many at decent ranges using nothing more than Lattey optical sights which are very rudimentary.
@pebo8306
2 жыл бұрын
None of Billy Sings "alleged"kills were ever confirmed!Just hearsay BS!---Ian Robertson???? Nobody outside Australia has ever heard of that guy!--There is probably a reason for this!
@GeorgiaBoy1961
6 ай бұрын
U.S. Marine Staff Sergeant (later Master Gunnery Sergeant) John Boitnott and his spotter successfully engaged communist targets ~ individual Chinese communist soldiers - at ranges of up to 1250 yards during one ten-day interval during the Korean War. Boitnott used an M-1C Garand chambered in 30-06, equipped with a 2.5x power Stith-Kollmorgan scope. The decoy - a brave man - would expose himself atop the parapet near their position to craw fire, and Boitnott would identify the target and take the shot. A spotter with a higher power optic spotted the fall of shot. What made Boitnott's achievement impressive from a shooting standpoint was not just the low power of his optic, but the fact that many of the shots were high angle ones, which necessitate additional correction in comparison to ones taken on level terrain.
@zaynevanday142
2 жыл бұрын
Just because you are a good shot doesn’t mean you are a sniper !
@toddk1377
Жыл бұрын
I would have never thought any snipers sucked in any period. Seeing how the majority of people shoot very capable rifles now days at the range, I can only imagine how a Sniper back then with 50 plus year old technology would wipe the floor with them and that doesn't touch the concealment concept that goes into being a sniper.
@Leif1963
Жыл бұрын
I think the lack of range finders and support gear required snipers to get within their pocket. The pocket being that distance that you know you can make the shot. The contested battlefield also created enough chaos that often times there was available distraction that allowed a sniper a reasonable chance of moving into the pocket if necessacry. It was also less likely that the Russian and other allied snipers would be far in advance of their forces to set up a hide near enemy forces. They were typically functioning in tandem. Caveats to all of that of course because war is fluid and each situation is unique.
@outinthesticks1035
2 жыл бұрын
Knew a guy who was a sniper in WW2. He said after they were selected then they didn't do any other training , just shooting , deuce and a half load of ammo every day . The hundred yard range they hung beer bottles from the frames , after they were hitting regularly then the instructors said ok , now we will start them swinging . Then they got to thinking they were really good and the instructors said ok , now shoot the broken neck after you shoot the bottle . He told this story after some guys said the lee-enfield wasn't accurate
@louiscaudron1857
2 жыл бұрын
Dear sir Rob I like to follow your videos. I hope i may do so. I promiss you I am no stalker. LOL keep them comming sir.
@donaldsheckler3636
3 жыл бұрын
In many cases WW2 "snipers" were more what we would call designated marksmen. US snipers varied greatly in how they were deployed and many times it amounted to giving the best shot the sniper rifle. Also, much of the time what the US might call a Japanese "sniper" was more a well concealed rifleman. Invading Russia, the Germans didn't really have sniper rifles or a sniper program (unlike in WW1), and they pressed rifles intended as designated rifleman rifles into service to counter the Russian snipers (they also made use of Russian sniper rifles). From what I've read it seems the snipers of that era (and also from WW1 based upon McBride's book) had the potential to be deadly out to 600 or 700 yards making kills often to that distance but beyond that it became difficult but there were some kills out to at least 1,000.
@carsmax
2 жыл бұрын
It´s always a different situation between practice shuts and real fighting situation . Important is , bring your heart beat / puls down to 10% over normal .
@russelkeith4034
3 жыл бұрын
Also remember. High value tgts were experienced. You wound an experienced that. Your position is pinned.. snipers are value there lives as much as the next person. Probability of fatal shot increases exponentially under three hundred metres.
@raytheron
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent video. One would think that their rifles would have been zeroed at 300m, for instance, rather than at a longer range, as in most instances that would have been the maximum optimal range.
@skeetersaurus6249
2 жыл бұрын
I was trained long ago by the U.S. Marine Corps; and both during and after service, I studied a lot on history, rumors and myths of long-range shooting. The problem with what I call 'apologetic history' of sniping, is that most of it IS NOT TRUE. As far back as 1874, Buffalo hunters in the U.S. were CONSISTENTLY making 500-yard shots (with open sights) to take Buffalo on first-shot...with some actually accomplishing kills out to 1,000 yards. A LARGE part of 'WWII effective sniping' had a SIGNIFICANT focus on weapons and ammunition quality, with much of the remainder being 'environment' (forests, hills, etc.). Being shot at while trying to acquire your target has a major effect on successful sniping, as well. With a true barrel on a bolt-action .30-06, and consistent ammunition (charge, primer and projectile weight that is symmetrical to its axis), I can EASILY make open-sighted '10-ring' hits, 10-for-10, at 800-yards TO THIS DAY! (I am in my 60's now). MOST long-range techniques, successful techniques, were perfected by 1950...and with a rifle such as the .300-Winchester Magnum, it is ENTIRELY FEASIBLE that a trained rifleman can successfully acquire and engage a 10-inch target (with open or 'iron' sights) up to 1,000-yards. If you cannot do this, then you have limited venues to blame: a good rifle, high quality ammunition, proper training and personal skill sets. To prove this singular point of how much 'personal skill' trumps 'equipment', the Marine Corps required you to fire your 'issued rifle' every year 'for score'...with the final test being 10-rounds fired at 500-yards...this is a ratty, beat-up M-16A2 with open sights (that had been issued to countless others before) and 'stock draw' ammunition. I never failed to fire 10-for-10 successful impacts at 500-yards (in a rifle not worth $500, in the condition it was in). There were better marksmen than myself, in the Marine Corps too. So, why did WWII-Snipers fail beyond 300-yards? Possibly poor training, possibly youth and inexperience, possibly 'combat' fear...but my personal guess: orders gave them an 'assumed working distance' within this range, and 'creep ability' allowed them to get as close as 300-yards before engagement...stop looking at the weapon and ammo as the failure...if you can't (or have never) fired on a 500-yard target with open sights...THEN YOU ARE FACILITATING YOUR HANDICAP by relying on a scope (optics)! LEARN TO SUCCESSFULLY ACQUIRE YOUR TARGET AND ENGAGE IT FIRST!
@DrBrunoDzogovic
3 жыл бұрын
The best WW2 sniper was a Finnish guy named Simo Häyhä. He managed to drop more than 500 guys in less than 100 days, by only using a Mosin M91 - without a scope.
@boarzwid1002
2 жыл бұрын
Correction M 28/30 it was his personal target rifle w / sighs like the m39 heavy barrel
@GeorgiaBoy1961
2 жыл бұрын
Simo Häyhä, an expert woodsman and hunter since childhood, preferred to stalk in very close to his Russian quarry - so close in fact that he often employed a submachine gun instead of a bolt-action rifle.
@MM-zg4wu
3 жыл бұрын
The war snipers were the best in the cities, especially in the ruined. They could hide anywhere and suddenly kill anyone and the enemy became paranoid. In such a fight, 300 meters is unusual and unnecessary.
@GeorgiaBoy1961
3 жыл бұрын
Fighting of the kind encountered at places like Stalingrad was ideal for female sharpshooters or smaller-stature males, who were small and flexible-enough to work themselves into positions no larger man could accomplish. Places where the enemy believed that they could not be. Until they found out otherwise.
@NoGoBu
2 жыл бұрын
Great info
@Predalien195
3 жыл бұрын
Equipment compared to modern alternatives definitely do "suck" but I don't think I've ever heard anybody make the claim they couldn't kill anything beyond 300m. Most every nation at some point during WW1 and WW2 built dedicated "sniper" platforms or would hand select the most accurate rifles for the top marksmen in every squad. Most all of the cartridges used during WW1 and WW2 for standard infantry rifles are all capable of shots out to 700 meters or beyond potentially. Now, depending on the nation in question "sniper" doctrine would be different. What we know of British and Japanese forces during WW2 they had more a focus on marksmanship at closer ranges for their trained snipers. The British from what I understand based their teaching on deer stalking techniques. Of course, they changed doctrine at some point as many forces do over time. Certainly wouldn't want to take a shot as you said and waste it. You would wait till you had a more guaranteed shot which typically means a closer range. And there's nothing wrong with that. These days, long range rifles will easily engage targets at much farther ranges but we have a lot more tools to help with that. Back when you had to guess and eyeball stuff, you likely wanted to be sure. Great video. Really covered the topic well.
@karlkuttup
2 жыл бұрын
id say the top sniper was the finnish white death no scope he was something else ,the tricks he found to help cover his positions as well ,very smart guy
@darkozambo1431
2 жыл бұрын
You topic is good choise and gest . Good woork and respect. Sory but my english is not good. Werry good canale . Hello from Croatia
@jeffreyplum5259
2 жыл бұрын
It was not all rifle versus rifle, either. A sniper could invite counterfire from anything within range. Stalingrad was a very intense sniper versus sniper situation. Thet also had straight scopes, with no large objective lenses to improve light gathering. Many modern scopes use large lenses at each end, even in 4 power. ?These men also grew up on the stories of World War One sniping. They knew what a good shot could do with the slightest chance. The battlefield is also a very noisy and dynamic place. Even if it is quiet now, any moment all hell might break loose. This does not count fatigues, weather, smoke or other rough conditions. Their weapons may have only been slightly enhances over the basic military issue. Their ammo may or may not be special issue. It could be the regular ball round issued by the millions. These men, sometimes women in Russian service, and their rather basic weapons did amazing things. Every sho was a big gamble, which could one's life, never mind a mere winning streak. God Bless you all.
@orion2250
2 жыл бұрын
My lessons? Shoot n scoot, pick the high value target,buy good glass..
@MADMAX353
Жыл бұрын
Who ever said "WWII Snipers sucked and couldn't kill anything past 300m!" obviously do not understand or know military history.
@johngilmour8945
2 жыл бұрын
That was a Horrid Statement to make about Any WW2 Military personell! the technology improvements are the only thing that keeps those of today from getting the same definition!!! SHAME-SHAME-SHAME!
@lewiefrazier1041
3 жыл бұрын
Read a story in NRA magazine best shot in a company saved his buddy by shooting a German soldier walking at 600 yards. Bullet struck his helmet above his ear. His bud had been captured by the german.
@williamreymond2669
2 жыл бұрын
4:30] We always said you're only thirty seconds away from having a mortar round dropped on your a$$. That said, if you were confident you were far enough away that you could get two or three rounds off before your targets had time to react to the sound of the first round arriving it might be worth the risk.
@Piechotka85
3 жыл бұрын
always a pleasure
@stevefriswell5422
2 жыл бұрын
Nice explanation
@alanmellon8957
3 жыл бұрын
Something to think about. What if the average person does not know what a sniper actually is.
@sandraneuser2158
3 жыл бұрын
Or the differnc between a sniper, a sharpshooter and a designated marksman
@VintageRiflesShootersClub
3 жыл бұрын
Alan, I think I understand what you are asking for, would you like to see episode dedicated to explain sniper role and function across the history of battlefields?
@alanmellon8957
3 жыл бұрын
@@VintageRiflesShootersClub it was a statement but yes sir. That sounds like a great idea! Glad you are picking up what I am putting down.
@strangelyjamesly4078
2 жыл бұрын
WW2 was a close contact war. 10's of millions of combatants. Most sniper kills were less than 300m because most enemy contacts were less than 300m. Dense woodland, urban centres, rural towns and villages. House to house fighting. I live in Northern Bavaria (Odenwald) and other than shooting from hilltop to hill top or across the River Main I cant think of anywhere where I'd have a contact at over 300m. Snipers were mainly designated marksmen in a squad and if you were to start picking long range targets you'd very soon draw heavy machine gun or light artistry/mortar fire on your unit. Single "hunter/killer" snipers like Simo were the absolute exception. (These are my thought before watching the video).
@GeorgiaBoy1961
2 жыл бұрын
A friend and former U.S. Army special forces sniper once told me (I am a military historian and interested in all old soldier stories) that once you break the shot, you become "a bullet magnet." Meaning that no sniper/marksman who wants to survive reveals his position unless the payoff is both assured and worth the risk. A man or maybe a team of two guys all by their lonesome in "Indian Country" have to rely on stealth, skill and distance to be their friends, because they aren't going to beat superior numbers of the enemy in the open and in a stand-up fight.
@peterwehrmeyer925
3 жыл бұрын
It is all about the ID. I can hit the colonel at 700, if someone would get to attention or salute. Or I take the 300m infantry leader. Not both.
@megapet777
3 жыл бұрын
SImo häyhä, one of the best ww2 era snipers didn't even use scope. Just the iron sight.
@robinharris6771
Жыл бұрын
I do not claim to be an expert. I think the reason a high percentage of shots were inside 300 meters is because the Soldier that boldly stands in the open to be observed at 500 yds is soon eliminated. I suspect it does not take long for troops to take advantage of cover and concealment. Its a challenge to detect a wise troop at 300 meters. Competition shooting was a big deal turn of the century through WW2. Ever heard of Creedmoor or Wimbledon? Cast lead bullets and iron sights at 1000 yds.. Amazing targets! I have a circa 1920;s Bausch and Lomb spotting scope,the "NRA Model" that is 100 yrs old and I can still see bullet holes in the black with it at 200 yds. I think its 20X.Or 15X. Today's International Palma competition is iron sights . Those guys will whack a coffee cup at 300 meters. From a 1903A3 receiver I scrounged parts and built a copy of a 1903A4 sniper rifle. The scope is a 2.5X Lyman Alaskan. Its period correct and the Army ordered a qty of them for a next gen sniper scope to replace the Weaver. The war ended and the order was canceled. Its a nice scope. That rifle shoots real good at 300 meters, About 1 MOA with handloads. (Criterion direct replacement barrel)
@louisavondart9178
3 жыл бұрын
Most contact with the enemy was at less than 200m. Only snipers and MG teams could take on targets further away than that. Without a scope you simply can't see well enough to shoot further than 200m anyway. Remember, if you can see them, they can probably see you.
@TravisMcKnight-lk7gg
Ай бұрын
The average distance in the intimate contact between forces on the ground and weapons systems, mortars, artillery, mechanized infantry, identification of enemy officers and targets of importance in combination with shot placement. Once your discovered, mortars , artillery, mechanized infantry will be on you , and minimal distance for escape. Any closer you die , any further out your not effective with what was available at the time in theaters.
@THATMOFODIRT
2 жыл бұрын
Commenting to give another like 👍
@sldessel
2 жыл бұрын
Being a sniper is not just about shooting, you are collecting intel.
@TheGorillafoot
2 жыл бұрын
Great stuff.
@franky2shoes660
3 жыл бұрын
Back in the90's I was on an Army Cadet Corp. rifle team. During completion we would shoot at 400 meters, .303 Lee Enfield from WW2, with ammo from the Korean war era...We always got 4 rounds for sighting than 8 shots for a total score of 100. I would always score 97-98. one guy on my team did score 100...Would you believe it was all done with iron sights!!!???!!
Пікірлер: 270