Hunting Rifle/Sniper Rifle - What's the Difference?
- Thread starter PaladinVC
- Start date
- Status
Tomac
Member
What does this rifle *look* like it's used for?
Tomac
Tomac
Red_SC
Member
Actually, one of my hunting rifles has them, and my 'sniper rifle' doesn't. I'm working on that, though.
Diggler
Member
A sniper's weapon is either a Bushmaster .223 or a Beretta 9mm handgun.
The news media in DC and Ohio told me so.
The news media in DC and Ohio told me so.
I completely agree its in the manner used and the target. Incoming is uncomfortable, but its non specific. Not personal. Firefights are loud and confusing. Unless you are in the kill zone they aren't personal. The minute you can move ect you no longer are the center of attention. A damn sniper will scare the pure hell out of you. Psychologically terrifying. You are scared to move, scared to stay. How long is enough? You know he had a set of cross hairs on you and he is fully able to kill you should he desire. Has he left? Is he playing with you? He has full power over the situation. Makes me sick all over again to think about it.
rk
rk
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
What's the difference?
About 3 pounds and $800 or so?
The intended target and the man (or woman) behind the trigger?
If there's a hunting license involved or a deer tag?
Wood or synthetic stock?
Taken out of the safe once or twice a year w/ less than 10 rds fired or deployed and trained with on a regular basis?
What ctdonath said...
About 3 pounds and $800 or so?
The intended target and the man (or woman) behind the trigger?
If there's a hunting license involved or a deer tag?
Wood or synthetic stock?
Taken out of the safe once or twice a year w/ less than 10 rds fired or deployed and trained with on a regular basis?
What ctdonath said...
cracked butt
Member
There is no difference whatsoever.
There have been plenty of snipers that have used iron sighted rifles.
Sniping isn't necessarily about distance- by definition sniping can be done from 50 feet away as well as 1/4 mile away.
A skilled sniper armed with a $100 handi rifle can be much more effective than a novice with a $10,000 .50 BMG.
LHO (allegedly) sniped JFK with what was probably a $15 carcano.
Wood stock versus synthetic? Most new hunting rifles these days have synthetic stocks, on the other hand I would wager that the majority of military sniper rifles in the last century had a wooden stock.
There have been plenty of snipers that have used iron sighted rifles.
Sniping isn't necessarily about distance- by definition sniping can be done from 50 feet away as well as 1/4 mile away.
A skilled sniper armed with a $100 handi rifle can be much more effective than a novice with a $10,000 .50 BMG.
LHO (allegedly) sniped JFK with what was probably a $15 carcano.
Wood stock versus synthetic? Most new hunting rifles these days have synthetic stocks, on the other hand I would wager that the majority of military sniper rifles in the last century had a wooden stock.
saddenedcitizen
Member
ctdonath hit it right square on the head !
It's ALL about general public perception because the vast
majority will NEVER spend one precious minute (might miss
some VITAL TV !!!) investigating/learning for him/herself.
Far easier (and they THINK more accurate) to be spoon fed
all of life's important information by Dan/Peter/Tom !!!!
I've learned several things from this thread regarding optics,
accuracy, users etc. and it all sounds resonable/good to me -
- BUT
Since so many people seem to have no idea what the difference
is between semi and fully automatic. All they 'know' is
'if a gun is black and scary looking and has thingies on it then it
MUST BE AN EVIL MACHINEGUN, or ASSAULT WEAPON or, or, or something that OUGHT TO BE B A N N E D and O U T L A W E D 'cause it's
S C A R Y!!!!!!!!!!!!
These people will NEVER get to the level of understanding
demonstrated by members on this thread (nor do they care to
do so apparently).
Hence, they will buy whatever the 'definition of the day' is about
what is to be banned or should be banned.
This is one of my major 'ulcer contributors' when it comes to
'sportsmen' (OK OK not all of 'em) but a LOT who's stance
seems to be - 'Hey, they ain't after my huntin' guns, just them
assault one's, so why should I care'
'Cause, you &^($%$#&$#&^$(&^% the definition hasn't been
tweaked just enough, YET, to include your huntin' guns.
When that DOES happen, it's going to be FAR too late and
so many are going to fall into the 'third catagory' of people.
1st catagory - those who make things happen
2nd catagory - those who watch things happen
3rd catagory - those who wonder 'WHAT THE H*** HAPPENED ??????'
It's ALL about general public perception because the vast
majority will NEVER spend one precious minute (might miss
some VITAL TV !!!) investigating/learning for him/herself.
Far easier (and they THINK more accurate) to be spoon fed
all of life's important information by Dan/Peter/Tom !!!!
I've learned several things from this thread regarding optics,
accuracy, users etc. and it all sounds resonable/good to me -
- BUT
Since so many people seem to have no idea what the difference
is between semi and fully automatic. All they 'know' is
'if a gun is black and scary looking and has thingies on it then it
MUST BE AN EVIL MACHINEGUN, or ASSAULT WEAPON or, or, or something that OUGHT TO BE B A N N E D and O U T L A W E D 'cause it's
S C A R Y!!!!!!!!!!!!
These people will NEVER get to the level of understanding
demonstrated by members on this thread (nor do they care to
do so apparently).
Hence, they will buy whatever the 'definition of the day' is about
what is to be banned or should be banned.
This is one of my major 'ulcer contributors' when it comes to
'sportsmen' (OK OK not all of 'em) but a LOT who's stance
seems to be - 'Hey, they ain't after my huntin' guns, just them
assault one's, so why should I care'
'Cause, you &^($%$#&$#&^$(&^% the definition hasn't been
tweaked just enough, YET, to include your huntin' guns.
When that DOES happen, it's going to be FAR too late and
so many are going to fall into the 'third catagory' of people.
1st catagory - those who make things happen
2nd catagory - those who watch things happen
3rd catagory - those who wonder 'WHAT THE H*** HAPPENED ??????'
entropy
Member
"Actually, now that I think about it, historically, MOST military firearms either ARE or were adapted from commercial designs."
Geekwitha.45,I believe if you study the history of firearms,and of technological advances in general, you'll find the reverse is true.
ctdonath, I like the post with the M40A1. Although I'd be willing to bet that the amount of people that hunt with an M40A1 is dang low. The Unertl 10x USMC scope is quite rare outside the military, simply because the services are snapping them up as they come off the line. But the premise of the post is very true.
Roadkill's description is excellent. I would , however, substitute 'damn' with 'good'. Although the comment, "Incoming is uncomfortable, but its non specific. Not personal. " reminds me of a quote I've seen here on THR before:"The bullet with my name on it I can do nothing about. The one that scares me is the one addressed 'to whom it may concern'."
Geekwitha.45,I believe if you study the history of firearms,and of technological advances in general, you'll find the reverse is true.
ctdonath, I like the post with the M40A1. Although I'd be willing to bet that the amount of people that hunt with an M40A1 is dang low. The Unertl 10x USMC scope is quite rare outside the military, simply because the services are snapping them up as they come off the line. But the premise of the post is very true.
Roadkill's description is excellent. I would , however, substitute 'damn' with 'good'. Although the comment, "Incoming is uncomfortable, but its non specific. Not personal. " reminds me of a quote I've seen here on THR before:"The bullet with my name on it I can do nothing about. The one that scares me is the one addressed 'to whom it may concern'."
J. Garand
Member
The differance between them is probadly 800 bucks.
ctdonath
Member
Sure, practically nobody hunts with a M40A1.
Most hunters use something like the extrememly popular Remington 700 with a 10x scope.
...er...waitaminute...a M40A1 is a Remington 700 with 10x scope.
Most hunters use something like the extrememly popular Remington 700 with a 10x scope.
...er...waitaminute...a M40A1 is a Remington 700 with 10x scope.
With respect to the little bird that is responsible for coining the term "sniper"...
I can't help wonder what the entire profession would be called if the Snipe had never existed and people had to look elsewhere when trying to adopt a name....
Very possible that the term "varminter" would be applied to those who were capable of hitting exceptionally small targets at ranges beyond the capability of the average joe.
Look at some of the revolutionary war tactics with trained marksmen who's skills were honed having shot many a woodland squirrel.
If not "sniper", if not "varminter", then maybe "squirrel'er"? er something like that.
The Violence Policy Center "gets it" in that many of the rifles they list as being capable of serving as a "sniper rifle" are in fact the popular rifles for which most sniper rifles are built from. Rifles such as the Remington 700 or Winchester Model 70. The anti's have educated themselves and learned what an M40A1 or an M24-SWS is at it's core and gone forth to recommend banning rifles such as the Remington 700 VS or other "varminting" rifles.
First we had "assault weapons" that were being called out for banning due to them being so inaccurate that they need a 30 round magazine to get the job done while being fired indescriminantly from the hip.
One would think that that would imply that "less accurate" firearms are a bad thing and that the accurate firearms, the flip side to that coin, must be acceptable.
NOOOOOO, now it's a bad thing to have a rifle that is TOO accurate because in the hands of a trained nut they can levy vengance upon an unsuspecting society at the drop of a hat.
I can't help wonder what the entire profession would be called if the Snipe had never existed and people had to look elsewhere when trying to adopt a name....
Very possible that the term "varminter" would be applied to those who were capable of hitting exceptionally small targets at ranges beyond the capability of the average joe.
Look at some of the revolutionary war tactics with trained marksmen who's skills were honed having shot many a woodland squirrel.
If not "sniper", if not "varminter", then maybe "squirrel'er"? er something like that.
The Violence Policy Center "gets it" in that many of the rifles they list as being capable of serving as a "sniper rifle" are in fact the popular rifles for which most sniper rifles are built from. Rifles such as the Remington 700 or Winchester Model 70. The anti's have educated themselves and learned what an M40A1 or an M24-SWS is at it's core and gone forth to recommend banning rifles such as the Remington 700 VS or other "varminting" rifles.
First we had "assault weapons" that were being called out for banning due to them being so inaccurate that they need a 30 round magazine to get the job done while being fired indescriminantly from the hip.
One would think that that would imply that "less accurate" firearms are a bad thing and that the accurate firearms, the flip side to that coin, must be acceptable.
NOOOOOO, now it's a bad thing to have a rifle that is TOO accurate because in the hands of a trained nut they can levy vengance upon an unsuspecting society at the drop of a hat.
Actually, now that I think about it, historically, MOST military firearms either ARE or were adapted from commercial designs.
END QUOTE
False Usually its the other way around. Sometimes commercial designs are adapted for military use but its not the norm.
Pat
END QUOTE
False Usually its the other way around. Sometimes commercial designs are adapted for military use but its not the norm.
Pat
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
I thought snipes were hunted at night, by standing out in a field with a burlap sack while the other hunters drive the snipes toward you . . . at least that's what they said they were doing . . .
Steve Smith
Moderator Emeritus
Ok, riddle me this
I am building a rifle. It is a pre-64 Winchester 70, in .30-06, with a 24" barrel pillar bedded in a McMillan stock in olive green. I have Leupold QD rings and a Leupold 1.5-5 power scope on it. You guys know what I can do with iron sights so I don't need no stinkin high-power scope.
What do I have, a hunting rig or a sniper rig?
I am building a rifle. It is a pre-64 Winchester 70, in .30-06, with a 24" barrel pillar bedded in a McMillan stock in olive green. I have Leupold QD rings and a Leupold 1.5-5 power scope on it. You guys know what I can do with iron sights so I don't need no stinkin high-power scope.
What do I have, a hunting rig or a sniper rig?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,494
From a World War I Sniping Manual
In researching sharpshooting (go to the blackpowder forum and check out the thread entitled "Bedtime Stories" or "Sharpshooter Tales"), I have delved into the early history of "modern" sniping (though I may not discuss it much in the book).
So, you want to know what a sniper rifle is? Here's something from a World War I booklet:
The value of the sniperscope is not sufficiently realized. It is a clumsy instrument and easily gets out of order, but, in good hands, a four-inch group may be made at 100 yards... The telescope, like the periscope, requires handling with care, and cunning; its use requires training and practice, an dmen should be instructed in the care of these and other valuable instruments with which they are entrusted.
Gee, 4" group at 100 yards? Why, many of our modern sporting guns will do better. By World War II 2" at 100 yards was acceptable to the British Sniper (I'm not sure what the specs were for our snipers and some of them were given a scoped rifle w/out training). Modernly, we accept nothing less than sub-moa and many of our modern commerical scopes would outperform the optics of World War I.
The book itself is silent on the selection of rifles. Presumably the rifle is provided by the Army though some officers took it upon themselves to bring their personal weapons with them to the front. It does however acknowledge the usefulness of heavy rifles: "An Express Rifle, with specially hardened steel bullets, is of great value. We have a 416 Rigby rifle, and many a good yarn we could tell the C.-in-C. of its exploits. It is sighted to 300 yards. Many a German loophole plate or suspicious looking sandbag has been pierced or smashed up, and no doubt many a German sniper has felt its shock." In this latter regard we seem to have come full circle in that it is not unusual for modern snipers to use guns chambered for .338 or 50 caliber. However, the use of these bigger bores is not to pierce steel loopholes but for long distance shooting that is beyond the capability of the standard 7.62 mm Nato.
In researching sharpshooting (go to the blackpowder forum and check out the thread entitled "Bedtime Stories" or "Sharpshooter Tales"), I have delved into the early history of "modern" sniping (though I may not discuss it much in the book).
So, you want to know what a sniper rifle is? Here's something from a World War I booklet:
The value of the sniperscope is not sufficiently realized. It is a clumsy instrument and easily gets out of order, but, in good hands, a four-inch group may be made at 100 yards... The telescope, like the periscope, requires handling with care, and cunning; its use requires training and practice, an dmen should be instructed in the care of these and other valuable instruments with which they are entrusted.
Gee, 4" group at 100 yards? Why, many of our modern sporting guns will do better. By World War II 2" at 100 yards was acceptable to the British Sniper (I'm not sure what the specs were for our snipers and some of them were given a scoped rifle w/out training). Modernly, we accept nothing less than sub-moa and many of our modern commerical scopes would outperform the optics of World War I.
The book itself is silent on the selection of rifles. Presumably the rifle is provided by the Army though some officers took it upon themselves to bring their personal weapons with them to the front. It does however acknowledge the usefulness of heavy rifles: "An Express Rifle, with specially hardened steel bullets, is of great value. We have a 416 Rigby rifle, and many a good yarn we could tell the C.-in-C. of its exploits. It is sighted to 300 yards. Many a German loophole plate or suspicious looking sandbag has been pierced or smashed up, and no doubt many a German sniper has felt its shock." In this latter regard we seem to have come full circle in that it is not unusual for modern snipers to use guns chambered for .338 or 50 caliber. However, the use of these bigger bores is not to pierce steel loopholes but for long distance shooting that is beyond the capability of the standard 7.62 mm Nato.
Last edited:
lycanthrope
Member
Winchester model 70 in 7mm STW (140gr at close to 3500fps). Muzzle brake (flash supressor?..lol) Jewell trigger at 1lb. 8x-40x variable scope with target knobs. Bell and Carlson thumbhole stock with floated barrel.
Chrono'd and trajectory plotted and memorized to 600 yards.
Farthest head shot on a whitetail....330 yards lasered.
Sniping is serious......hunting can be serious. Same tool if you demand it.
I think it depends on if you think a sniper rifle is a rifle that is capable of sniping or a rifle that is specialized for sniping. What is the definition of a sniper rifle? Is it a rifle that can snipe? Perhaps you think military standards and criteria apply?
Also seems to be some haze between the act of sniping and an actual sniper rifle. Yes you could snipe with a hunting rifle but does that make it an actual sniper rifle when compared to a specialized sniper rifle system?
I can race in a Ford Pinto, but does it make it a race car? Also, I don't think many people would mistake an AI AW or a PSG for a hunting rifle but yet you could hunt with it. Is it because the AI AW looks tactical (cool) or is it because its been designed to excel as a military sniper rifle which accounts for its different appearance.
I don't have an answer here, I just don't think there's a simple answer.
Also seems to be some haze between the act of sniping and an actual sniper rifle. Yes you could snipe with a hunting rifle but does that make it an actual sniper rifle when compared to a specialized sniper rifle system?
I can race in a Ford Pinto, but does it make it a race car? Also, I don't think many people would mistake an AI AW or a PSG for a hunting rifle but yet you could hunt with it. Is it because the AI AW looks tactical (cool) or is it because its been designed to excel as a military sniper rifle which accounts for its different appearance.
I don't have an answer here, I just don't think there's a simple answer.
cracked butt
Member
Looks like a rifle for shooting Whitetails out of a tower blind over a beanfield.
JohnMc
Member
Regardless of precise definition, ctdonath's post with those two very different rifle pictures should cause any friend of the second ammendment to snap to attention. Pretty much paints the F-troop's plans in living color.
JohnMc
JohnMc
Carlos Cabeza
Member
I think the difference is the intended target. If your target is a deer, its a HUNTING rifle. Lately the word "sniper" has been conjured by the media into scaring the sheeple to get ratings. A "sniper" is a highly trained individual with the ability to quietly and effectively dispatch enemy personel from a remote location, then escape and evade capture.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked