That would be using an M24, no? I have nothing better to do today, feel a little crappy, so I'll tell you a story. It'll be long, but informative. It is an overview of what I learned, experienced, and saw.
For the short version, here: get a NM legal AR, AR10, or M1A (or any other NM legal rifle) that you can use in matches, go to the matches and master them, then if you like, put a scope on it and now you have a semi sniper rifle. The guy behind it still won't be a sniper --but if he masters the NM course he may be a better shot than most snipers. Read on for why!
With the ballistics of the .308 and the variables that go into long range shooting, it gets more and more difficult to account for wind and such when you go beyond these ranges. Especially when they are blowing in different directions. It doesn't surprise me that this is the ONE HUNDRED percent number, in fact, it may seem kind of high if anything. Police snipers are, some anyway, are restricted to 100m or up to 300m shots. This may be why.
Personally, I've nailed a point target first hit using an M4. At those distances. Could I guarantee it everytime? No. With 2MOA on that particular rifle, I had no room for error, the shot had to be perfect --meaning I had to master all variables save the ones I couldn't. That means a good wind call, rather, a perfect wind call.
Now at the range, non-SF snipers can USUALLY pull this shot off with a cold barrel, and that is basically all we are talking about here. Take into consideration we've got a guy that hit a target WELL past 2000m. Wow. Just wow. But he had a ballistic computer, it isn't really cheating, it is that there is no way he could have mastered that shot without sitting down for an hour and working with the multivariable differential equations necessary to pull off that shot. That or practicing that shot a lot. Chances are low, had he gotten that much practice, he'd need a new barrel (this rifle was what, a Cheytac or BMG?).
For the avereage person without the training, it doesn't matter, they won't be pulling off these shots anyway. Best advice you can give them is to get a nice, cheap, but decent bolt gun, say an FN or a Remington (I had a .300winmag, PSS that I used in the army, and I sold it to an SF guy and he took it to Afghanistan with him). Slap a cheap SWFA 10x scope on and you are good to go (best cheap "sniper" scope there is, trust me here, knew a guy that took a Whitefeather M1A topped with this to Iraq, guess it worked well, he came back). Then go sign up at the range for highpower, NM, whatever you have the minimum gear to shoot. This is how to learn to shoot long range.
We found this out and exploited it. We made SDM's run the NM course before going to the ACOG, most of these guys couldn't shoot before coming here, though they were the best shots in all of the Stryker units (3 at the time). Calling shots, keeping a book, learning the positions, using a sling, on and on, all the NM stuff. We even gave them 60x Kowa spotting scopes on long stands and folding chairs, used a KD range, everything just like a real NM course. They got to wear special black shirts with a skull and crosshairs (or school insignia) and boonie hats with no armor or gear (except for the "tactical" portion of the class). This, like the blue cord the infantry gets, distinguishes them from the rest of the unit, at least while in training, and that difference and loosening of the rules significanly increased morale and made them very intersted and perceptive. It worked GREAT. Took all the hard work out of teaching them how to engage point targets at unknown distances later, and gave us a chance to teach them to spot, adjust for wind, and read mirage. Now we had a few snipers that helped us run this course, they were like teacher assistants so that every two, two man teams had one instructor. This actually made them better shots too --thought they knew all this stuff already and had shot this same range, the actual "game" of NM shooting is very helpful at making one a better shot. In fact, I'd say it should be implemented into basic training.
It really is that easy, easy enough to teach in basic, and they waste so much time doing what they do now --the time they spend farting around at the range in basic, they could just as easily use shooters to teach instead of drill sergeants, and just have them monitor for discipline. The shooting portion of basic is more lax than the rest anyway because they don't want to stress them while shooting. Our drill sergeant, for the whole time of the shooting part, kept score of every screw up and when those two or so weeks were over, we had to pay our debt. Something like 10,000 pushups and either one man could do it or the whole platoon --of course the whole platoon did it, with the guy that could do the most doing the most. It was one of the "unit cohesion" and commeraderie (sp?) things..
Now for Joe Blow, I don't know how he'll get the instruction. If he can buddy up or linger on a guy at a NM shoot, that is ideal. When he can outshoot him, he'll tell him to bugger off. But nothing, nothing, beats the instruction I got from guys that had been to SOTIC, SF sniper, Army sniper, Marine sniper, FOREIGN sniper schools, NM champs and more. I went there a pretty good shot, became a phenomenal shot, and was asked back as a resident instructor where I got even more training as well (best job I ever had, EVER!). Had I stayed in, I'd have gotten a SOTIC slot too, even though I wasn't SF, the brigade gets to send one or two of their best snipers to the school. That sucked, I even extended my ETS date but I couldn't get it out far enough to go (and they really needed to send someone that was getting ready to deploy with them anyway). Still, I wanted to go, who wouldn't? Anyway, everything that was learned by all of us instructors before, during, and after those courses was folded into this school, it was parts of sniper, SOTIC, NM game shooting, night shooting with the PEQ lasers, and of course, target engagement in urban terrain, a roughly 400m course which we made up (playing sniper running through a city, clearing buildings, taking roof shots, crawling through tunnels and grass and taking a shot, lots of really fun stuff). We put it all on a disc, wrote a manual, and submitted it to the army, TRADOC I think it was.
What happened was the Army DID in fact like the idea and made an SDM course. But they cut it down from one month (all day, Saturday too, and a few nights as well) to one week (!) and they heeded our demands for NM to be included, so the instructors now are actually picked from NRA or CMP NM badge holders, whatever they call the ones that win the matches. This shows you the army has no good shooters to really spare to run a school capable of teaching this kind of shooting (like I said, our snipers learned more stuff doing NM shooting with us, became better shooters). I suppose AMU could do it, but I don't see it happeing (they are the only ones I know of that actually do this kind of shooting regularly there). Anyway, they cut out the rest and now they just put ACOGs on an M4 and put 'em on that range for a week and show them fundamental NM shooting and call it good. No classroom time (on SO MUCH) no all day ranges for a month, no tactical applications (how to take the NM stuff and apply it on the battlefield) just so much was cut. The SDM's we turned out from '02-'04 were BAD. The course was also designed to teach these guys to go and teach this stuff to their squads --we chose guys with high rifle scores, but they had to have high GT scores too, 120? So an SDM today isn't the same thing as an SDM from '04. Sad, really sad. I actually signed up to be an instructor at Benning when I heard they were taking civilian instructors, but the program ended there --probably for the best.
Now you bring up the semi auto. I absolutely agree. That is what I "majored" in, using semi auto rifles AS sniper rifles. An SDM is like a squad level sniper that carries a rifle more suited to fighting rather than sniping --when I was in, they got M4's with an ACOG. We managed to get some with the SOPMOD kit, which had a thicker barrel, but they were basically just regular M4's with an ACOG and some used M16A2 lowers for a better stock. Pretty basic really, but the training is what made the difference, these weren't just guys with ACOGs they bought and took to Iraq, they were pretty confident in the fact that they could hit point targets to 600m (I know what the book says, and I don't care, the cutoff for accuracy in the army is 4MOA --we didn't use rifles that loose in our school, 2MOA was our cutoff). So again, I stress that shooting that far is the training and practice and not the weapon --to a point.
Now the whole time we argued that they needed to give us more powerful rifles. Even though these guys could hit targets at 600m, the bullet had no more umph when it got there (still supersonic, but so is a .22). I wouldn't try to stand up and catch one, but still. So we brought our own toys to the range regularly. The guy with the M1A, he recommended they open up those lockers FULL of M14's at Lewis. They refused. We begged for KAC SR25's, they refused. So a lot of guys, they bought their own uppers. Then Geissele came out with an auto match trigger, a Godsend. FINALLY, the units go flooded with money (you should have seen it, what a buying spree, all high end weapons gear, even manufacturers were sending us free stuff so we'd buy it for the unit --got lots of free stuff this way, all I had to do was write and ask for it!). When every other thing was paid for, the got SDM's some new rifles last, but not all of them. What they got was unit dependent, how much they were willing to spend. Some did get the SR25's, a lot got the M14, some got other stuff --I even saw a picture of one guy in Afghanistan carrying a rifle I had NO IDEA what it was. All I could tell was he was definitely an SDM by the look of the weapon (he wasn't SF, he was infantry, leg).
Now, factor in the NM shooting as being the BEST way to learn to shoot at distance, the fact an accurate semi auto is good to the range you describe, and that semi autos are just more fun (come one, you know they are!) and you come to the realization that the best choice would be a NM legal rifle. An AR, OR an Armalite AR10, they make a NM version that is all "tactical" too, so you get a NM legal rifle in .308 that is fine enough to deploy with. I'd take one anyway. But you can do the same stuff with an M4, I have today a near duplicate of my M4 from the army with a couple of minor changes. I also have Zeus' lighting bolt, a 6.5 Grendel, Satern barreled, custom built by me AR. THIS is what I believed they should have been issued, but the round was problematic, especially with the patent Mr. Alexander's investors were flying around. No way the Army will adopt something like that. But that Grendel, it is the perfect 1000m and less AR calibre. I LOVE it. Sub-MOA, I haven't stretched its legs yet, but at 200m I can nail a 12" hanging plate and keep it swinging almost as fast as I can pull the trigger. Yeah, I had spectators that day, and the range bent the rules so I can rapid fire on the ranges now.
So yeah, for a civilian, a NM legal AR in 5.56 or .308 or an M1A (or whatever else they allow that the user wants most) is great. Learn the course, master the course, and you'll be a better shot than half the snipers in the Army, maybe more. The rifle you selected, any of the NM legal rifles, are suitable to be called a "sniper rifle" and some are "tactical" like the Armalite. I'm not sure if my Grendel is yet, I haven't shot civilian NM matches yet, not real matches anyway. But you can take the Armalite, put the carry handle on it and have the match rifle, or throw an ACOG on it, a bipod, gangster grip and flashlight, and you have an SDM rifle. Throw a 10x scope on it and just the bipod, presto, a sniper rifle. WHAT the rifle is, in some cases, has to do with the gear you put on it for the situation, the "tactical" stuff.
When I do shoot the matches this summer, if my Grendel or M4 isn't legal, I'll probably go with the Armalite NM AR10 --or build one, whatever is the best deal. If I can build one with a cut rifle barrel for a similar cost, I will. That singular item in an AR design is the most important of all. You want sub-MOA accuracy in an AR? Guaranteed? You want a quality cut rifle barrel if you can, but there are good button barrels (fine ones) too. I only say this because I own one cut rifle barrel and it is the most accurate AR I've ever seen, but the calibre doesn't hurt.
Finally, I'll add this. There is a guy at another forum, a long range shooting forum, that read some other thread about some guy saying that theoretically you could shoot a 5.56 to a mile --and accurately hit a point target. Everyone called BS and laughed the guy away. So this other guy, instead of arguing the point, goes and gets a cheap Savage and does some very simple mods to it to accurize it, and puts a fairly inexpensive scope on it --the most obscure modification was HIGHLY angled scope base. Like big tires in the back, little tires in the front souped up! He said he wanted to prove that this could be done AND with a weapon cheap enough that anyone who wanted to try it could. He taped the whole thing because he knew he'd be doubted. Ultimately, he could a barrel size target most of the time if I recall right. You can look it up --lots of good info on that site too, most of the guy on there were or are snipers and the tempo of discussion is much higher grade than it is here. You should check out that site, maybe ask a question or two over there and see what those guys say. You'll have to search for it, maybe "long range shooting forum .223 mile shot" or something like that.
Good luck. I'm gonna wander off now.
I thought that had been verboten for three decades.
