Long Range Marksmanship

D

Darza44

New Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2022
Messages
3
Location
Winston Salem
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Not sure if I'm in the right area. But a friend of mine and I have been having a debate.

I'm really into long range shooting and do well at it. He on the other hand shoots gernally less than a 100 yards.

The debate is the usefulness of long range marksmanship. He seems the think that in a firefight type incident that shooting past 200 yards is unneeded and a waste of time and money etc and the that an engagement at anything pass 100 to 200 yards is unlikely.

I on the other hand read a lot of German sniper memoirs and read about a lot of shots being made well past 200+. I try to stress to him that sure 800-1000 is more unlikely but 200-700ish isn't that far in the grand scheme of things but is very far when being shot at.



But this is the guy that only needs a red dot. So am I wasting my breath or am I looking to far into this subject?

Thanks
 
They both are important if you are planning for civil unrest/war/societal collapse/etc. Long range training helps you secure your area out to 5-600 yds (if you have that available) while the fire-fighting mindset allows you to handle the ones that squeak through. Think of it as a layered approach to securing your area.

If you are talking about learning just to have that skill set in your toolbox, long distance training still helps with overall firearm proficiency
 
Distance is your friend. The farther you can engage the adversary reliably increases your chance of survival. Shooting under 200 yards is much less a challenge than shooting at 600 and beyond. It requires a different set of knowledge and practiced skills. Learning long distance can increase your chances of remaining hidden. The closer the enemy, the easier time they have identifying you or your location. Just two cents from a fat guy that needs to stay hidden, cuz I can't run.
 
I'm far from a master but my record on a man sized target is 1260 with my 1950 yugo mauser in military configuration with a 10x scope in 8mm mauser.

But I'd be lieing if I didn't say I had an outstanding spotter helping me.


I would say 800 is probably my limit in terms of what I can hit with confidence on the first or second try. But yes my idea is if I can be farther away. I'm hard to seen and to be hit. Some may call it unmanly or cowardly but living to "fight" another day is alway better than being dead in a ditch.

But I think he and I have different ideas about the same problem.
 
Last edited:
"The debate is the usefulness of long range marksmanship."

I'd say it really depends on what type of scenario you're talking about - and then the likelihood of that scenario actually becoming reality. But good long range skills can't hurt.
 
In a situation where you can kill folks with impunity I’d think more distance is better. On the other hand, the odds that you’ll ever be in any “firefight” or “sniper” situation, unless you travel the world looking for one, is as close to zero as you can imagine, so do what you enjoy.
 
Darza44 said:
But I think he and I have different ideas about the same problem.
Click to expand...
It's not the same problem. That's why you need both skills.

Spending time practicing proficiency in an accomplished skill is less productive than developing proficiency in a new one.

Train to your weakness.
 
georgel said:
It's not the same problem. That's why you need both skills.

Spending time practicing proficiency in an accomplished skill is less productive than developing proficiency in a new one.

Train to your weakness.
Click to expand...
Agreed, unless one of those skills is useless - which is the debate.
 
Darza44 said:
The debate is the usefulness of long range marksmanship. He seems the think that in a firefight type incident that shooting past 200 yards is unneeded and a waste of time and money etc and the that an engagement at anything pass 100 to 200 yards is unlikely.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that it's a good idea to be as proficient as possible across a broad variety of scenarios, regardless of their improbability. Statistics are driven by outcomes, not the other way around. Sounds to me like your friend has never contemplated the possibility that he might be involved in a firefight with someone who doesn't need to be within 200 yards of him to be effective.
 
For many years I only shot only as far as my hunting land allowed me to shoot. Then I started reading Sniper Country and met some folks that talked me into going to Butner (I hate them now cause they costed me so dang much money LOL). The skills I learned on my own, and that I got from other folks, made me a better all round shooter. I learned from national and international class shooters. All shooting is good short, long and in between. Better to learn what you need to do when you need to shoot long now, than not have those skills when you need them.
 
I think your partner is probably right, most firefights probably aren't that far....... But there is something about knowing that can extend out if you want to........

I enjoy stretching it out, it's probably my favorite part of shooting activities ( at least for now), but it's not for everyone. A younger buddy of mine is happy dumping mags at large cardboard targets at 50 yards or less..... it's what he's into.

I'm thinking most police/urban snipers train out to 200 yards, Military typical goes out quite bit further.......I'm sure 200 yards is nothing for a trained sniper.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom