Sniper vs. Sporter rifle for tactical use?

D

Dave3006

New member
I have had this question for a while. Based on what I read, the average police sniper would probably would never take a shot longer than 100-200 yards. Wouldn't they be just as well armed with a Remington 700 BDL sporter rifle? My understanding is that the heavy barrels are better for shooting groups. But, how many fire more than 2-5 shots max? For 100 yards, wouldn't the BDL
be just as effective as the PSS?

Any comments?
 
Dave good question and you are pretty much correct but think about this. The heavier barrels don't heat up as fast which does help with groups as well as multiple shots. If a police sniper has to take more than one shot which sometimes happens then his point of impact might change with the sporter weight barrel. I've seen the POI move on sporter barrels in as little as 3 shots and when you need pin point accuracy every shot the heavier barrel is the way to go.

Also if you are shooting more than 100 yards, I know that most police shots are at about 75 yards but some are longer depending on the area they cover, wouldn't it be nice to feel confident that your rifle won't shift POI? If your POI shifts about 1/2" after mulitiple shots with the sporter weight barrel at 100 that small shift grows the farther you go out. For hunting that's fine but when lives are a stake it just doesn't fly.

That's why I think it is a function and confidence reason why they use the heavy barreled rifles.
 
AFIK, not really. There was a rather nasty engagement in --Berkley or LA? -- involving the Black Panthers and several HUNDRED rounds of police firepower directed into a house as it burned to the ground after the tear gas cannisters went in, circa early 1970s or so, but that was NOT a sniper situation.

Because police snipers can typically take sucker shots of 100 yards or less, I see the PSS as a marketing excuse to get Rambo cops to replace their perfectly good rifles by using my tax dollars.

IMNSHO, the typical police sniper rifle could be replaced by testing a dozen of the AR15s or M16s already on the force, to find the one(s) without POI drift over a six-shot string, and then mounting almost any decent scope and a cheekpiece.

"Tactical" is a mode of employment, not a type of equipment. If you have it WITH you and it fits your operating environment (e.g., short barrel for tank crews), it fits the tactical requirement.
 
I don't have any real data on shot numbers but next time I talk to my friend who is a sniper in San Antonio TX I'll ask him. I would think they have in larger engagements like Waco or something along those lines as in a large hostage or barracade situation. Anyone who has any specific examples please speak up.

But you have to understand that they have to arm for the largest possible situation not just what might be the most common. It's not good to have a sniper worrying if his shot will hit where he wants it. That's why practice is also so vital. The police sniper is more than just a rifle. It's the man or woman behind the rifle. Cheapo I would hardly call police shots "sucker shots" just because they are around 100 yards. Yes they are easy when you're sitting comfortably and relaxed at your local range punching paper but try to do it when a life is at stake and at a seconds notice when the man in the ear piece starts yelling green light. Also try to do it when the target is moving and holding a hostage and you know that people are going to be monday morning quaterbacking your every move. Doesn't sound like a sucker shot now does it? Snipers don't have an easy job and they should be armed with the best rifle possible. Also you would want him to be using a .308 and not an AR. ARs have their place but they deflect to easily when trying to shoot through glass. Also they don't have the penetration that a .308 has for hardened position like cars.

Ask yourself this, what would you like the police sniper to be using when he gets to taking the shot that will save your life or someone you love and it's his 4th or 5th shot or even the 1st? I would want him to have a heavy barreled rifle that will not only perform for multiple shots but also one that he is confident in. A sporter might be good for deer hunting but it's not the best police sniper rifle.
 
Rob01, I personally know of four sporting rifles just within my family which have shot ten-shot groups at 100 yards which measured no more than one inch.

The rate of firing was not "in a hurry!" nor with any notable cooling-time wait between shots.

One of those rifles, now some 30 years old, not too long ago fired two four-shot groups of 4" at 500 yards, and (with two called flyers) eight shots into six inches. Even with my coffee/cigarette nerves and my trifocals, I get grumpy when a three-shot group is much outside of 1/2" at 100 yards.

Now, I don't object to guys having the best equipment to meet a need, but I really do think the definition of "the best" is subject to discussion.

:), Art
 
Art there are always exceptions to the rules. I agree that there are some sporter rifles that shoot well enought to possibly be used but it's not the norm. Maybe saying that heavey barreled rifles were the best wasn't the right wording but they do have the right specifications and performance for the job that needs to be done. I'm just glad that police departments take the time and find and test the weapons that they will use and the officers that can use them. My Marlin model 60 .22 with the Tasco 4x scope can hit accurately at 100 yards all day long but I don't think it would work well as a police sniper rifle.

Let me turn this around on you guys that think they shouldn't be using these Heavy barreled rifles or that the sporter would be a better rifle for the work. What advantage would they gain by using a sporter rifle over a heavy barreled rifle like the 700P? Besides saving maybe $200. I think we can see from the latest goings on what trying to save money when human lives are at stake can do. If Clinton hadn't cut the intellegence gathering community and military as much as he did we might have seen this coming. But that's another topic. The weight really isn't a savings because police snipers are usually in a static position and don't move as much as a military sniper would.

If the sporter is such a better rifle for the work then why haven't every police department gone with them? And I don't think they are using the models like the 700P because they are trendy or look cool so don't use that excuse. I heard that one coming a mile away. Also if they are so accurate and shot repetative for long distance why aren't competetive shooters using them?

I don't want this to turn into a pissing contest but certain rifles have their places. Not every rifle is good for every task. Can we agree on that? I wouldn't want to hunp a 16lbs heavy barreled rifle through the woods hunting and I don't see the sporters place as a rifle to be used in a tactical situation. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we're talking about the same thing, or nearly...

Military/LEO tactical Rifles are very much like Varmint rifles. If they differ, it tends to be primarily in rifling twists; Tac Rifles are assumed to be using heavier bullets, to optimize for distance and penetration of barriers. Varmint bullets are lighter and more frangible, their primary need is for enhanced terminal performance.

In either case, accuracy in a mainly stationary target situation is of primary value, and a heavier barrel is more tolerable, which is most compatible with precision accuracy.

Beyond that, the primary differences are in fit and finish, and adaptation to their primary role. This adaptation generally manifests itself in the stock, which should allow adustability of personal fit to the shooter.

The sporter rifle uses a lighter barrel, which improves portability and the ability to follow a moving target.

LEO Tac Shooters are burdened with many additional legal responsibilities and risks. There is an obligation to use proven accuracy systems, and an assumed liability associated with modfications and non-factory ammunition. If things go wrong, modifications and handloads could conceivably be singled out as potential reasons for such problems. So, they tend to be avoided.

We are talking about the propensity of lawyers to cloud issues and create uncertanty, for the reason that this increase their opportunity to obtain judgements for their clients in tort cases.

Because it might be arguably demonstrable that sporting rifles are less suited to the task than purpose-designed tactical rifles for the consequences being tried in courts of law, Law Enforcement agancies have a valid reason for using production Tactical Rifles, and Factory Ammunition. It transfers any potential liabilities to manufacturers.

This is absulutely the wrong direction, as the issue at doubt is most directly related to the judgement and skills of the operator. The sole responsibility for such employment resides ultimately in the agency and officer who selects the equipment and ammunition to be used, and issues the command to take the shot. Everything else is based solely on those underlying choices and value decisions.

Such evasions of responsibility are the primary reason why such issues are so likely to find themselves the subject of court arguments.

These evasions are based on a huge motivation to seek litigation, and demonstrates the degree to which the legal profession has managed to insinuate itself everywhere and complicate every facet of everyday life. It goes too far.

Greg
 
Rob,

Didn`t we have this very same discussion(pissing contest) on Shooters many moons ago??? Sometimes it`s not even worth trying to explain it..

Take care,
CS#158
 
Greg, I'll certainly not disagree with your points!

But aren't we all sorta talking around the issue of the psychology of today's world? Folks have ideas about what's needed to do a certain job--police sniping, in this case.

Anyway, for this discussion, it seems an adequate generalization that somewhere between 50 and 100 yards is the probable distance. I won't argue against 150 yards, and infrequently even farther.

Can you distinguish the difference in color between brown, black or camo at 50 yards? From looking at a front view of a rifle?

Can you envision a scenario where the target is so hidden behind a hostage that 1/4 MOA makes a difference? Or a real world situation where the shooter is given a "Go!" signal requiring a shot through some tiny hole or other opening--where benchrest accuracy is an absolute necessity?

I have a raised eyebrow about the stock, to some extent, in that I can't really envision a nice, flat comfy spot to lie down "just so" and await the appearance of a Bad Guy. More likely, one is looking over a parapet, or out a window.

Now, if a shooter is more confident because of his Specific Sniper Rifle, hey! Right on! A few hundred dollars is a trivial concern, as well.

I dunno. I've just shot too many different rifles over too many years at too many different sizes of targets to be impressed by this notion of absolute "need" for a "Sniper" rifle. It strikes me as a "need" for a Ferrari over a Chevy, or latte over a cuppajoe.

Sure, it's just Art's opinion, but I give specific reasons for my opinions...

:), Art
 
This is a good topic for healthy discussion...

And you guys are covering all the bases well.
I think every PD should have at least a HB 20" AR15 AND a 22"-24" barrelled 308 PSS sytle, no need for super expensive match stuff, but at least 1 MOA accurate and reliable rifles that keep their POI. Even these basic sniper rifles are fairly expensive (a little accuracy tuning, solid mount and rings, good optics, good cases, good cleaning and maintenance equipment) but they are worth it. If there is any chance shots could be taken at longer ranges (200+ meters) then the more expensive true sniper rifles are justified.
Greg, CS158, and Rob01, nice to see you here:) !!

Ruben (aka. TiroFijo)
 
A mediocre shooter using the latest superfad tacticle sniper rifle will be outshot by a good experienced shooter usin a surplus FAL, Garand, 03A3, Nagant or whatever, in good condition and known by the shooter.

Tis the shooter that makes the difference till you get out to 300 yds and beyond. Then better equipment will make the good shooter look even better.

We are talkin bout killin accuracy, not paper punchin where a tenth of an inch would make the difference tween winnin and placing twentieth.

Trick stocks are great from the bench or specific positions. Often a stock that works well from a rest sucks from prone ad infinitum.

Sam
 
I'll have to agree CS 158.
1/4 MOA will and can make a big difference.
No use going into it with those who (not at their falt) do not understand.
No flame intended.
Celt
 
Celt you took the words out of my mouth.

CS#158, I believe so and that's why after this post I'm not going to try to explain any longer. People can believe what they like. There are two things I'm glad about though, one, they don't choose the weapons the police sniper uses and two, if they do for their town that I don't live where they do. :D

"Can you envision a scenario where the target is so hidden behind a hostage that 1/4 MOA makes a difference? Or a real world situation where the shooter is given a "Go!" signal requiring a shot through some tiny hole or other opening--where benchrest accuracy is an absolute necessity?"

Yes Art it has happened and could happen again. A 1/4 MOA rifle in a calm setting can become a 3/4-1 MOA rifle under physical and mental stress even with a trained sniper. Would you want to start with a 1-1 1/2 MOA that may turn into a 2-3 MOA rifle? I wouldn't. Wouldn't you want that rifle and shooter to be the best they could be if it was your head that close to the bad guy? I would. And if you were in a race for your life wouldn't you rather drive a Ferrari over a Chevy? I would.

Also Art I think I gave plenty of specific reasons for my opinions. But some people just don't want to hear it. ;)

Tiro good to see you over here too.

CR Sam I agree 100% about the shooter being the most important factor. Also with the stock comment. That's why I like the McMillan HTG. It's a good GP stock that's good from most positions and it's worked very well for the USMC. :)
 
Rob01, I don't quite understand this: "A 1/4 MOA rifle in a calm setting can become a 3/4-1 MOA rifle under physical and mental stress even with a trained sniper. Would you want to start with a 1-1 1/2 MOA that may turn into a 2-3 MOA rifle?"

What does shooter's stress have to do with the rifle's capabilities? ANY rifle is going to remain with that capability, no matter how spastic the shooter. I don't understand. A 1/4 MOA rifle won't magically go to 3/4-1 MOA; the shooter will--so what difference does the rifle make?

I've sure never said that a 1-1/2 MOA rifle is adequate, outside of closer-range deer-hunting--but it will still remain a 1-1/2 MOA rifle, no matter what happens to the shooter's nervous system, or do I not understand the difference between rifle and shooter?

Art
 
A rifle is just a piece of steel and fiberglass without a shooter behind it. I look at the rifle and shooter as one system that's what that meant by turning a tight rifle into a loose one. If something changes or stresses either part of the system then it doesn't work up to it's potential. You sound like you've been around rifles long enough to know that.

If you do then you are just writing to argue and I don't have time for it. If not then that might be where our lack of comunication is. Either way I'll let what I have already said stand and leave this thread.
 
Rob, I'm not trying to argue for the sake of argument. I don't do that.

Lemme come from a different direction: Do you have a specific requirement for accuracy for a rifle to qualify as a sniper rifle? I don't think this has really been addressed, other than peripherally.

That is, "If it won't shoot (?) MOA for (?) shots at (?) yards, it won't qualify, regardless."

Art
 
We made do with regular sporter .30-'06's up here until recently and did very well with them until the Fed's started to militarize the RCMP. Now the standards are heavy barrel "tactical" .308's and .300's complete with all the fixings. Guess the sporters just didn't look right with all the black face masks, body armour, and sub guns. I wonder if the point is not how well they shoot anymore but how they match the rest of the ensemble.
 
Art, you sounded like you honestly wanted to know so here it is:

If it won't shoot 1/2 MOA for every shot at every yardage, it won't qualify, regardless. I know some will say 1 MOA but for reasons stated earlier 1/2 MOA is my limit.

And Cain that's some good logic. Sporters worked before all the advances in rifles so they should work always even if something better comes along. With that logic cops should still be carrying single action Colts and double barreled shotguns with black powder in everything. Or maybe flintlocks, where does it stop? They should never upgrade to a better piece of equipment right? That old stuff will work fine. No need for those new fangled semi auto pistols or even double action revolvers. I wouldn't want to "make do" with anything when lives are at stake.
 
Rob, I think all would agree about "real" improvements. Nobody would think to have stayed with SA pistols--I hope.

I agree with the 1/2 MOA requirement. However, it seems to me that there are one heckuva "non-sniper" rifles that meet this criterion insofar as a police requirement of sub-200 yards. As I recall, the thrust of this thread as to "argument" has been in the realm of the police, not the military...

Anyway, it has been interesting. I'm outta here for several days, on that old highway again.

Y'all take care, be good, and keep the faith.

Art
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top