Stolen Valor: The Truth Behind False Military Claims

[zoobyshoe]

By coincidence I happen to currently know two separate guys who were, or claim to have been, snipers in the military. I never even thought to question their claims until the issue of bullet caliber came up.

At the cafe where I hang out what is meant by bullet caliber was raised during a conversation. I was pretty sure, though not certain, it was a measurement of diameter, but someone else disputed that. It occurred to me the ex-sniper who hangs out there should be able to settle it, so I went and asked him. His hesitant answer was that he was fairly sure caliber was a measurement of bullet length.

When I got home I consulted the wikipedia and found he was wrong.

A few days later I started telling this story to the other ex-sniper I happen to know at a different cafe, and before I'd finished the story he interrupted me to say that caliber was a measure of bullet length.

Caliber, is, in fact, a measurement of bullet diameter: both "snipers" were wrong.

Of course one needn't know what caliber means to be a good enough shot to be a sniper, but it strikes me that this is a little too basic for an authentic sniper to be ignorant about.

They're both nice guys, and don't speak of their military past with any particularly boastful tone, so I wonder how much weight I should give this gap in knowledge.

 

[turbo]

Caliber is a measure of the bullet's diameter. Throughout the post-WWII period and through Viet-Nam, the preferred caliber was .30. Specifically, .30-06, which refers not only to the .30 caliber, but the case-length and powder charge that was accepted by the US military in 1906. This is a very powerful and accurate round that is not only still highly regarded by the military, but is still used in target competition at many ranges.

 

[turbo]

I should add that during the VN war, it was decided that the military should standardize on .308. That was a .30 caliber round, but the cartridge was significantly shorter than that of a .30-06, which meant that an automatic or semi-automatic rifle's action could recycle much faster. The M14 was very popular. As soon as vast numbers of US soldiers started heading to VN, the production of .223 rifles blasted off.

 

[turbo]

During the Viet-Nam war, Marine snipers still used the .30-06 bolt-action rifles. Scoped rifles from that conflict can get huge prices from collectors. The best Springfield barrels on these bolt action rifles were marked with a stamped asterisk on the front surface of the barrel's face. If you use this information to find a sharp-shooter's rifle, PM me. There are very few collectors that appreciate the differences, but they are very well-heeled.

 

[zoobyshoe]

During the Viet-Nam war, Marine snipers still used the .30-06 bolt-action rifles. Scoped rifles from that conflict can get huge prices from collectors. The best Springfield barrels on these bolt action rifles were marked with a stamped asterisk on the front surface of the barrel's face. If you use this information to find a sharp-shooter's rifle, PM me. There are very few collectors that appreciate the differences, but they are very well-heeled.

Now we my be getting somewhere. My Marine Viet Nam era sniper claimed he used a version of the M-16, not a .30-06.

Are you absolutely sure Marine Snipers in Viet Nam only used the .30-06?

 

[jacksonpeeble]

Now, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, and I'm no military expert; I know you're skeptical of these guys, but remember - you said that they claim to be "snipers in the military," not "snipers in the marines." They could use two different weapons.

Caliber does seem like a basic concept to know, but it's hard to determine exactly what was taught to snipers back then; as mentioned, it's not essential knowledge.

I would recommend asking a different question that they should definitely know; I agree with your skepticism. For example, if they DO say that they were marines AND the gun mentioned above WAS the only sniping gun used, ask what caliber their weapons were. Or figure something else out.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Now, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, and I'm no military expert; I know you're skeptical of these guys, but remember - you said that they claim to be "snipers in the military," not "snipers in the marines." They could use two different weapons.

Caliber does seem like a basic concept to know, but it's hard to determine exactly what was taught to snipers back then; as mentioned, it's not essential knowledge.

I would recommend asking a different question that they should definitely know; I agree with your skepticism. For example, if they DO say that they were marines AND the gun mentioned above WAS the only sniping gun used, ask what caliber their weapons were. Or figure something else out.

I am actually asking if it's reasonable to be skeptical. Why should the military clutter anyone's mind with info that isn't directly necessary to the job? On the other hand, if you live by the gun wouldn't it be strange not to pick that kind of basic information up as a matter of course?

One guy specifically claims to have been a Marine sniper in Viet Nam and he specifically said he used a version of the M-16. The other specifically claims to have been a sniper with the Navy Seals. He joined just after we officially pulled out of Viet Nam, but says he got sent to southeast asia anyway, that there was a certain amount of unofficial action going on, in conjunction with trying to get US prisoners out by hook or crook. He never mentioned what gun he used, and I never asked.

 

[turbo]

Now we my be getting somewhere. My Marine Viet Nam era sniper claimed he used a version of the M-16, not a .30-06.

Are you absolutely sure Marine Snipers in Viet Nam only used the .30-06?

I cannot claim with any certainty that Marine snipers ONLY used Springfield .30-06 rifles. That is the gold standard for training snipers, though. I would be quite surprised to find that Marine snipers used any variant of the M16. That particular firearm is built around a cartridge that does not have a lot of power at long range, and is not particularly accurate at such.

 

[cronxeh]

A higher caliber bullet has a longer length, maybe that was the source of their misconception. To test their basic sniper knowledge you should ask them if you were to drop a bullet at the same time they shot it from a rifle - which bullet would hit the ground first

From same wiki you referred to: "The bore to barrel length ratio is called caliber in naval gunnery, but is called length in army artillery"

 

[humanino]

It so happens that snipper's bullets always have length equal to their circumference. So changing caliber causes the length to increase more three times more than the diameter, and the change in caliber results in a change in length more than three times more noticeable than the change in diameter.

Seriously though, is not length linearly correlated with diameter, at least at first order ?

wikipedia

The length of the barrel (especially for larger guns) is often quoted in calibers. The effective length of the barrel (from breech to muzzle) is divided by the barrel diameter to give a value. As an example, the main guns of the Iowa-class battleships can be referred to as 16"/50 caliber. They are 16 inches in diameter and the barrel is 800 inches long (16 × 50 = 800). This is also sometimes indicated using the prefix L/; so for example, the most common gun for the Panzer V tank is described as a "75 mm L/70," meaning a barrel 75 mm in diameter, and 5,250 mm long.

So maybe not only they are ignorant liars, but maybe they are also conspiring by changing wikipedia !

 

[zoobyshoe]

I cannot claim with any certainty that Marine snipers ONLY used Springfield .30-06 rifles. That is the gold standard for training snipers, though. I would be quite surprised to find that Marine snipers used any variant of the M16. That particular firearm is built around a cartridge that does not have a lot of power at long range, and is not particularly accurate at such.

Well, a trip to the wiki article on the M-16 reveals there was an M-16 sniper "variant":

Colt Model 655 and 656 "Sniper" variants

With the expanding conflict in South East Asia, Colt developed two rifles of the M16 pattern for evaluation as possible light sniper or designated marksman rifles. The Colt Model 655 M16A1 Special High Profile was essentially a standard A1 rifle with a heavier barrel and a scope mount that attached to the rifle's carry handle. The Colt Model 656 M16A1 Special Low Profile had a special upper receiver with no carrying handle. Instead, it had a low-profile iron sight adjustable for windage and a Weaver base for mounting a scope, a precursor to the Colt and Picatinny rails. It also had a hooded front iron sight in addition to the heavy barrel. Both rifles came standard with either a Leatherwood/Realist scope 3-9x Adjustable Ranging Telescope. Some of them were fitted with a Sionics noise and flash suppressor. Neither of these rifles were ever standardized.

These weapons can be seen in many ways to be predecessors of the U.S. Army's SDM-R and the USMC's SAM-R weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Colt_Model_655_and_656_.22Sniper.22_variants

 

[Sorry!]

Well, a trip to the wiki article on the M-16 reveals there was an M-16 sniper "variant":



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Colt_Model_655_and_656_.22Sniper.22_variants

Considering that the 1903springfield was out of service in 1957 and the nam war started in what 1960? I highly doubted that it was the only rifle used by snipers... I would even doubt that it was used extensively at all.

 

[rootX]

Liars

 

[turbo]

Zoob, there is NO way that any Marine sniper could be ignorant of the caliber of rifle that they used in the war. Not possible. I hunt with large-caliber rounds for stopping power. Marines would demand enough stopping power ti do at least as well at long ranges.

 

[Sorry!]

It so happens that snipper's bullets always have length equal to their circumference. So changing caliber causes the length to increase more three times more than the diameter, and the change in caliber results in a change in length more than three times more noticeable than the change in diameter.

Seriously though, is not length linearly correlated with diameter, at least at first order ?

wikipedia

So maybe not only they are ignorant liars, but maybe they are also conspiring by changing wikipedia !

That's measure of the bore of the weapon however, not the bullet. So the snipers would still have been wrong. However I would not doubt them if they say that they were in the vietnam war as snipers. The Americans in the vietnam war were young and enlisted I would say mostly out of 'patriotism'. I would doubt that a description of what calibre meant would have come up during training at this time. They wanted... and needed... to get more soldiers to go over and stay over fighting quick. They may have been like 'such and such weapon uses these bullets, this is how you reload this is how you maintain' etc. but probably never described what the terms meant.

In order to become a sniper at this time you probably just needed to be a good marksman.

 

[turbo]

Considering that the 1903springfield was out of service in 1957 and the nam war started in what 1960? I highly doubted that it was the only rifle used by snipers... I would even doubt that it was used extensively at all.

mis-typed "03 vs 06"

 

[DaveC426913]

I am actually asking if it's reasonable to be skeptical. Why should the military clutter anyone's mind with info that isn't directly necessary to the job? On the other hand, if you live by the gun wouldn't it be strange not to pick that kind of basic information up as a matter of course?

This is of little help in this thread but the above made me think of a thread from years ago in which the discussion revolved around the follow-through of a martial punch.

It became apparent that what martial arts students were being taught about packing energy into the follow-through was actually pseudo-mystical nonsense in the guise of physics theory.

 

[Sorry!]

Zoob, there is NO way that any Marine sniper could be ignorant of the caliber of rifle that they used in the war. Not possible. I hunt with large-caliber rounds for stopping power. Marines would demand enough stopping power ti do at least as well at long ranges.

I don't agree with this statement at all.
Firstly:
No one said they were ignorant of anything to do with their gun they just don't know what calibre MEANS, that has nothing to do with if they know what calibre of bullet their gun would use.

Secondly:
These are not modern day marines we're talking about here. More than likely the top marksmen all became snipers at this time and were given a suitible rifle for them to use. I don't see why them using higher calibre bullets would imply they NEED to understand what calibre means.

 

[zoobyshoe]

A higher caliber bullet has a longer length, maybe that was the source of their misconception.

That is probably it. However, the reason I suspected caliber was a measure of diameter in the first place was a recollection from childhood (over hearing the conversations of relatives who hunted) that one can buy bullets of the same caliber but of different lengths for different purposes. Knowing that, it's easy to reason out that the non-changing dimension must be the diameter. That's why I checked the wikipedia after the first one claimed "length". Didn't make sense.

To test their basic sniper knowledge you should ask them if you were to drop a bullet at the same time they shot it from a rifle - which bullet would hit the ground first

I might try that if I can work it in without sounding like I'm suspicious of their story.

From same wiki you referred to: "The bore to barrel length ratio is called caliber in naval gunnery, but is called length in army artillery"

Yeah, I saw that, too, but there's no reason for them to know that system much less confuse it with bullet caliber.

 

[Sorry!]

mis-typed "03 vs 06"

Yes, sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1903_Springfield

Regardless, it was rarely used in the vietnam war.

 

[turbo]

I don't agree with this statement at all.
Firstly:
No one said they were ignorant of anything to do with their gun they just don't know what calibre MEANS, that has nothing to do with if they know what calibre of bullet their gun would use.

Secondly:
These are not modern day marines we're talking about here. More than likely the top marksmen all became snipers at this time and were given a suitible rifle for them to use. I don't see why them using higher calibre bullets would imply they NEED to understand what calibre means.

If you have ever shot an automatic .223 and an automatic .30 cal, you would be posting a bit more realistically. Catch a clue.

 

[Noxide]

You should take note that they both gave the same answer.

 

[Sorry!]

If you have ever shot an automatic .223 and an automatic .30 cal, you would be posting a bit more realistically. Catch a clue.

I have shot rifles before, many times. That doesn't imply at all that I should know what calibre means. If you give say a random stranger on the street who knows nothing about guns and tell them what calibre of bullet they are firing and give them a variety of weapons to shoot from and at the end ask them what calibre MEANS I do not think they will tell you, even though they know what calibre the rifles shoot.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zoob, there is NO way that any Marine sniper could be ignorant of the caliber of rifle that they used in the war. Not possible. I hunt with large-caliber rounds for stopping power. Marines would demand enough stopping power ti do at least as well at long ranges.

The Marine who said he used an M-16 knew that was a .22 caliber rifle, he just didn't know what .22 caliber was a measure of. He thought it was a measure of the bullet's length in some units unknown to him.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You should take note that they both gave the same answer.

Yes. I'm thinking I should conduct an informal poll of everyone I know in the military and see if any of them knows what caliber means.

 

[Sorry!]

I think it is IMPORTANT to know how things were working back then. Most snipers during the Vietnam war were NOT 'trained' snipers. The marines made a PUSH for all platoon groups to have more snipers, this was from Cpt. Edward J. Land, look it up.

They then took previously exception marksmen and made them into snipers as well... this by no means implies that they know every detail about a gun, just that they can shoot it well. Obviously they probably know what calibre of gun they shoot what model, how to maintain it etc. but that doesn't mean if you ask them 'what's this part do' that they can explain it to you. Or if you ask them 'what is calibre a measure of' that they can tell you.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is of little help in this thread but the above made me think of a thread from years ago in which the discussion revolved around the follow-through of a martial punch.

It became apparent that what martial arts students were being taught about packing energy into the follow-through was actually pseudo-mystical nonsense in the guise of physics theory.

Are you saying the concept of caliber is pseudo-mystical nonsense?

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you saying the concept of caliber is pseudo-mystical nonsense?

No no, I was suggesting that what the snipers were learning (calibre=length) may have had little to do with the facts (calibre=diameter). If thinking calibre has something to do with length helps the snipers do their job better (say, by not confusing them with theory) then let em think that. What diff does it make to them if it's factual or not?

Martial arts mentor: "No follow-though means more power."
Firearms Seargent" "Bigger bullet means more killness."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Americans in the vietnam war were young and enlisted I would say mostly out of 'patriotism'.

Are you forgetting the Draft? First thing I thought of and a good reason why soldiers from that era may not be very knowledgeable of things they ought to have been. I do not believe many of the soldiers in the Vietnam War received proper training. And if not drafted they may have simply enlisted believing that they would have been drafted eventually anyway.

I still would find it a bit hard to believe though and I have met several persons at coffee houses that lied to make themselves sound more interesting. You would not believe the number of "hitmen" I have met. ;-)

 

[zoobyshoe]

No no, I was suggesting that what the snipers were learning (calibre=length) may have had little to do with the facts (calibre=diameter). If thinking calibre has something to do with length helps the snipers do their job better (say, by not confusing them with theory) then let em think that. What diff does it make to them if it's factual or not?

Oh, I get it.

No, neither of them claimed that's what the military taught them. The first I asked was clearly guessing. The second was clearly jumping to a conclusion based on the fact larger calibers are also longer, as per what cronxeh suggested.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Are you forgetting the Draft? First thing I thought of and a good reason why soldiers from that era may not be very knowledgeable of things they ought to have been. I do not believe many of the soldiers in the Vietnam War received proper training. And if not drafted they may have simply enlisted believing that they would have been drafted eventually anyway.

I still would find it a bit hard to believe though and I have met several persons at coffee houses that lied to make themselves sound more interesting. You would not believe the number of "hitmen" I have met. ;-)

Yeah, that's the thing. You may recall the thread where I recounted meeting a guy who claimed to have invented parallel processing and who knew Feynman via a position at the Atomic Energy Commission.

Regardless, both these snipers said they volunteered. They weren't drafted.

 

[ideasrule]

To test their basic sniper knowledge you should ask them if you were to drop a bullet at the same time they shot it from a rifle - which bullet would hit the ground first

So what's the answer? If they said that the dropped bullet hits the ground first, would that be 1) wrong, 2) correct for all practical purposes, or 3) correct in theory?

 

[Sorry!]

Regardless, both these snipers said they volunteered. They weren't drafted.

That doesn't mean they were previously trained snipers or marksmen in anyway.

 

[MotoH]

You know, the war was 40 years ago, Age and memory loss is probably playing a role here. Getting a name of a rifle or the definition of a calibre wrong really isn't anything out of the ordinary.

 

[DaveC426913]

So what's the answer? If they said that the dropped bullet hits the ground first, would that be 1) wrong, 2) correct for all practical purposes, or 3) correct in theory?

Wrong in theory.

In theory they should both hit the ground at the same time.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So what's the answer? If they said that the dropped bullet hits the ground first, would that be 1) wrong, 2) correct for all practical purposes, or 3) correct in theory?

I believe that they are supposed to both hit the ground at approximately the same time, all things being equal. Of course there is no reason that they would have been taught that.

Funny enough I have recently been speaking with a friend about similar topics.

 

[ideasrule]

Wrong in theory.

In theory they should both hit the ground at the same time.

I think you're forgetting the enormous air resistance that a bullet encounters, and the fact that a kv^2 force cannot be broken down into kV_y^2 and kV_x^2. A bullet moving horizontally always experiences a greater upwards force from air resistance than a dropped bullet for any given downward velocity.

I have to go to bed now, but tomorrow I'll see if this makes any appreciable difference to the fall time of the bullet.

 

[cronxeh]

So what's the answer? If they said that the dropped bullet hits the ground first, would that be 1) wrong, 2) correct for all practical purposes, or 3) correct in theory?

Every sniper is taught about the bullet drop. Not only the gravity is a factor, but also distance to visible horizon is only about 3 miles from standing height. The longest distance shot therefore was made from a considerable height of 9000 feet, where the bullet dropped down to ground over a 150 feet.

 

[DaveC426913]

where the bullet dropped down to ground over a 150 feet.

What does this mean?

 

[cronxeh]

What does this mean?

They had to shoot 150 feet above the head of a person to shoot it?

Let me rephrase: they had to aim 150 feet above the head of a target in order to hit it..

or let me try this one: the bullet would get 150 feet closer to the ground if it was shot tangent to the location of a shooter

 

[DaveC426913]

They had to shoot 150 feet above the head of a person to shoot it?

I guess I thought the bullet dropped 9000 feet.

 

[cronxeh]

I guess I thought the bullet dropped 9000 feet.

No you see since the visible distance to horizon is only 3 miles from standing height of 6 feet, you would have to shoot from a height (mountain, tower, building, helicopter) in order to see whatever it is you were shooting at and not have any obstructions in your path (buildings, other heads, structures, cacti). The shooter was at 9000 feet above sea level.

 

[bassplayer142]

What I'm trying to figure out is that there is 2 supposed snipers and that both of them get it wrong. What is the chances of 2 separate people with an odd claim that both get the answer wrong?

 

[Sorry!]

cronxeh I am just wondering wtf you are talking about with your 'longest distance shot' and standing at a 9000ft and aiming 150ft above the head of the object etc. etc.

The longest confimred kill was done by a Canadian sniper at 2,430m or about half of your purposed 'visible distance to horizon longest distance shot' (where you say the target is hit). I'm just wondering what exactly you're on about.

And snipers do go through external ballistics and during the time period of the Vietnam war they began pairing up spotters with the snipers themselves. It's pretty much the spotters job to do the external ballistics to calculate how to adjust the scope etc. I'm not sure exactly how much of this snipers in this era would know and understand however. If you do more research into it you can see that they were trained OVER there to become snipers (on the basis they were good marksmen) they received little to no 'formal' sniper training. It's very possible that it was the shooters job to shoot and kill the target on their on skill and spotters job to just pick out the targets and do no calculations what-so-ever, which is how I believe it was.

Your question of which bullet hits the ground is sort of tricky because you don't give any variables... you just ask which bullet hits the ground first. This leads to the assumption (for scientistific minds) that you are talking about in a vacuum on ground that has no curvature and the gun is shot perfectly horizontal in which case both bullets will hit the ground at the same time, you learn this in grade 10 or something. Even better... drop a feather and shoot a bullet what hits the ground first!

 

[cronxeh]

OK Suppose I wanted to shoot you in the head and you are 1.5 miles away. Obviously I can't shoot you from standing height because I can't see you and there are buildings and other people in the way. So I climb up to a skyscraper (Empire State Building is at 1250 feet). Now I have a view to horizon 70 km away, and can see your head from a good vantage point with a great angle. If I was to take a shot I would have to aim 121 meters above your head, and the total time it would take to hit your head is 5.9 seconds.

The longest confimred kill was done by a Canadian sniper at 2,430m or about half of your purposed 'visible distance to horizon longest distance shot' (where you say the target is hit). I'm just wondering what exactly you're on about.

How does that contradict anything that I said? And for that matter, it doesn't matter what distance it was, without the height he would've never made it. He could have made a longer shot if he had better computer instead of a spotter, and a better bullet

 

[Sorry!]

How does that contradict anything that I said? And for that matter, it doesn't matter what distance it was, without the height he would've never made it. He could have made a longer shot if he had better computer instead of a spotter, and a better bullet

I assume you've never fired a rifle? That shot is amazing 1.5miles? Jebus Do you know how small the target is at this distance?

 

[cronxeh]

I assume you've never fired a rifle? That shot is amazing 1.5miles? Jebus Do you know how small the target is at this distance?

Larger than the bullet?

 

[Andre]

I don't share the fascination for lethal weapons at all, maybe having fired far too much of them due to my profession. However, I don't like to see misconceptions. Hence:

A higher caliber bullet has a longer length

No, not necessarily:

9mm round versus 7.62mm round.

 

[cristo]

A higher caliber bullet has a longer length, maybe that was the source of their misconception. To test their basic sniper knowledge you should ask them if you were to drop a bullet at the same time they shot it from a rifle - which bullet would hit the ground first

The one that he dropped, since you'd expect a bullet from a sniper to be embedded in someone/thing and never hit the ground As for the OP, maybe they are just ignorant. You don't need to know the definition of processor speed to be able to use a computer.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Caliber means both things.

For small arms, it's a measure of the diameter of the bore. For real guns, it's a measure of the length of the barrel. For example, a 5"/38 has a barrel that's 5 x 38 = 190 inches long. An 16"/50 would have a barrel that's 16 x 50 = 800 inches long.