To add to what the others already said - not only is a red dot not used in real life sniping, but the laser does not account for things like wind, so it would be inaccurate.
I’m happy to acknowledge that I know zero about this topic, and believing a movie meme probably qualifies me for a minus score. This has been informative, and I’ve learned a fair bit already. Thanks all.
Don’t forget that he did all that with a high powered rifle, which effectively shoots flat at such a short distance.
Having seen Dealey Plaza many times, I’m always perplexed as to how anyone thinks that Oswald had a difficult shot. The only way it could have been easier is if it was on a target range with an entirely stationary target.
I would think that a real limitation on shooting from the top of a skyscraper would be whatever minimum distance you’d have without having to lean out over the edge to shoot downward. You’d have to pick your skyscraper carefully.
In a book about devgru written in the 90s a sniper said his team in training exercises could hit almost anything up to 400 meters no matter the situation. Beyond that and accuracy dropped dramatically with distance.
However there are rifles now that essentially aim for you and claim accuracy closer to 700 meters. Still not much distance from the top of a tower unless you’re pointing straight down.
Seems to me that would be the hardest challenge to overcome. The geometry-related stuff (difference in bullet drop in a far from horizontal v horizontal shot) is surmountable if you prepare and train for it, or can even be incorporated into computerized fire control in the sight, along with laser range finding, if you don’t impose the artificial constraint of doing it strictly old school. But the degradation of accuracy from high and highly variable wind is a problem that can’t be solved for a non guided projectile, if it’s severe enough. And as people who walk by such buildings every day know, they ‘generate their own wind’. If considering 1 WTC (which, nitpick, is no longer named ‘Freedom Tower’) I would guess that’s a serious issue most of the year on a given day, though not always and it’s less likely to be windy, even aloft, some times of year.
How hard is it for a sniper to set up so shots can be fired at a steep downward angle? AIUI, the barrel of a sniper’s rifle is typically braced, resting on some kind of support. This is an easy thing to do when the barrel is set up on a trajectory sort of close to level, maybe within ten degrees of horizontal. But what about setting up to fire a shot at, say, a 60-degree downward angle?
Especially considering the fact that snipers typically fire from inside the window, and never let their muzzle pass the windowsill, so as not to reveal their position.
Choosing a good firing position is part of the skill set, so I don’t think this proves what you think it does.
As I said, I concede Oswald did not have specialized military sniper training and I also concede that murder is bad and we shouldn’t glorify it.
That being said, I would point out this is a distinction without a difference, because anytime whenever someone is directing small-arms fire at a person or military unit, we call them a sniper. (see "D.C. sniper attacks - but it isn’t just the media, this is also the military term for that type of attack).
What I take issue with is your characterization that Marine rifleman training is merely “okay” and that his training was immaterial to what he did. Even the worst Marine marksman is significantly more skilled than the general public, and it’s absurd to imagine that Oswald didn’t benefit from this. I don’t know why this particular bee is in your bonnet, but it’s simply false.
The barrel is not usually braced on such a rifle. It is preferred for the barrel to be ‘free-floating’ and absent of any item that might put force on the barrel, such as a stock fore-end, a sling attachment band, a sandbag or other rest, etc… Doing so allows the barrel to whip consistently for each shot, and consistency is prized in accurate shooting.
The chassis of the rifle is braced. See, e.g., this picture purporting to be of a police marksman at Lucas Oil Stadium, pre Super Bowl. Note also that the muzzle of his rifle does extend outside the opening of the window. Their job is at least as much deterrence as it is scouting, unlike Alessan’s (IMHO, correct) observation about muzzle placement for a military sniper.
The wind is going to be silly. Reading abstracts about large building architecture and wind induced resonance, wind speeds at the top of the building can be in the 50-150 km/hr range. Plus, the building will often have a Kármán vortex street downwind of the building, with radically different wind vectors depending on which vortex the bullet transits. Shoot upwind, and the sniper will be dealing with vortex streets from nearby buildings. It’s going to be a mess, and the wind correction will probably change from shot to shot.
Playing with what I think would be a best case for the OP’s situation: (50 BMG, 750 grain Hornady A-Max, 3000 FPS muzzle velocity, which is probably high, but still: best case), and I get at 500 yards and a 45 degree drop, a 7.6 inch deflection for every 10 MPH of wind. Now make the wind 30 to 90 MPH. It won’t be constant over the bullet’s flight, but 8 inches one way or the next is likely going to cause a miss.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that even a practiced long range shooter is going to find it hard to make even COM hits at long range (anything over 500 yards, certainly over a K) with this kind of wind.
Missed the EDIT. Machine Elf, I think it’s going to be tough for the shooter to deal with targets that require a large downward sight angle. The cop in my picture would probably have to stand to do so (or let another shooter in the building handle it). For a sniper, a position could be built to deal with a predicted downward shot—shooter sits in a chair, on top of a table in the room, rifle is rested on a lower support, window is opened at last moment or is absent entirely—but it’s going to get challenging fast. And a position that will work for that shot, will be difficult to convert to a level shot. Put the rifle on a pintle mount, I guess.
It would be trivial to design the optics so that, from the point of view of the sniper looking through the scope, the target appears to have a laser dot projected onto them (though it wouldn’t be seen except by looking through the scope). The main reason it’s not done is that it’s equally trivial to do the same thing with a full reticle, including crosshairs and angle markers, which is much more useful. You could even have an illuminated reticle, if you want. And I expect that there are probably computerized reticles that can adjust the position of the crosshairs based on known factors like range and relative elevation.
Oh, it *is *done: Red dot sight - Wikipedia
ETA: ninja’d on collimating sights!
Yeah; it’s not too challenging to do that. The technical term is “collimating sight,” but colloquially, they’re “red dot sights.”
It is done, and has been for about a century. Many WWII fighters used lead-computing collimating sights, and mortars with collimating sights saw use in WWI.
Some in this thread have conflated “red dot sight” with “laser sight,” as the latter usually produces a red dot on the target itself. But they’re not the same thing. A red dot sight shows a dot to the shooter and no one else.
A red dot (collimating) sight is not typically used for long-range work because the dot is too big…it would cover most or all of what you’re trying to hit. Also, most collimating scopes are quite short (in terms of sight radius) and designed to be used with lots of eye relief. That’s great for acquiring targets quickly at short range, but unworkable for the 800-meter-plus shots we’re discussing here.
I imagine one could build a collimating sight with high magnification and a small dot for sniping, but AFAIK there’s not a big market for such a sight.
Yep. That’s totally a thing! At least one vendor abstracts the trigger pull, waiting until the computer thinks you’ll hit the target before firing the round.
OK, I stand corrected. So why do they use a single red dot instead of a crosshair reticle? I know that a parallax-correct crosshair is possible, because I’ve used telescope sights based on them.
Simplicity.
But there are also tons of different options out there, that are much more complicated. These use laser diodes instead of simple LEDs and, when combined with holographic technology can be made to produce just about every reticle you can imagine.
Also, I just want to add that the major obstacle for that dude on the skyscraper is going to be the high winds channeling between all the buildings. Compensating for the elevation and angle is quite trivial. Alpha Twit’s link makes it seem like one needs differential calculus to figure it out. But anyone who’s had to shoot up and down mountains and cliffs is just going to ignore the vertical element altogether and use the horizontal distance for the bullet drop compensation. If the target is two city blocks* away, adjust your scope for a 400 m shot and fire. There really isn’t any extra math required.
*assuming a 200m long block.
Stanley Kubrick expressed it well:
Consider the source. GySgt Hartman was clearly invested in the mystique surrounding marine corps riflery prowess. He was grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to make his point before a bunch of scared recruits who lacked the fortitude to rebut his wild claims.
ETA: Again, it’s not hard to shoot a bunch of people who didn’t know they were walking onto a firing range.
Especially since Whitman presumably wasn’t aiming at individuals. If you’re shooting into a crowd, you’re going to hit someone or another.
Oswald, of course, was aiming at (and hit) a specific individual, but at much shorter range. And asking out of genuine curiosity, would two hits out of three shots at that range be up to Marine standards?
It’s always weird to read about Oswald’s gunmanship (from Wikipedia):
"Like all marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting. In December 1956, he scored 212, which was slightly above the requirements for the designation of sharpshooter.[22] In May 1959 he scored 191, which reduced his rating to marksman.[22][40]
Oswald was court-martialed after he accidentally shot himself in the elbow with an unauthorized .22 caliber handgun. He was court-martialed a second time for fighting with a sergeant who he thought was responsible for his punishment in the shooting matter. He was demoted from private first class to private and briefly imprisoned in the brig. Oswald was later punished for a third incident: while he was on a night-time sentry duty in the Philippines, he inexplicably fired his rifle into the jungle.[41]"
The markmenship designation is fairly low level. The sharpshooter one is mildly significant. Keep in mind that he practiced with his new rifle in the Dallas area in 1963 so any skills lost since the Marines might have been recovered.
He could have easily made the 2 out 3 shots at a target in a moving vehicle at that range. The only question is the timing: was he and the gun up to it to fire that accurately at that pace. People have recreated the shooting. Some have succeeded, some not.
(Note that he also attempted to shoot Gen. Edwin Walker from a distance of only 100 feet. Luckily for Walker, the bullet hit the wood muntin in the multi-pane window and he was only hit by debris.)
Most people have little or no experience firing rifles. Hitting something at a range of a hundred metres SOUNDS impressive to anyone who’s never done it. The length of a football field, basically, seems like an incredible distance to hit something with.
It’s only once you’ve been taught to use an actual rifle that you learn hitting a person-sized target at 100 metres is really easy.