The Eternally Meaningless Caliber Wars

It's funny... as caliber wars become more pointless, they become more vocal and partisan...

This seems to actually be BECAUSE the data show the differential between chamberings is small, and has been getting smaller for decades. As datasets get larger, data and data analysis get better, and as ammunition gets better, the differences between common defensive pistol chamberings are progressively smaller, and less meaningful.

Pistols are Pistols, and Rifles are Rifles.

We have a saying "pistols are pistols, and rifles are rifles"; which means that the difference between reasonable defensive pistol chamberings is small, and effectively meaningless, compared to the difference between pistols, and long guns; both shotguns and rifles.

Compared to rifles, pistols are lost in the noise... and looking at the variability between different rifle chamberings, the differences can be greater than most powerful reasonable defensive pistol chamberings, and nothing at all.

In fact... if we just look at muzzle energy numbers, there can be greater variability within a single chambering.. say, something like subsonic .300blackout, and high velocity .300blackout, with something like 900ftlbs of energy difference between them, and the most powerful reasonable defensive pistol chamberings, such as hot and heavy .357 magnum, at something like 750ftlbs.

Pistols are pistols, and rifles are rifles. 

When there were thought to be larger differences, one could have clear advantages and disadvantages which could be argued. When the differences are small, it comes down to preference, individual performance, and small optimizations. Now, there can be no clear differentiation.

Because pistols are pistols, and rifles are rifles.

So, the caliber wars rage on

The most recent "major shakeup" has commenced, as many law enforcement agencies ( who moved to .40 and .45 in the late 90s and 2000s, after a series of notable failures in effectiveness of 9mm in the 80s and early 90s) have decided to move back to 9mm.

This is happening, because both ballistic testing, and empirical shooting data, show very little difference in effectiveness with modern high performance ammunition.

9mm has always had a few fairly significant advantages... and these are not controversial... that were thought to be offset by its reduced effectiveness compared to .40 and .45. It costs substantially less, it's smaller and lighter (more rounds in the same size, or smaller and lighter with the same round count); and smaller officers, and those who are less skilled with firearms, and who practice less, generally shoot better with it.

Since police generally open carry, large "duty" pistols, and in general are not good shots, who don't get to train very much, and don't have much money for ammo when training; and because there are more and more women and smaller officers on police forces, 9mm is at its greatest position of advantage, in police duty pistols.

With the data showing that modern high performance ammunition gives little or no effective difference between 9mm, .40, and .45; there is really no reason for police duty weapons NOT to move back to 9mm, and some good reasons to do so.

And so 9mm partisans in the non-police shooting world, believe they have scored a final victory over the dark forces of the .45acp.

... this war having been going on literally for over 100 years now by the way; the chamberings having been been developed in 1901 and 1904 respectively, and having first fought on opposite sides of world war one...

Of course, the police duty carry mission, is different from the many different concealed and open carry missions that non-police defensive pistol carriers have.

So the "decisive victory" is nothing of the sort... it's just another set of data points.

There's caliber wars, and there's actual reasonable argument with data.

Most people wouldn't know what the second is, never mind the third.

... Presuming modern premium defensive JHP ammunition, without restrictions...

Basically there is between a 10%-20% or so spread of expected effectiveness between .380+p and .45+p, depending on exactly which data you look at, presuming a human in standard street clothes, and no barrier penetration. About a 10% spread from 9mm (standard pressure) to .45+p and less than 5% from 9mm+p to .45+p... so...

When you factor in things like heavy clothing, barrier penetration and the like, the numbers get even more murky, and less reliable, and less useful...

Effectively, the differences between reasonable defensive chamberings don't matter.

20% is worth debating... 10% maybe... but not really too much, 5% really not at all. It's margin of error, a slight optimization, or a personal preference.

Is it worth upgrading from .380 to 9mm...?

...Sure, if you can shoot it just as well, and carry it just as well... 

Is it worth "upgrading to" .45...?

...Sure, if you can shoot it and carry it just as well...

...and you don't mind 2 or so fewer rounds in the same size package.

Is it worth "downgrading" to 9mm...?

...Sure if you can shoot and carry it just as well...

...and you want the 2 or so more rounds in the same size package.

What about .40?

It almost exactly splits the difference between .45 and 9mm, with none of the advantages of either, and all the disadvantages of both really... With modern ammunition, it's really no longer worth considering (except as a smaller version of 10mm, or the basis for .357sig), except "because I feel like it" or "because I shoot it well"... But it's also probably not worth trading or selling it for either 9mm or .45acp if you like it.

Functionally, the spectrum of defensive chamberings between 9mm+p and .45+p make no difference.

So... what DOES make a difference, and how much?

Ehh... not much, and not much...

Basically, a tiny bit with .357sig and a slight advantage with .357magnum and 10mm... and I don't consider .45lc and and .44magnum to be reasonable defensive chamberings for most people (they're effective, but they're bigger, more expensive, harder to shoot, and harder to carry than most will ever bother with).

There's a little bit of an advantage to .357sig, light .357 mag, and light 10mm over .45acp +p... maybe 5%.

There a slightly bigger advantage to medium .357mag and medium 10mm... a little more than 5% to maybe 10%

There's a slightly bigger advantage to hot .357mag and hot 10mm... a little more than 10% to maybe a little more than 15%, or even 20% under some circumstances (particularly with barrier penetration, and with tougher animals than humans).

However, for all of those upgrades, you get higher cost, more recoil, and its more difficult to shoot well...

In the case of medium and heavy 10mm and .357 in lighter easier to carry guns, it can actually be physically painful to shoot, and most people can't shoot them well at all.

Is it worth the upgrade to magnum class chamberings like these? 

Sure, if you can carry and shoot them just as well, don't mind the extra recoil and the extra cost.

Getting the picture here...?

It's not about the chambering... because pistols are pistols...

It's really about how well you can shoot, and carry the gun, in your chosen chambering... and in personal preference, and in small optimizations for particular missions.

So, what do I choose? What do I recommend?

I'm a really big guy, who can carry almost any sized gun reasonably comfortably. I live in a rural, cold, northern state, and at times have had to deal with wild animals.

Most importantly for my chambering selection, I shoot heavy recoiling guns pretty well, and the differences in recoil between 9mm+p and light .357 and 10mm are basically meaningless to me; with only a slight disadvantage to medium and heavy .357 and 10mm loads.

My pocket carry guns are a 5 shot .357 revolver, and a 7 shot .380... I like how both of them carry, and I can empty them both into a 4" or smaller circle at 10 or less yards with deliberate fire, and an 8" or smaller circle as fast as I can recover each shot... though neither have much in the way of sights.

Once I got the small .357 revolver, I pretty much stopped bothering carrying the .380 frankly, because I can shoot the .357 as well, it's no heavier, it carries just as well, and it's more reliable. I occasionally carry the .380, particularly in shorts, because it's a little flatter and slimmer... but that's really it.

My belt carry guns right now, are all 3-5" barreled 7-9 round .45 and 10mm 1911s... But at times have been 7 to 16 round 9mm, .40, and .357sig, and .357 magnum I've never felt insufficiently armed with any of them. I have never felt over armed with any of them. Though a couple have been a little bigger or heavier than ideal.

I don't feel that an 8 round .45 1911 is significantly more or less effective, for my personal defensive needs and missions, than a 13 round 9mm Browning hi-power. I happen to own a couple of good 1911s in .45 and 10mm that I like... I happen to have sold all my 9mm pistols a few years ago, including my 2 BHPs, expecting that I'd buy more, but I haven't been in a position to do so.

The only ones that I thought were in any meaningful way more effective, were the .357 magnums, and the 10mm, in both of which I carried loads suitable to heavier animals than people, because I lived in the north Idaho mountains. If I had to dispatch an elk or a moose, or god forbid deal with a bear, I wanted 158gr to 180gr at 1250-1350fps... The biggest advantages I could get in pistols that I felt like carrying every day, and could shoot well.

... and really... it's only a small advantage...

Because Pistols are Pistols, and Rifles are Rifles. 

Firearms Basics - Part 1: Introduction

I've been a shooter for almost 30 years, and a competitive shooter off and on for about 15 years. I'm an engineer by education and experience; and I'm a professional gunsmith, and firearms trainer. I've sold guns at the retail level, repaired them, customized them, modified them, even built them from the bare metal.

Firearms are one of the strongest pursuits and passions in my life.

God knows, I've written literally millions of words on firearms over the past... almost 20 years I guess (I started writing about guns on the internet in forums and newsgroups starting around 1993). I've been running running or co-running firearms forums for over 10 years. The last 8 years (well... 8 years in February) I've been writing on this blog (3600 or so posts so far; probably half of them about guns, and most of those over 1000 words).

I'm published on guns and shooting both online and in print; and I'm one of the most referenced and quoted sources on the technical aspects of firearms online.

I think I'm justified in calling myself a firearms expert; without others having to put scare quotes or "self proclaimed" around that.

I say this not for self aggrandizement, but to explain to those who don't know me, the context of the rest of this post.

While I'm a great'big'ol gunnut; guns are by no means my only personal or professional pursuits or interests; and I'm involved in several different interest centered "cultures" and social circles.

Generally speaking, outside of my "gun culture" social circles, I'm "the gun guy"; or at least "one of the gun guys" in any group.

And of course, I write a lot about firearms basics, mythbusting, basic equipment etc...

All of this leads to me getting a lot of questions from people who are entirely new to firearms, or who are just casually into them...

... or me hearing conversations (or seeing internet threads) just completely full of (generally well intentioned) utter crap. Bad advice,  "received wisdom" (which may have been true at one point, but may or may not be now), opinion and myth passed off as fact; even sometimes truly stupid, illegal, or potentially dangerous advice.

That's unfortunately the general level of discourse on most websites that aren't specifically gun related (and sadly, many that ARE... but that's another story entirely).

The good thing is though, being recognized as the "office expert" so to speak, in such groups; I can generally speak with some authority, and maybe give some GOOD advice, that maybe someone will take.

I figure, as a representative of "serious" gun culture, and "gun experts" etc... I kind of have a duty to do so when I can; and I enjoy doing so... at least when we can keep the general level of stupidity to a reasonable level.

Often these questions, and these discussions, fit into the post categories I already have (and have had for years now); "so you want to write about guns" or "firearms mythbusting".

Sometimes they don't however, and for those things, I'm starting a new series, "Firearms Basics".

I expect I'll be covering some of the same territory I've done with mythbusting etc... But mostly this series will be focused specifically on providing a foundation of basic firearms knowledge; and to answer questions that firearms beginners, or casual firearms owners/shooters might have.

I'll be posting the first in this series in a few minutes; but I want to put this out to my readers, and to the readers of THEIR blogs...

What basic firearms questions and issues would you like to see covered? Technical, political, legal, historical... model specific, ammo specific, whatever... so long as it's a relatively specific question, that won't take a full book to answer...

...Or maybe even then, if it's a good enough, interesting enough issue; that I know enough about to answer that comprehensively.

What basic or common questions would you like answered?

What pieces of received wisdom, or or common firearms advice would you like to see explained, verified, or corrected (this is where we overlap with the mythbusting bit)?

I figure I'll collect them all, and just start writing the posts to answer the folks, as the time is available and the inspiration strikes; with a goal of doing at least one a week.

So please, give me your questions; and those of you with your own blogs, if you feel it would provide value to your readers, link or repost this, and/or gather your readers questions.

If there's an area I don't know enough to cover properly, I may bring in a guest poster, or guest contributor to a post; and if you are an expert in a particular area and would like to help with this, drop me a line.

I've got a list of possible ideas myself of course, but I want to see all your ideas first.

...this could be kinda fun...

So you want to write about guns part four: It'll blow your head clean off

So, I was asked a question yesterday, that inspired me to write another "So you want to write about firearms" post; and made me realize I had to write another post that was related, but not exactly the same...

So I decided to combine them both into one, and write them out here today.

The purpose of these posts, is to inform the lay person, who is interested in either learning about or writing about guns; either in a non-fiction context (news reporting for example), or in fiction.

The problem is, most good writers don't know a lot about guns (there are a few exceptions, like Stephen Hunter for example) ; but a lot of them do write in genres that a lot of "gun people" like to read (military and adventure fiction, science fiction, thrillers and mysteries etc...).

The mistakes these authors and writers make are quite jarring to those of us who list guns as a hobby, a passion, or a profession; and they can ruin our enjoyment of the work. And for those who don't know, and aren't interested in guns, it spreads unrealistic, or even silly, stupid, or dangerous, misconceptions about guns.

Importantly, I don't just believe, I know for an absolute certainty; that silly stupid inaccuracies about guns in pop culture, are a large portion of the cause of the silly stupid laws and regulations made around guns; said laws and regulations mostly written by, and voted for by, people who don't know any better.

My hope is, that with posts like these, a simple internet search can help out someone who doesn't understand, and is willing to do some basic research.

For the non gunnnies, I am going to try to make this as clear as possible. I'm going to be pumping out a LOT of information here, and some of it is going to be mathy, and technical, and gun geeky. I'm trying to minimize it, but it's unavoidable; just be assured that if I mention it here, it's something you should probably know, or which will at least be helpful for you to know.

For my readers who are gun hobbyists, I will caution you, I am DELIBERATELY simplifying this stuff.

Yes, some of what I will be saying in this post is generalization, estimation, rounding off etc... Don't blow a gasket because I don't reference the exact mass and velocity of a particular cartridge etc... The people I'm writing this for don't want, or need, to know that extreme detail. What they need to understand is the general concept, enough detail to not make dumb mistakes, and enough specifics to understand WHY (because if you don't understand why something is what it is, you don't know when you're making a mistake). Trying to go deeper than that will just make the whole thing more difficult to read, and serve no real purpose except wanking.

Ok, moving on to the meat of the issue...

So, the question in question (forgive me, I couldn't resist) is VERY common... and in fact I'm surprised it hasn't come up in a way that made me write about it directly, some time in the last 7 years.

I've heard this question a million times, in a million different ways, but yesterday it was phrased thusly:

"What is the biggest, most powerful gun? Can you please tell me the specific make and model"

Whoa boy...

Well...

Now, my readers who know guns probably all just said to themselves something like "well, that's an impossible question to answer"... and as phrased it is.

There is no one "most powerful gun"...

And that is true for a number of reasons.

First, you have to make a distinction between "largest" and "most powerful". They're two very different things. Generally bigger guns are "more powerful" than smaller, but not always, and not necessarily in a consistent or even logical manner.

Then, in "biggest" or "largest", there's no clear answer, because there's a "largest caliber", there's a "heaviest projectile", there's a "longest projectile", there's a "biggest cartridge case", and other factors.

"Most powerful" is very hard to define as well, because you've got both mass, and velocity to account for; and the standard objective power metric of "muzzle energy", isn't necessarily a good predictor of combat, defensive, or hunting effectiveness.

Also in the "most powerful" question is the weighting of multiple rounds on target. A bolt action .50bmg rifle is capable of doing a lot of damage with a single round; but a machine gun in .308 can put 100 rounds downrange before the .50 can put two... and that is certainly more gross damage potential, but is it "more powerful" ?

I think, just to simplify things, we need to exclude machine guns, multibarrel rotary guns etc... from the equation, and just talk about the size and power of a single fired round. Also, we need to exclude things like exploding ammunition, recoilless rifles, rifle grenades etc...

Actually... even before all that, we have to limit ourself somewhat further, and assume that we are talking about "small arms" fireable by a single person without mechanical support; which is what most people mean when they say "guns".

If you want to include all things defined as "guns", the "most powerful" is going to be either the Gerald Bull "supergun", which though it never fired, would have been about 150 feet long and 16 inches in diameter, but which could fire a projectile into the edge of space; or an artillery piece launching a nuclear weapon. For "biggest" you would probably choose one of the absolutely gigantic 24" to 36" artillery pieces created during WW1 or WW2, which launched projectiles as much as 12 feet long and weighing as much as 15,000lbs.

So, moving on from that, the question is still basically impossible to answer simply, because the "power" of a firearm is determined not by make and model, or actually anything about the firearm itself; but by the ammunition that it fires.

Specifically, the power of a firearm is determined by both its chambering (the designation of the cartridge, generally signifying it's diameter and overall length), and the specific loading of that chambering (the amount and type of powder used in the cartridge, and the weight of the bullet used, both of which can variables in a single chambering).

In general, there are many different weapons, from many different manufacturers, available in most common chamberings. For example, pretty much every major handgun manufacturer makes guns in 9x19 nato (commonly just called 9mm), and .45acp.

As of 2012, these two chamberings are the most commonly available centerfire pistol chamberings in the U.S. ; though both chamberings were originally available in a single firearm, and have been strongly associated with those firearms, such that some people still refer to them as "9mm luger" and ".45 colt" (though both are inaccurate, and the second is ambiguous, because it's also commonly used for a large .45 caliber revolver chambering, developed about 40 years before the .45acp).

Also, in general, there are many different loadings (as I said above, that means different bullet weights, and different powder charges), at many different power levels, for most chamberings.

Further, many people hand load their own ammunition, to be more powerful (or more precise) than factory offerings (which is quite easy to do. Factory ammunition is generally quite conservatively loaded, to avoid product liability; as it may be unsafe to load ammunition "hot" - meaning to a higher power level - in older, or less well made guns).

There are only a few, generally very uncommon (or custom, called "wildcat", and usually not available from a factory other than that of its inventor/developer), chamberings, that are only chambered by one particular make and model of gun.

Finally, there are very big differences in the size, and the power, of revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, and rifles; so much so that they are not directly compatible, and need to be taken individually as separate questions.

A few technical notes on ammunition, terminology, math, and physics:

Remember at the beginning of this post where I said I realized that the question asked required me to actually write two posts... well this is that other post.

In the second part post I am going to be talking about the mass, velocity, and energy of projectiles launched from firearms; as well as some details about ammunition.

In discussing these subjects, there are certain specialized conventions in terms and measurements which are unique to the firearms world; as well as some certain basic knowledge about ammunition that is necessary to understand the overall discussion.

I could have split this into two posts, but since I think it's more useful and easier to understand things in context, I decided just to make one very long post.

Sorry.

Ok, so what do you "need to know" about ammunition?

The first thing to note is that individual pieces of ammuniton are not "bullets", though they are often referred to as such; they are properly called either cartridges (for rifles and handguns) or shells (for shotguns).

Many people not familiar with firearms... and even those who are, and are just using it as shorthand (hell, I do it myself fairly commonly)... refer to an entire cartridge as a "bullet". This is technically incorrect, though common usage; and gives rise to the common misconception among the unfamiliar that the entire cartridge is fired from the gun.

The second thing to understand, is the parts of a cartridge or shell (as I have reviewed in detail in other posts; but I'll go over them here again for clarity).

A centerfire or rimfire cartridge has four basic parts, and a shotgun shell has five (which are slightly different than a cartridges parts):

The Bullet: This is the actual projectile that is launched from the firearm. When looking at a cartridge, the bullet is the rounded or pointy bit at the end; usually made of lead, or lead and copper (but sometimes made of other materials such as brass).

An important note: small arms bullets are almost never made of steel; though they may have some steel in them. The term "full metal jacket" (abbreviated as FMJ) is common, and correct; but usually refers to a copper, cupronickel alloy, or brass jacket, not steel. Many people believe that it means the bullets are made of steel, or jacketed with steel, but that is not generally true (though as I said, it sometimes is; notably a lot of eastern European ammo is either steel or steel alloy jacketed, as copper is considerably more expensive, and historically was more difficult to obtain in communist countries). some ammunition may also have a steel core inside the copper and lead, which increases penetration through hard surfaces. 

The Case: This is the part of the cartridge that holds the bullet (and the next two parts the propellant charge and the primer). It is generally made of brass, but can also be made of steel or aluminum; or brass plated with nickel. Generally speaking, the case is far longer and and far heavier than the bullet (or in fact, heavier than all the other pieces put together), and may be far larger diameter (frequently they are, in rifles, but rarely in hand guns). It is also often called "the casing", or "the brass".

The case itself has a few parts: The mouth, which is the open end that the bullet is inserted into, and in the case of "bottleneck" cartridges, the neck and shoulder; the walls or body, which are the sides of the case that hold the powder charge, and bear against the firearms chamber (the part of the gun that actually holds the cartridge while it is being fired. It's at the end of the barrel closest to the magazine of the gun); and the head (which includes the primer pocket, and the extractor groove or rim) which is thicker and heavier than the rest of the case to accept the primer, to handle the pressure of firing, and to handle the mechanical stresses of feeding the cartridge and extracting the case after firing.

Cartridge cases are generally marked on their case heads, with the manufacturer of the case, and the chambering the case is designed for. This is called the "headstamp".

One should note that headstamps are generally accurate and correct for factory produced ammunition; but many people hand load their own ammunition, in custom chamberings, using brass that was originally designed for other chamberings, and as such the actual chambering of a fired case may be different from the headstamp. 

The Propellant Charge: Also called the powder charge, the charge, or the powder; this is the actual propellant, which is ignited to fire the bullet out of the barrel.

Note, I did not say "exploded" or "explosive" I said "ignited" and "propellant", which is an important difference. The powder charge of a modern cartridge doesn't actually explode, it just burns very very quickly in what is called "deflagration". There are many different formulations of modern smokeless gun powder; all of which have different burning characteristics, and produce different levels of energy.

Modern gunpowder is considered "smokeless". Though there is some smoke from modern smokeless powders, it is very little in comparison to traditional "black" powder, which is chemically very different.

Black powder actually does explode or rather detonate, rather than just rapidly burning; and it produces an enormous amount of fairly foul smelling smoke as it does so.

Black powder is composed of sulfur, potassium nitrate, and charcoal which is combined into a wet slurry, then allowed to harden and ground down to a fine "kern" or "corn" (which is given a letter grade to denote fineness). Modern smokeless powder is composed of cellulose (plant fiber) which has been dissolved in nitrating compounds (usually nitric acid, or nitric acid and nitroglycerin), mixed with various additives, then extruded and dried into small cylindrical grains, balls, or flakes.

VERY IMPORTANT FOR WRITERS... Modern smokeless powder IS NOT CORDITE.

Many authors who don't know better have read the phrase "the tang of cordite in the air", and then reused it; almost all of them incorrectly and improperly.

Cordite was a specific type of smokeless propellant invented by the British in the late 1880s, used mostly by them (and their colonies and commonwealth members), and only commonly used in small arms ammunition prior to the 1920s (though artillery shells sometimes used cordite up through the 1950s). It was called cordite, because it wasn't actually a powder; it was actually extruded in long yarnlike strings or "cords".

As for the "tang of cordite", the stuff did have a very distinctive aroma of ammonia and potassium when ignited, but the amount ignited in a rifle cartridge is so small that the smell is quite faint (and yes I have fired 90 year old cordite ammunition. You can still buy the stuff that was made for world war one; though it's not particularly reliable, and it's horribly corrosive). It takes the large scale firing of machine guns, or hundreds of rifles, or of an artillery piece (which has the same amount of propellant as hundreds of rifle cartridges), to "taste the tang of cordite in the air".

Black powder was used in the western world from the 14th century, until the early 20th century when it was replaced (except in recreational and "traditional" hunting use) by smokeless powders. The transition from black powder, to smokeless powder, began in the last two decade of the 19th century, and was complete prior to world war 1. These days, people only shoot blackpowder for fun, and because many states have a hunting season limited to blackpowder firearms.

The Primer: Smokeless powder isn't impact sensitive (or at least not significantly so). It isn't set off by the firearms hammer slamming into it; it needs an impact sensitive explosive to ignite it. That is the function of the primer.

The primer is a small metal cup, with a tiny bit of impact sensitive explosive sandwiched into it in between between a couple pieces of thin metal, shown here:

The primer is inserted in the head of the cartridge, which has a tiny hole drilled into it (called the flashhole). Shown here is a primer pocket and flash hole, as well as an expended primer in the case head (both showing the head stamps I mentioned above):

The primer is hit by the firing pin or the striker, which causes the impact sensitive explosive to detonate; and a tiny jet of flame shoots up through the flash hole, igniting the powder charge, and propelling the bullet down the barrel and out the muzzle of the gun (along with a lot of expanding gas, and unburned powder and other residues of gunfire, as so often described on CSI).

Ok, what was that about shotgun ammo?

Shotgun shells are a little bit different. They have five parts, which serve mostly the same functions as in cartridges, but are made a little differently.

Shotgun shells have a powder charge and primer that are largely the same as centerfire cartridges, but there are three basic differences:

The Hull: This is analogous to the case in handguns and rifles, but is slightly different. Modern shotgun hulls are generally made of plastic with a brass base, or "head"; though historically (and currently used in shooting events that recreate historic time periods) they have been made of paper and brass, or even all brass, like a handgun casing.

Also, rather than being capped off with a bullet, shotgun hulls have either a crimp, or a sealing disk of cardboard (crimp shown here as the kinda star shaped thing):

The Load: Shotguns dont fire bullets, they fire either shot, or slugs, and whatever is used as a projectile or projectile is called the load. Shot, is a number of small balls anywhere from as small as 1mm to as large as 9mm across, usually made of lead, but sometimes made of copper, bismuth, tungsten, or steel; and each shell could have as few as five or six, to as many as a couple hundred individual shot pieces (depending on the size of shot, and weight of the load). Slugs, are single large copper, brass, or lead projectiles, which look more like badminton shuttlecocks or salt shakers, than they do bullet; but basically they are just a REALLY big, soft, bullet.

Here are a couple different types of slugs:

And here's a cutaway showing both shot and slugs (as well as the rest of the components):

The Wad (or wad and Cup): In handgun and rifle cartridges, there is nothing between the bullet and the propellant, but air. With shotguns, because they often fire large numbers of small pellets, in order to keep the load all together moving down the barrel, there needs to be a solid buffer between the propellant charge and the shot load. That solid buffer was once almost always a few disks of cardboard or heavy paper (and still sometimes is), but for decades now it has frequently has been a thin plastic cup with a thick plastic base. It flies out the end of the barrel surrounding the load, but because it is very low mass, and has a high surface area, it separates from the load within a few yards, falling to the ground (though sometimes if you are close enough to a paper target, the wad will go through the target).

Here's a picture of an actual wad:

Here's another cutaway diagram showing the wad and cup a bit more clearly:

Now, some more of the terminology:

When we're talking about firearms "power", we need to talk about mass, velocity, and energy. There are lots of terms used in science for these things. In science, mass is generally denominated in grams, velocity in meters per second, and energy in joules for example.

In Europe they sometimes use those terms, but ballistics has been around a lot longer than the metric system, and in the U.S, we generally use the traditional terminology.

The actual caliber of a bullet is just the diameter of the bullet, expressed either in inches (or more commonly in fractions of an inch, as almost all small arms fire projectiles smaller than 1 inch in diameter) such as .45 caliber, or in millimeters, such as 9mm.

It is technically accurate to say something is in "9mm caliber", however it is not commonly done, as in general, when someone hears "caliber", they are expecting to hear an inch measurement.

All that said however, the bullets diameter isn't directly related to the "power" of the firearm; except in that larger diameter bullets tend to be heavier (have more mass), than smaller diameter bullets (though not always, as bullets can be short and stubby, or long and thin).

...Well that, and that bigger bullets tend to make bigger holes in whatever they hit; and bigger holes usually hurt more...

Bullets mass and powder charge are both denominated in grains, abbreviated as gr.

1gr is 1/7000th of a pound, or 437.5gr per ounce.

Note that gr=grains not g=grams.

So, a standard 230gr .45acp bullet weighs a bit more than 1/2 ounce; and a standard 9mm bullet weighs a bit more than 1/4 ounce. What generally surprises folks who aren't familiar with guns, is that the bullet for our standard military rifle, which is chambered in 5.56 nato, is even smaller; at just under 1/4" diameter, and weighing in at right around 1/8 of an ounce.

Smaller... but much more energetic; because kinetic energy is a function of both mass, and velocity. More importantly, energy scales linearly with mass, but exponentially with velocity (so velocity has a much greater weight in the equation as it goes up).

In American practice the custom is to denominate muzzle velocity in feet per second, and energy in foot pounds force, usually just referred to as foot pounds, and  marked as ftlbs or ft/lbs.

For those of you using the metric system, 1.35 joules is approximately equal to 1 foot pounds force, and 1 meter per second is approximately equal to 3.28 feet per second.

Now, the physics and the math...

The only really objective and quantifiable measure of firearms "power", is kinetic energy; which is conventionally called "muzzle energy" in ballistics.

Kinetic energy is calculated by the formula K=(1/2)MV^2, however as in any other equation, the units must be dimensionally comparable (remember dimensional analysis from high school?).

Thus, the equations work out as E=M*V^2/450400 for the American system and E=MV^2/2000 for the metric system.

M is bullet mass (denominated in either in grains or grams). V is the bullet velocity (in either ft/sec  or m/sec) The constants 450400 for american measurement, and 2000 for metric measurements, are the conversion factors for the dimensional analysis.

Here's a link for a calculator to do the math for you, which prints a nice little graph of total kinetic energy as a function of mass and velocity.

So, a 230gr .45acp bullet travelling at the standard 830 feet per second, has about 350ftlbs of muzzle energy; and a 62gr 5.56 nato bullet (which is the same as a .223 Remington, about half the diameter of the .45) travelling at the standard 3100ft/sec, has about 1300flbs of energy.

That's about four times the energy in the rifle round vs. the pistol round; even though the rifle bullet is only about 1/2 the diameter, and about 1/4 of the mass.

Physics is FUN YAY!!!!

So, all that said, let's make some basic assumptions and generalizations, and talk about some of the most powerful common chamberings, and some of the guns that chamber them.

HANDGUN POWER IN GENERAL:

Both the largest and most powerful handgun chambering is the Smith and Wesson .500 magnum.

It is a true .50 caliber pistol round (which is the largest caliber generally allowed under U.S. sporting arms regulations), with the same muzzle energy as a large magnum rifle. It fires up to a 500gr bullet at up to 1600feet per second for around 3000ftlbs of energy.

As of now, it's only available in the Smith and Wesson x-frame revolver, and a few custom revolvers; mostly because the cartridge itself is both too large (both long and wide) and too powerful, for most other handgun frames.

The most powerful commonly available chambering that fits into a "normal" sized revolver is generally considered to be the .454 casull; which is a .45 caliber round, at up to 400gr, and up to 1500feet per second for up to around 2000ftlbs of energy.

The most powerful chambering that people would actually carry for self defense, is the .44 mganum (.454 is used for hunting, and protecting yourself against bears), or a heavy .45 colt loading; and in general most still would consider those too hot for self defense, and use them generally for hunting.

The most powerful chambering that is commonly carried for self defense in revolvers is .357 magnum. Very heavy, very hot hunting rounds can be had with bullets up to 180gr and at velocities of up to 1500fps, for muzzle energies well over 800ftlbs; but that would be VERY hot ammo, and not safe for firing in most normal guns. The most powerful loads people would actually carry, are somewhere around 160gr at around 1500fps, for around 800ftlbs.

The great thing about .357 magnum revolvers, is that they can shoot the much less powerful (and much cheaper) .38 special ammunition (.357 magnum is basically stretched and overpowered .38spl in a tougher brass case). They can also be made quite small. I have a pocket sized 5 shot .357 magnum revolver that only weighs 10 ounces empty, and about 12 ounces loaded. It goes into my front pants pocket in the morning and doesn't come out until I go to bed; and I barely notice it at all.

semi-automatic pistols are, in general, not able to handle the same power levels as heavy, large framed revolvers, for a number of reasons relating to how semi-autos function. You CAN get very powerful semiautos, but they have to be very large, and very heavy, like the Desert Eagle or the Wildey.

The most powerful commonly available chambering in a semi-automatic pistol is the .50 action express; but it's only available in the Desert Eagle, and some custom guns. It shoots up to a 350gr bullet at up to 1500fps, for up to around 1600ftlps of energy.

There are also a few boutique chamberings like the .45 winchester magnum, the .45 wildey magnum, the .44 automag etc... etc... some of which are as powerful as moderate loadings of the .454 casull, but most of which are under the hottest loadings of the .44 magnum.

The most powerful chambering in semiautomatic pistols people actually CARRY, is probably 10mm (I often carry one myself); which fires up to a 180gr .40 caliber bullet, at up to 1350fps, for around 730ftlbs of energy; somewhere in between the .357 magnum and the .44 magnum revolver rounds (about the same as the much less common .41 magnum).

There are a number of pistols that can chamber rifle rounds; which are generally far more powerful than pistol rounds; but again, those are all rather specialized firearms.

SHOTGUN POWER IN GENERAL:


The most powerful shotgun commonly available is the 10ga, but shotgun "power" is highly dependent on the ammunition you are firing... As it is for all other firearms certainly, but more so for shotguns.

Shotgun loadings are far more variable than handgun or rifle loads, generally because shotguns are used for a broader range of activities than other firearms; and also because shotguns will properly and accurately function with a broader range of ammunition, while rifles and handguns (and semi-automatic shotguns for that matter) need to operate in a fairly narrow range of mass and velocity to function both reliably and accurately.

These shotgun loads can vary from light trap loads, which generally use a shorter 2-1/2" or 2-3/4" shell (or even 1-3/4" in some specialty loads), and launch relatively light loads of very small pellets at a moderate velocity to hit clay targets; to heavy 3.5" magnum slug loads, which launch a single very heavy projectile, at relatively high velocities, for hunting and personal defense.

In general, you would probably categorize the most powerful ammunition options as 3.5" magnum slugs; which are available in 10ga, and 12ga.

A not on shotgun terminology; as with wire gauge, the smaller the gauge, the larger the diameter of the bore size. Shotgun gauge is also sometimes referred to as "bore", which was a measurement dating back to old blackpowder cannons. In this context refers not directly to diameter, but to the number of pure lead spheres of the diameter of the barrel that would fit into a pound of lead. So a 12 bore or 12 gauge shotgun has a bore diameter equal to that of a sphere of lead that weighs 1/12th pound; which corresponds to about .72". A 10ga that of a 1/10th pound lead sphere which is about .77" and so on.

A 10ga 3.5" magnum slug shell fires a .75" diameter slug, weighing approximately 2 ounces (I have seen a 2-1/4" oz slug load, but they are very uncommon. The heaviest common slug load would be 1-3/4oz, at approximately 1300 feet per second, for somewehere around 3000ftlbs of energy (which is about the same as the .500 S&W).

Oh I should have noted, the 2 ounce 10ga slug I mention above is about 875 grains; but traditionally, shotgun loads are denominated in ounces.

RIFLE POWER IN GENERAL:


In rifle terms... there's really no answer to that question, as there are far too many variables.

HOWEVER, IN GENERAL...

The most powerful commonly available chambering is the .50bmg; a round originally designed in 1917 for heavy machineguns, and still used for that today.

There are hundreds of different rifles available in .50bmg; from around $1000, to over $20,000; including both bolt action and semi-automatic options.

It's the largest commonly available, because U.S. sporting arms regulations generally limit modern smokeless powder cartridge firing rifles to .50 caliber or below (there are a few exceptions), and also because more powerful weapons generally generate too much recoil and muzzle blast to be fired from the shoulder, and need to be mounted into the ground or on a vehicle.

There ARE a few rifles chambered in 20mm (which is about .79 caliber, and usually using aircraft cannon type ammunition with a solid projectile instead of an explosive shell) but they are very rare, very expensive, and very very hard to shoot; because of the massive recoil energy and muzzle blast they produce. They are essentially a curiosity.

The use of the .50bmg round in accurate bolt action and semi-automatic rifles however is fairly common these days. It has a fairly long history dating back at least to the 1950's (I'm sure people built .50 caliber bolt action rifles before then, but I can't find any references to it), and could now be considered on the edge of mainstream.

The .50bmg can be accurate at over a mile under the right conditions; and has made kills at far longer ranges (sniper kills at 1.5 miles; machine gun kills from indirect fire at over 2 miles).

The standard load for a .50bmg is an 800 grain bullet, that's .50" wide and over 2" long, at around 3000 feet per second, for around 15,000 ftlbs of energy.

That's about 6 times the power of a common large battle rifle chambering like .308 or .30-06; and about 12 times the power of the standard 5.56 nato assault rifle chambering.

Of course, it's also got about 12 times the recoil (actually, it's about 8 times the recoil impulse, and 11 times the total energy. Here's a calculator to help you determine recoil if you're interested) and needs to be fired in guns that weigh at least 4 or 5 times as much etc... etc...

The most powerful chambering commonly used by both hunters and soldiers, is the .300 winchester magnum, which fires a bullet between 160gr and 220gr at somewhere arounf 3000 feet per second, and somewhere around 4,000 ftlbs of energy.

The .300 winmag is used by snipers, and by long range hunters, as well as long range shooting competitors (my 1000 yard rifles are all in .300 win mag). It's very commonly available, with ammunition and rifles chambered in it both available at your local Wal-Mart in most states.

The .338 lapua is a chambering that has become more common over the past 15 years or so. It's also used by snipers and long range shooters, but not much by hunters; as it doesn't give much advantage over the .300 winmag until you go beyond 1000 yards range. It's got about 50% more energy than the .300, and is good out to past 1500 yards, with a few confirmed kills past 2000 yards; for a HUGE recoil, noise, and cost penalty (almost as much as a .50bmg when you consider it's being shot in rifles that weigh half as much as the .50s do).

There are other very large, very powerful rifle rounds sometimes used by snipers or other long range shooters, often based off of .50bmg cases, but sometimes based off of large magnum rifle rounds; but I wouldn't call any of them common, and none are actually more powerful than the .50bmg.

There ARE however rifles that fire larger diameter bullets, and even heavier bullets; they just fire them at much lower velocities.

These chamberings are the classic african "elephant gun" loadings; which went up as high as .70 caliber (the .700 nitro express), using bullets massing as much as 1000gr, and producing as much as 10,000ftlbs of energy.

Unlike sniper and other long range rifle rounds, these big monsters were designed to shoot at short ranges of under 100 yards (generally 50 yards or less in fact); and to deliver their HUGE bullets, at moderate velocities, to break through the heavy bone structure of African big game like Elephants, Rhinos, and Cape Buffalo.

There have even been a very small number of even larger rifles made; which shoot bullets so large they are referred to by "bore" rather than caliber, much as shotguns are (shotgun gauge and shotgun bore are technically interchangeable, but "bore" is archaic... though still commonly used among older shooters, and the english).

There have been 8 bore, 4 bore, and even 2 bore rifles; again used by african hunters, and firing projectiles spanning as much as a 1.32 inches diameter, weighing as much as 8 ounces, and producing as much or more energy (from about 1/2 ounce of black powder, which is generally less energetic than modern powders) as a .50bmg (though at much lower velocities of course)

I have heard that a few folks have, in recent years, produced 1 bore rifles as stunts; but I don't think anyone ever actually made them to go after game in Africa... In fact, with a 1 pound projectile at around 1200 feet per second, producing 23,000 ftlbs of energy; when fired from a 20lb gun, I'm pretty sure you couldn't fire one from the shoulder without actually doing damage to yourself. The recoil energy and impulse of such a weapon would be enough to tear your shoulder out of its socket.

These rifles are very rare, very expensive, and very specialized. They are not in common use by any stretch of the imagination; but they are out there.

So then, what IS the biggest, most powerful gun?

Well, given all that I've just said, and since there is no one answer... why don't you tell me?

Like I said, it depends on your definitions of "largest", "most powerful", and "gun".

Hopefully, 6000 words later; I've given you enough information here that, in the context of what you are trying to write, you can figure those out for yourself.

Firearms mythbusting part... I can't remember at this point... Why 4lbs?

Rob Allen just put up a post on using the Apex Competition trigger (which gives the gun an appx 3lb trigger pull) in his carry M&P40.

In comments, several people said that they weren't comfortable with the idea; because their general concept of a "safe" carry trigger, is a 4lb trigger weight; and Apex themselves (basically for liability reasons) insist the trigger kit is for competition use only.

A four pound or heavier trigger pull for carry guns is the conventional wisdom around the gun world; but it seems everyone has a different explanation as to why... if they have an explanation at all, other than received wisdom.

The "lore" is that 4lbs is the point where you won't accidentally trip the sear if you put your finger on the trigger when gripping the weapon, or moving around.

Unfortunately, that's a myth; and a dangerous one.

In actuality, the trigger weight that will prevent most negligent discharges under normal conditions (never mind under great stress) is MUCH higher. Something like 12lb to 16lb in fact (several studies have been done over the years, and their conclusions have varied, from under 10lb under "normal" conditions, to well over 20lb under high stress).

Under high stress, reflexive or sympathetic gripping, can be extremely powerful.

Let me explain what that means.

Reflexive motions, are motions that happen involuntarily, in response to stimulus. They are "reflexes".

Sympathetic motions are a particular type of reflexive motion that occurs in one part of the body, when we move or perform an action with another part.

Our grip (the relevant bodily function to handling and actuating the trigger on a firearm), is subject to both sympathetic motion, and other types of reflexive motion.

When you squeeze something with your left hand, your right hand will tend to squeeze slightly, involuntarily, in response (actually, if you are left handed, the right hand will tend to respond quite strongly, and vice verse. The dominant hand more strongly influences the off hand). Unless you are actively looking out for this and attempting to stop it, you simply can't... and even then, you often can't stop it entirely. It's a twitch response.

That's called a sympathetic contraction, and it's the proximate cause of a lot of folks negligently discharging their firearms (the true cause is poor trigger discipline; but even very well trained people can and do screw up sometimes, through complacency, or under great stress... I speak from experience). 

Unfortunately, a lot of people develop the very bad habit of lightly resting their finger on the side, or face, of the trigger; or of putting their finger inside the trigger guard. Even if your finger isn't on the trigger, if it's inside the trigger guard, sympathetic (or other reflexive) motion can cause you to actuate the trigger unintentionally, causing a negligent discharge.

The other type of reflexive motion I'm going to address is also the proximate cause of a lot of negligent discharges... In particular, a lot of cops have shot themselves while chasing suspects because of it.

If you stumble, lose your balance, or fall, while holding something in your hand, you WILL grip that object VERY hard, with all your fingers; and you will tend to try to bring the object in close to your body. It's called reflexive contraction, and you CAN NOT STOP IT.

Literally thousands of tests have been done on this; and even if you are prepared to fall, it's simply not possible to prevent yourself from gripping hard when you fall with something gripped in your hand; unless, as you notice you are falling (IF you notice you are falling), you deliberately discard the item in your hand (or unless you train to do so for tens of thousands of repetitions, creating new muscle memory. No-one sane is going to do that).

How many people are going to deliberately toss their gun out of their hands when they fall?

Unless your finger is indexed firmly outside the trigger guard, and unable to slip into the trigger guard under strong reflexive motion; there's a pretty good chance that you're going to unintentionally actuate the trigger when these reflexive motions come into play.

Studies have been done many times over the years, and the results are inconsistent; but the general consensus is that an "average" subject will tend to grip with a range of between 20lb and 40lbs of force when reflexive motion under stress comes into play; and the higher the stress they are under at the time, the more force they will grip with.

I think we can agree, having to draw your firearm defensively would qualify as a high stress situation.

That said, no-one would accept a 40lb trigger pull on any normal gun. Hell, most people wouldn't even be able to pull it unless they WERE under extreme stress (I am a very large man, who regularly does grip exercises as physical therapy; and although I CAN pull 40lb with my index finger, I wouldn't want to do it very often. Or 20lb for that matter).

You design for the common case, not for the extreme edges; and you design to balance considerations. One consideration in trigger pull weight is comfort, another is accuracy; and unfortunately, these days the one given the most weight, is legal liability.

In the common case, a 10lb to 20lb trigger, will keep someone with poor trigger discipline, from negligently discharging their weapon during the draw cycle, or while moving about with the weapon on the range.

Sadly, this will not keep the firearms manufacturer or police department from being sued; but it will generally mean the manufacturer or police department won't lose because they had too light a trigger.

This liability issue is why the Glock New York II trigger (designed for the NYPD) is a nominal 11.5-12lb weight.

An aside: Actually, in most guns, it isn't; or even close to it. It varies from between 10lb and 14lb at the face of the trigger; because of inconsistencies in spring tension, pistol wear, slight differences in the connector angles, and differences in friction of the mating surfaces.

Also, trigger weight measurement will vary based on where on the trigger the measurement is taken, and the design of the trigger. Tilting triggers like those in Glocks and S&W revolvers, have much more leverage at the trigger tip than the face; but people squeeze the trigger from the face).

The New York trigger was designed in response to officers (many of them transitioning from S&W revolvers), not being used to the much lighter weight of the standard Glock trigger, and negligently discharging their firearms. In response, Glock just made their triggers as heavy as the DA trigger pull of the departments old S&W revolvers; which were nominally between 11 and 12lbs.

The negligent discharge issue is also why "traditional" double action revolver trigger pulls are at around a 12lb standard (lately they've been going up. Current S&W production revolvers run something like 16-18lbs), and why military arms were often designed to have 12lb triggers etc...

In fact, I believe that number was arrived at during the adoption of a modified version of the Smith & Wesson model 1889 hand ejector, as the S&W military and police revolver, in 1899; but I believe the 11-12lb nominal DA trigger pull of the revolver, was simply the result of a series of manufacturing decision, that had the happy accident of reducing the impact of private dumbass's bad firearms habits.

At any rate, like most things, it became the "Traditional" revolver trigger weight by an accidental and coincidental combination of factors; but once that was established as the standard, people resisted or rejected any variation from it. Millions of soldiers and policemen were trained on revolvers with 12lb double action trigger pulls for decades; and that's the way they "should" be.

The 4lb carry trigger on semi-auto handguns has a similar story.

Really, the 4lb number came about because of 1911s, small metal trigger parts, gunsmiths, and bubbas.

4lbs, is about the lowest you can take the trigger pull on a stock 30s through 70s manufacture 1911, without having to replace the trigger parts with higher quality, lighter weight, better heat treated pieces that have never had any stoning done on them; and still have the gun be "safe" (actually, a safe and clean 4lbs is pushing it on a lot of guns, but 4.5lbs is doable on almost any 1911).

By "safe", I mean that the pistol won't have hammer pushoff (where you can push the hammer forward off the sear), hammer follow (where the hammer follows the slide forward, or falls forward off the sear when the slide locks into battery), trigger doubling (where the inertia of the trigger -or the trigger and your finger- under recoil causes the sear to trip), or runaway (where the disconnector fails to cause the sear to reset); under heavy recoil.

4lbs is also about the lightest a "bubba", without the proper tools and fixtures, can get a 1911 trigger with freehand stoning; and not have it be TOO dangerous. Frankly, part of the whole 4lbs thing, is what one might consider "defensive disinformation"; in that if the bubbas got the received wisdom that they could get to 4lbs but anything lower was likely to kill somebody, maybe they wouldn't be so stupid and screw up their (and other peoples) guns so much trying to go lighter (in which, it had mixed success).

An important note: As I have said here many times before, never let someone who isn't an expert, with proper tools, training, and experience, work on your firearms, ESPECIALLY your triggers; including yourself. No-one who doesn't know exactly what they are doing, and have the right tools to do it, should ever work on a firearms trigger.

With an ultralight trigger, ultralight hammer, good springs, and good high quality trigger parts; that are properly fitted, properly stoned and polished, and properly heat treated; it's certainly possible to get a much lighter trigger in a 1911 and still be mechanically safe.

You can actually get down to less than 2lbs (if you use VERY high quality parts, and replace them frequently) and be mechanically safe; but that discounts human factors (also, the parts will have a much shorter service life). 

Anything under 3lbs on a short pull single stage trigger (like a 1911), and I worry about inertia and reflexive motion causing doubling under heavy recoil; even if you are extremely well trained in resetting and getting off the trigger (I speak from experience).

Some competitive shooters have their race guns set up with as light as 1.2lb triggers, but those are highly tuned guns, highly trained shooters, and they replace the parts of the gun LONG before they wear out.... and frankly, I still think it's a silly idea.

There are some folks who brag about 12oz triggers on 1911s; but for one, I've never see a 1911 trigger lighter than 18oz that I would consider safe, and honestly, I really don't see the point.

Anything less than about 3lbs or so isn't going to make a bit of difference in competitive accuracy (it's basically a bragging rights issue). It's really the clean break, without any stacking or creep that's more important, and going so light actually makes it harder to get that break perfect. I'd rather have a 6lb trigger with a perfect break, than a 2lb trigger with anything less than a perfect break (and honestly, with a perfect break, that 6lb pull is going to feel, subjectively, lighter than the 2lb without it).

Plus, the parts wear out so much faster (particularly for a competitive shooter, who may shoot 50,000 rounds a year), you're having to constantly do new triggers; and you're always carrying extra risk of getting a procedural or technical (because, as I said, even a well trained shooter can screw up).

Other firearms designs have their own limitations.

An N-Frame Smith and Wesson revolver, with a good smith, can get down to about a 7lb DA trigger pull and still be reliable with most ammo (though a trigger under 8lbs may have a problem with hard primers). 

That same gun can be tuned down to an under 1lb single action trigger; but I recommend against it because the trigger parts will wear down very quickly, and the hammer may push off if hit hard, or dropped. My personal 625 has an SA pull of just under 2lbs, and it breaks with a hard wish.

With a Glock, the limits are determined by the geometry of the transfer bar, striker, trigger connector, the springs in the trigger system, and overall friction in the trigger system.

The practical limit on a 100% safe and reliable, and reasonably crisp, trigger for a Glock is about 2.5-3lbs or just a bit under (every gun is a little bit different); and most other striker fired auto pistols are somewhere around there as well.

Because the Glock in particular has a long travel trigger, with a semi-cocked striker (with the trigger in its neutral position, the striker doesn't have enough energy to ignite a primer, even if it falls without a trigger pull); the weight of the trigger itself isn't much of a safety factor.

The important thing is to have sufficient engagement between the components, and sufficient spring pressure; that inertia, metal fatigue, or small pieces of grit, wouldn't cause doubling (or worse, a runaway) under heavy recoil.

Also, with Glocks (and again, most other striker fired auto pistols), very light trigger weights can actually feel worse than heavier weights; because the very light springs required, make the trigger feel "soft", "mushy", or "spongy" rather than crisp. This can actually hurt accuracy (as I said above, the break is more important than the weight). 

My personal opinion, is that any trigger that is mechanically safe and reliable; is TECHNICALLY suitable for carry.

The real problem though, isn't technical, it's legal.

A 4lb or higher trigger weight, is the conventional wisdom and "industry standard" for a carry trigger.

If you deliberately act to carry a firearm with a trigger lighter than that (particularly if it's against the manufacturers strict recommendation), then you are taking on a huge potential legal liability in the event you have to use your firearm defensively.

First of course, is being portrayed as having an "unsafe" modification, or "hair trigger" in the event of a jury trial.

As to how much impact this will have... Ask Harold Fish. He carried a modified 10mm, and the prosecutors successfully argued that because he did so (both the light trigger, and the fact that he carried such a powerful round) he was "looking to shoot someone".

Most of the time, juries aren't that stupid (prosecutors on the other hand...), but sometimes... That said, it doesn't stop me from carrying my 10mm 1911 (with a 3lb 12oz trigger by the by).

Second, most shooters are not used to such light triggers. If another shooter picks up your gun, and has poor trigger discipline; with a very light trigger, even when you warn them, it's entirely possible they may ND during draw or presentation.

I've had this happen with several different shooters, and several of my guns (including those with over 4lb triggers); mostly Glock shooters who weren't used to 1911s.

Finally, there's you. Are YOU, personally, safe with a 4lb or lighter trigger.

If you aren't well trained, and well practiced (or, even if you are, and your fingers just aren't that sensitive), it can be VERY easy to unintentionally trip a very light trigger.

A lot of folks assume that 5lbs is a fair bit of weight; after all lots of people exercise with 5lb dumbbells. With your grip though, it's different.

I'm a guitar player and a bass player. Finger strength is rather important to folks who do that. I use a 50lb whole hand grip exerciser, and an "extra heavy" Gripmaster pro five finger exerciser, with 11lb of tension on each finger; and I feel barely any resistance to my index finger squeeze.

Even my wife, who has comparatively little grip strength, can squeeze the 11lb index finger pad easily enough, and she has no problem with the trigger pull on my J-Frame 340pd ( so it's not actually a matter of trigger finger strength.

Some folks can't feel any difference between a 2lb trigger, and a 6lbs trigger, simply because their proprioceptive sense just isn't fine enough, or isn't trained enough.

And of course, there's simply a matter of what you're used to, and what you're comfortable with. 4lbs of trigger weight seems EXTREMELY light, when you're used to 6 or 7 or 12lbs; never mind 3lbs. Also, most people are used to some takeup, some creep, and some stacking in their triggers. When presented with a trigger that has none of these things (or very little), even if the trigger is hev peoples "surprise break" can be more like a "whoa, how the hell did that thing go off" trigger break.

So, if you want a lighter than a 4lb trigger, I'm perfectly OK with it, and it's most likely perfectly mechanically safe; so long as you are personally safe, and comfortable with it, and so long as you accept the potential liability issue.

Infuriating, but unsurprising

I've been talking about RFID as a security risk for a long time now... Now, my card companies have sent me two cards that have RFID tags in them, without my requesting it or approving it; and there is no option NOT to have this "feature".

Of course now all passports have an RFID tag embedded in them (mine doesn't yet... next year).

Again, no option to NOT have this "feature".

...So I have an RFID blocking wallet, and passport folio.

So You Want to Write About Guns - Part Three: One Shot One Kill

That was a not very bad scene, from a not very good movie, "Sniper" starring Tom Berenger. Of course, as sniper movies go this one actually was pretty good; unfortunately, that's not saying much.

There has never been (to my knowledge anyway) a really good, technically accurate, sniper movie.

"Enemy at the Gates" was a good movie, but to my mind it wasn't really a sniper movie, it was a conflict drama that happened to be about a pair of snipers. "Sniper" as I've said, was a mediocre movie (and spawned 2 quite bad sequels). There were some good sniping scenes (though completely unrealistic) in "Saving Private Ryan", and some great fun (and even more unrealistic) sniping scenes in "Navy SEALS"; but neither were sniper movies.

About the best sniper movie technically, is the recent "Shooter", which I actually liked. There were a lot of good moments, and much of the shooting detail was good. Unfortunately there were also a lot of glaring errors (some deliberate, or for better storytelling; some just dumb), and some ridiculous political posturing that detract greatly from the movie.

I want to see a great sniper movie made; and before it gets made, somebody has to write it.

It would seem that the sniper is a naturally interesting subject for fiction. In dramatic terms, he is a warrior, stalking through enemy territory without backup. He fights the enemy from a great distance, concealed in the environment; while at the same time, making the kill very personal, one on one, seeing each face through his scope as he kills.

The inbuilt drama of the sniper just makes for a good story. Unfortunately, most of the people writing those stories have no idea what a sniper does, how, or why (or that the reality of it is quite a bit more prosaic. Eons of boredom punctuated by moments of terror).

As in the other posts in this series, I want to teach writers a little bit about what it is they are trying to write about. Yes, you have to write the story first, but with a story that places such a great importance on guns, and shooters, you NEED to get the details right, or you ruin the story for your readers.

Sooo... this is a big topic, it's hard to know where to start, so I think I'll just talk about the basics, and build from there (warning: about 10,000 words, or 25 typewritten pages, to follow).

What is a sniper?

That one is easy. A sniper is a combatant who exclusively engages the enemy with precision aimed fire against specific individuals at medium to long ranges, from concealment. Snipers also act independently of larger infantry formations, most often as a two man team operating far from conventional forces and without support.

If one engages in precision rifle fire from short to medium ranges, and not specifically from concealment; especially if there is an emphasis on multiple shots in rapid succession or shots on moving targets; then that person is a marksman, or a sharpshooter, not a sniper. Marksmen and sharpshooters generally act organically to larger conventional force formations, in support of their actions.

It is possible however (even common in our current conflict), for trained and dedicated snipers to act in a marksman or sharpshooter role.

How are snipers different from other soldiers, or from hunters, or target shooters?

From a purely technical standpoint, a sniper is someone who is capable of extremely precise and accurate shooting; under adverse conditions, at long ranges, from concealment. Although historically, most sniper engagements occur at less than 300m; professional snipers prepare and train for ranges out to 1000m and more.

The vast majority of hunters and recreational shooters would never take a kill shot beyond 300 yards; nor would they practice beyond that range. Also, most military services never practice beyond 300m for non-snipers (excepting the U.S. Marines who practice out to 400m).

A "serious shooter" (I am one for example, and in fact I'm a hobbyist/regional competitor in 1000m precision rifle shooting) of credible skill but not necessarily a full time professional or advanced level competitor, MAY, with the right rifle and good conditions; be able to make hits consistently at 600m

Serious benchrest, highpower, DCM, and service rifle competitors (and there are about 20,000 of them in the U.S.; almost all civilians, almost none cops, snipers, or ex snipers) can; with relatively field practical, but still highly specialized, expensive, and incredibly precise rifles; make hits consistently at 800m. Some exceptional shooters, with exceptional quality rifles can make hits consistently out to 1200m.

Ok, so what is "precise and accurate shooting"?

Well, what a hunter generally considers adequate is the ability to group 3 shots in 6" at the ranges desired. Most hunters, with most rifles can only perform to this standard at 300 yards or less.

Some hunters, with exceptional skill and a very good rifle, in a relatively powerful chambering such as 7mm magnum; will be able to make and take shots to this standard, out to 400 yards.

Few responsible hunters will take shots at ranges past that, except under ideal conditions; where with a rifle chambered in something like .300 win mag, you might be able to reliably take a shot on a thin skinned animal at 600 yards. This however would be an EXTREMELY uncommon shot, that very few hunters could, or would attempt; because it is likely to leave a wounded animal, which is both cruel, and difficult to recover.

At 300 yards this level of performance is called "2 moa" which is what a "typical" generic hunting rifle was capable of in years past. MOA stands for "minute of angle" a measurement of arc, used to express the deviation of bullets from their intended point of aim.

1 moa is approximately 1" at 100 yards, and it progresses linearly from there to 2" at 200, 4 at 400 etc... If you have a "2 moa rifle", you can expect that if you do your job right as the shooter, and the weather co-operates, at 300 yards range, your bullet will impact within a 3" radius circle (6" diameter) of your point of aim.

A sniper needs to be able to make consistent hits in an 8" wide 12" high oval at whatever range they expect to engage. Typical sniper engagement ranges are out to 800 yards. If they are ranging out to 800 yards, then they need to be able to make 1 moa or better at that range (which is in fact a very difficult thing to do).

How hard is that shot, and is it harder than shooting a deer?

In films and novels, it seems like snipers can hit someone in a speeding car on a bumpy road while firing from a helicopter a half mile away. That is just is not true (actually one of the critical plot points of the movie "Sniper" is that you can't). The slightest bit of extraneous motion on the part of the shooter can throw a shot off by FEET not inches; and it is EXTREMELY difficult to hit a moving target at even close range never mind from 800 meters away.

No responsible hunter will attempt a shot on an animal moving at more than a slow walk; and at that never more than 300 yards away. Even military snipers won't attempt a shot at someone moving more than a few inches per second, unless they are at very close range (under 300 yards), or their speed is VERY predictable, or both. They'll wait until the target stops moving, even if only for two seconds, before taking their shot.

If a target is moving, you have to shoot at the spot where he WILL be when your bullet gets there (which from 3000 feet away could be more than 1 second later); not where they are when you pull the trigger. This is called "lead". It is simply impossible to calculate leads rapidly and accurately at great distances on moving targets; and if you miss, you've not only not accomplished the mission, but you've alerted the target, and you are likely to not get a second shot.

Snipers will wait for hours or even days; watching their targets for exactly the right moment, when they can take a high percentage shot.

The high percentage kill zone on a man is a 6" wide 8" high oval on their head, and an 8" wide 12" high oval on their chest. The medium percentage kill zone, is a triangle describing the center of the forehead or bridge of the nose, and both kidneys, or the bottom of the rib cage (some teach that it's from the nose to the nipples, but that excludes a fair portion of the high value target area). This is called "the golden triangle". They are called "high percentage" and
"medium percentage", because a rifle shot fired into those region will have a corresponding chance of creating a lethal wound.

No sniper will ever take a critical shot below medium percentage. Essentially they would not do so, unless they were firing deliberately to cause confusion, or against the exigencies of the circumstances; rather than attempting a precision kill shot. If they feel they cannot make a shot to the high percentage zones or golden triangle, they will not make the shot; preferring a no-shoot to a miss.

What can a sniper rifle do, and how is that different from a hunting rifle or target rifle?

Well first of all, the rifle itself can't do anything, without the shooter.

Simo Hayha (one of the greatest snipers in all history) did most of his sniping with an open sighted service rifle; and Carlos Hathcock made half his confirmed kills with what was essentially a hunting rifle, with a scope that would shoot itself loose.

On the other hand, if you gave somebody who'd never shot anything but a .22 in boy scout camp a modern high end sniper rifle, with a high powered tactical scope, it's doubtful they could hit anything at more than 300 yards away (or even 100 yards away without training).

To answer the question though, the difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting or target rifle is in detail not in nature. Most military sniper rifles started life as civilian hunting rifles.

In the last few years, the standard for acceptable accuracy for factory rifles has tightened; and it is now not uncommon to have a hunting rifle that can achieve 1 moa performance out to 300 yards, and 2 moa performance out to 600 yards, if in the right chambering, and using good quality ammunition (and of course presuming the shooter is up to the job).

Precision rifles that can perform at 1/2 moa to 300 yards, under 1 moa at 600 yards, and under 2 moa at 800 yards in field conditions, are not exceptionally difficult to build or acquire. I have four rifles which will perform to this standard personally, all of which I built myself. And of course, the rifles can be even more precise if fired from a proper target bench and rest, and much more so if fired from a precision mechanical rest.

Hand made, hand tuned, long range precision rifles in standard chamberings (meaning not .50bmg or .50 based) are typically capable of 1/4-1/2 moa performance to 300 yards, 1/2 to 3/4 moa performance out to 600 yards, 3/4-1.5moa performance out to 800 yards and 1-2 moa performance to 1000-1200 yards (if the chambering can handle the range), in field conditions (and more precise from precision rests of course).  It is not difficult for civilians to obtain or construct such rifles (though they are expensive). This is the class of performance expected of most military sniper rifles as well.

.400 class and .50 caliber based sniper rifles are generally not capable of better than about 1/2 moa performance; however they are often capable of such performance out to 1000 yards, and 1 moa or less out to 1250 or even 1500 yards. They are capable of making killing shots as far out as 3000 yards, but such shots are exceptional in every sense and cannot be considered a high percentage shot.

Some highly precise benchrest rifles, which are impractical for field use (they often weigh 40lbs or more, up to as much as 120lbs, are as much as 5 feet long, and 10" or more in the other dimensions); are capable of maintaining standards of accuracy under 1/4 moa out to 600 yards, under 1/2 moa out to 800 yards, or even 1000 yards. The world record (I'm going from memory, from a few months back, so I may be a bit of here) is 1/8 moa at 600 yards 1/4 moa at 800 yards, and just under 1/2 moa at 1000 yards.

Some highly specialized long distance rifles are used by competitors to shoot at distances of up to 2 miles. The targets for that distance, are 4 feet wide by 8 feet high and can only be seen through high powered telescopes. However, such rifles are often capable of scoring hits on a mans torso at 1 mile (1760 yards)

It's important to note that at distances above 1000 yards, the curvature and rotation of the earth are ballistically significant factors; meaning they must be accounted for in taking your shot.

Also, all of the above are presuming fixed targets, and light to moderate wind conditions. The art of the sniper is in dealing with unpredictable targets (like human beings) and less than ideal weather conditions.

Now, lets talk directly about gear for a minute

Rifles: Many major manufacturers make accurized tactically suitable variants of their standard rifles (or in fact offer factory sniper rifles), including Remington, Winchester (production on most Winchesters was shut down recently, but they are still commonly available), FN (who own Winchester), Springfield Armory, HK, Steyer, SIG, and others.

A modified Remington 700 for example, is the standard issue sniper rifle to most U.S. forces, the FBI (and other federal law enforcement agencies), and most police sniper units.

Most sniper rifles are bolt action. The most common designs are based on the two most popular bolt action hunting rifles in the US, the Winchester model 70, and the Remington model 700.

Bolt action rifles are simply more reliable, and more precise, especially at extremely long ranges. That said, for distances under 800m semi-automatic rifles based on the M14, AR10, and HK-G3 are extremely accurate and precise. Designated marksmen, and scout snipers often use these rifles; as do the spotters for snipers using a bolt action rifle.

Common manufacturers for dedicated precision tactical rifles (as opposed to major factory rifles) in the U.S. are McMillan, Barrett, Accuracy international, Robar, Armalite, Stoner, Knights armament, Cheyenne Tactical, Fulton Armory, and Smith Enterprises.

McMillan and AI make both standard caliber, and .50 caliber class rifles. Barrett and CheyTac only make .50 cal and .50 cal based sniper rifles (or rifles in that class). Smith Enterprises only makes M14s (a 7.62x51 semi automatic rifle). Armalite, Knights, and Stoner make AR-10 platform rifles (another 7.62x51 semi-automatic rifle, similar in design to the AR15). Fulton Armory makes both M14 and AR10 rifles.

Smaller makers of high precision tactical rifles include Dakota, Wilson combat, Les Baer, Precision weapon systems, Tactical Operations, Lauer custom, Lazzeroni, Jarret, SK systems, Teppu Jutsu, and Alexander arms (the last two make AR platform rifles exclusively).

Excepting Accuracy International (which is British) all of those precision rifle companies are US based. FN, HK, Steyer, and SIG are all based in Europe (Belgium, Germany, Austria and Switzerland respectively). Winchester and Remington are US companies; though actually both are at least partially foreign owned.

A high precision tactical rifle will typically cost somewhere between $3000 and $5000 dollars; though you can sometimes get in on bargains for $1500 to $2500. Some highly specialized rifles can go for $10k or more.

For under $750 dollars however, you can buy a high quality factory hunting rifle, and accurize it to achieve perhaps 80% of the performance of a dedicated precision tactical rifle; with under 1 moa performance out to 400 yards, and under 2 moa to 600 yards. In fact, some companies even offer a performance guarantee for their rifles (like the Weatherby Vanguard).

The biggest hurdle is that most factory rifles have very poor triggers, and iffy mounting into their stocks. $200 worth of gunsmithing (that can even be done at home with the right tools and experience), and those problems are greatly reduced.

Beyond that, and a little bit of work on the barrel (fire lapping, and cutting a better crown), you won't see much performance increase without spending an awful lot of money on precision hand work. Mating all surfaces precisely by hand, checking and testing for true constantly etc... This can take dozens of hours of highly skilled gunsmithing work, at $60 to $80 an hour.

Accuracy and precision cost a lot of money for very small differences in practical performance; just how good does your rifle need to be?

Scopes: Up until very recently snipers used fixed power scopes almost exclusively. The original dedicated sniper scopes of World war 1 and world war two were mostly 2x to 4x. Postwar developments improved optics significantly; but prior to the 1970s these scopes remained low magnification, in the 6-8 power range. Most snipers now use 10-16x scopes (because optics technology has improved); and fixed power is still very common.

This is because fixed power scopes are tougher, and have a brighter image for a given size and magnification; and also because it is easier to calculate bullet drop and drift compensation, and estimate range, using a fixed power scope; because you can easily memorize the tables for a fixed power; whereas with a variable you need to do the math in your head for every different power setting.

In the last few years, variable power scopes have become much brighter, and much tougher; and they have seen an increase in field tactical use. This change has primarily been lead by Night Force, a specialty tactical optics manufacturer.

There are a few manufacturers that are unquestionably dominant in the tactical precision optics field. On US made rifles, the leader is definitely Leupold, though Marine snipers and the FBI often use Unertl. Leupold is also one of the dominant manufacturers of premium hunting optics. Night Force would be the number two manufacturer of tactical scopes in the US today, and are actually leading Leupold in the variable power tactical scope market.

Outside the U.S. (and seen on many U.S. made rifles) the leaders in optics are Zeiss, Schmidt and Bender, and Swarovski.

Those six manufacturers provide optics for, I would guess, better than 90% of all tactical precision rifles; and most high end hunting weapons as well.

In terms of night vision weapon sights (they are not called starlight scopes. Only the original late 60s models were) the dominant vendors are Elcan and ATN; and they are largely limited to low magnification (6x and under).

It is very unusual for a sniper to use a night vision sighting device; they generally prefer to use a large, high quality, bright rifle scope of medium magnification ; which will actually gather far more light than the human eye; and to allow their eyes to adjust to darkness. This is because night vision devices have poor resolution and depth of field; and cannot reliably make long distance shots; and also because they tend to be fragile.

Most snipers will range in their scope, and have their spotter backstop their ranging with a spotting scope. Recently, the use of optical laser range finders has become more common; as they have become more rugged and available; but some of them may be visible with night vision equipment, and they are not extensively field proven (or soldier proof) as of yet, so they are not common.

High precision tactical optics typically start around $1500, and go up to about $3000. High end spotting scopes, and range finders are in a similar price range. Current, or recent generation precision night vision sighting devices start at around $2500 and go to about $15,000. It is common for scopes to cost as much as, or more than, the rifle they are mounted on.

Again, as with rifles however; you can achieve 80% or more of the performance of high end tactical optics with medium range high quality factory scopes in the $750 to $900 price range; and even some in the $300 to $500 price range.

Leupold and Zeiss both offer medium priced lines, and Burris offers some excellent mid grade optics at the top end of their line which give almost all the performance of the top grade scopes. The only differences will be the images wont be quite as bright in twilight or at night (in fact they most likely would not be suitable for night use), and the scopes wont stand up to nearly as much abuse (Zeiss demonstrates the toughness of their optics to customers frequently by throwing them down on a concrete floor for example).

Chamberings and ammunition: A rifles chambering (or any other weapon for that matter), is the type of ammunition it is designed to shoot (which is normally designated by the size of the bullet an the cartridge in question). Ammunition performance is absolutely critical to any precision shooting; second only to the performance of the shooter (yes, in fact, sometimes more important than the performance of the rifle).

Different chamberings have different levels of performance, accuracy potential, and range; and therefore will be chosen for different missions. You don't choose a 600 yard cartridge for a 1200 yard mission; conversely, a 1200 yard cartridge may have drawbacks to it, that make using it at 600 yards a poor choice.

By far, the greatest majority of precision tactical rifles, whether military, police, or otherwise; are built in the 7.62 nato chambering (7.62x51), which is for the most part functionally identical to the commercial .308 winchester chambering (there are some very small technical differences, but they are mostly not relevant).

This large majority, is because the round is the standard medium bore military chambering for rifles and light machine guns in western nations (and has been since 1956); and because historically the majority of sniper engagements are at ranges under 300 yards, and rarely exceed 800 yards; a performance envelope within which the .308/7.62n is quite effective.

.308 is also among the most common hunting rounds in the U.S.; and is used to take deer, and deer sized animals at 300 to 350 yard ranges very consistently. Deer are of course much tougher animals than human beings (we are surprisingly easy creatures to kill).

The tactical envelope for the 7.62x51 nato, in modern sniper loadings from a high precision rifle; is between 350 and 425 yards high percentage (depending on the load), 600 yards medium percentage, 800 yards low percentage; and it has a maximum tactical usefulness of about 1200 to 1250 yards (when the bullet drops to subsonic speeds).

At that range, the bullets point of impact is 50 feet below the point of aim; far beyond the adjustment range of standard scopes and mounts; and has a 2 second time of flight. In comparison, at 800 yards, that same bullet would have a drop of about 10 feet; which is within the adjustment range of most tactical scopes, and a time in flight of about 1 second.

Scout snipers, rifle scouts, and designated marksmen (who are organically attached to infantry units; not in a dedicated sniper role) will often use 7.62x51 as well; but in the US and NATO forces (or allied nations) they may be using the same round (in an accurized version) as the general soldier, the 5.56x45 nato.

This round is not as effective as the 7.62n (it has a maximum tactically effective range of about 600m, and high percentage is under 300m), but it gives the scout sniper or designated marksman the advantage of ammunition and accessory commonality with his fellow soldiers.

No dedicated sniper would use this chambering, because it simply isn't effective at long range; but a snipers spotter may have a rifle chambered in it, or the sniper may carry it as a secondary arm.

.30-06 (7.62x63) was the most common U.S. sniper chambering, from the institution of of modern sniping programs in WW1, up through the late 60s. It was the official chambering of the U.S. service rifles for most of that period (until 1956), as well as a very common hunting round. In fact, often hunters used converted military rifles in the chambering (and still do. I have one myself). The .30-06 has a similar ballistic performance to the .308; excepting that it has somewhat less inherent accuracy, but somewhat more energy (because it can use slightly heavier bullets).

Russian and former eastern block snipers generally use the 7.62x54r round; which is also called the "three lines" cartridge, based on an antiquated system of measurement from the Tsarist age. The cartridge went into service in 1891, and is still in service today in machine guns and sniper rifles. With the right load, the chambering matches the capabilities of the .30-06 out to 800 yards, but performance falls off very rapidly after that; with a maximum tactical envelope of about 1000 yards. Unfortunately, most of the rifles chambering it are not capable of such accuracy and precision, but 600 yards is not unreasonable with the best quality of available weapons.

Some snipers use the 7mm Remington magnum cartridge (though it is not common); which has a performance envelope somewhat higher than the .308. The round has about 100 yards more effective range than the 7.62n in most situations; but doesn't carry as much downrange energy as the larger magnums.

For tactical environments where ranges beyond 600 yards are expected, snipers will most often use a more powerful chambering, which shoots a heavier bullet, faster. This delivers more energy down range, and provides a flatter trajectory (tighter groups, smaller MOA numbers); and especially important, greater resistance to adverse weather conditions.

Most commonly, these chamberings would be the .300 winchester magnum, or .338 lapua magnum.

The .300 winchester magnum is a powerful hunting round, that is very effective and flat shooting; with high percentage shots out to 600 yards, medium out to 800 yards, and low percentage shots out to 1000 yards (vs the 800 yards of the .308); and a maximum tactical envelope of about 1350 yards (kill shots have been made with it out to about 1450 yards though).

It is quite common for American hunters to use, and hand load .300 winchester magnum (often called .300mag, or .300 winmag) for elk, moose, ram, and bear hunting.

The .338 Lapua magnum is an extremely large and powerful round, specifically developed for use by snipers, and other long range precision shooters. It provides perhaps 2/3 the performance of the .50bmg round, at ranges out to 1250 yards; with high percentage performance out to between 700 and 800 yards, medium percentage out to about 1000 yards, and low percentage out to 1250, or even 1350 yards. Under normal conditions, the bullet doesn't drop below supersonic until between 1400 and 1500 yards (depending on the loading), and at least two acknowledged extreme range kill shots have been made with it out to about 1750 yards.

This round is uncommon outside of long range competition, and precision tactical shooting; because it is extremely expensive, and very hard recoiling.

Of these chamberings, only the .338 has what a seasoned shooter would describe as very heavy recoil. the .300 winmag is a hard kicker, but tolerable for 50 or 100 rounds in a day (especially with a proper butt pad and shooting jacket). The .338 Lapua magnum is EXTREMELY hard recoiling, and is chambered in relatively light weight rifles; so it can be quite punishing to the shooter. It would be uncommon for a shooter to shoot more than 20 rounds through a .338 in a given range trip.

There are numerous sources of match grade ammunition for these chamberings, as well as handloading.

Most serious shooters either hand load, or have someone hand load for them (including Marine and Army special operations snipers, who either hand load themselves, or whose armorers hand load rounds matched to their particular rifles).

With hand loading, you can achieve a precision not possible with factory ammunition; but each individual round may take as much as 30 minutes to manufacture. Every single cartridge can be loaded and tuned exactly for the individual rifle, barrel, and shooter doing the shooting. The factories simply cannot achieve this level of precision, and consistency; and no-one will give up that advantage if they don't have to.

The other common sniping round is the .50bmg. BMG stands for "Browning Machine Gun", and the round was originally designed for (and is still used in) heavy machine guns.

Officially, .50 bmg (and other chamberings in that class) are generally classified as "anti materiel" rifles; in theory designed for use against gear, equipment, supplies, vehicles etc...

They are certainly useful in this role (you should see what a .50bmg does to an engine block); but in the reality of combat, they are often used in the antipersonnel role.

In the right rifle, the round is extremely accurate to about 1500 yards, and is capable of making kill shots at double that range under the right circumstances. It has a high percentage range of about 800 yards, a medium percentage of 1250, and a low percentage of about 1500 yards. Its maximum tactical envelope is somewhere around 2750 yards, depending on conditions and loading.

It is also very large, heavy, and heavy recoiling. Weapons in this chambering must generally weigh at least 20lbs just to contain the forces of the round, and often weight more than 40. Even at 40 lbs, they kick very hard. The weapons are also very physically bulky; often reaching over five feet long.

The round is extremely expensive in match grade loadings (typically over $10 per round for match grade ammunition, sometimes twice that). As such it is generally only used by high precision long range shooters, and by snipers.

There are also several less common rounds in the .338, .375, .400, .408, .416, and .460 range. These are not commonly used by military snipers; though the manufacturers of these rifles are strongly marketing them ot the military. They typically offer very flat shooting performance out to extreme ranges, and are thus used by long distance precision rifle competitors; but they are extremely expensive and rare.

Training

What sets a sniper apart from any other skilled rifleman, is their training; and the dedication required to achieve it to the highest standards.

It takes two weeks of rifle training to make a competent soldier; someone who can hit a man sized target with reliability at 300 yards. This should be backed up with training at least twice yearly.

It takes two months of dedicated rifle training to make a designated marksman, or rifle scout. This should be backed up with further training and practice on at least a monthly basis.

It takes two years of dedicated rifle training to make a sniper; or a precision long range shooter of any kind. This should be backed up with further training and practice on a weekly basis (at least if the budget allows it) sometimes a daily basis.

It is important to note, that while the skills of hunting and sniping are related to each other; they are very different, in both nature and degree.

In comparison to snipers, most hunters never receive any formal rifle training (unless they were in the military), and only practice once or twice a year for at most a few hundred rounds. This is why most hunters can barely hit at 300 yards.

A serious shooter shoots at least once a month, usually expending several hundred rounds in the process. When talking just about precision rifle shooting, most would shoot once a month or more, and shoot 50 to 100 rounds at a time through their rifles; unless the rifle was a powerful magnum in which case they would normally limit themselves to 20-50 rounds.

Shooting powerful magnum rounds is fatiguing; and punishing to the shoulder. Shooting too much just tires you out, and can make you flinch and make mistakes. It's not useful to do so.

I personally try to shoot every two weeks, though unfortunately frequently can't shoot that often (life gets in the way), and I will typically shoot between 500 and 1000 rounds per range session. Typically about 200 rounds on rifles split across several rifles, and the rest handguns. When I'm doing long range precision practice, I typically shoot 50-100 rounds or so, again because it is fatiguing, and not useful to shoot more than that in one session. I typically expend between 10,000 and 25,000 rounds per year, perhaps 2500-5000 of those in precision rifle practice.

A dedicated competitor, or a serious sniper will shoot at least every week if they can (though often military budgets don't allow it), and will shoot until fatigue worsens their performance.

A competitor or sniper will (again assuming budget allows) shoot a minimum of 5000 rounds a year, and I know of some shooters who shoot 100,000 rounds per year.

But shooting is only one part of the extensive training which snipers undergo. They learn to stalk in all environment, conceal themselves effectively in all terrain, and survive under the most extreme conditions. They learn how to infiltrate and exfiltrate over long distances while under constant threat of enemy exposure. They learn how to choose their targets and timing to cause the maximum disruption to the enemy. Most importantly, they learn how to gather the most possible intelligence on the enemy, and both use it, and report it effectively.

This training takes years, and the skills associated with it may take a decade or more to truly master. The art of the rifle is a pursuit for those who would dedicate their lives to it, not for a casual shooter.

Being a hunter no more qualifies you to be a sniper, than jogging a couple miles a week makes you an Olympic marathon runner. Even being a great hunter doesn't mean you are capable of
being a sniper, though it's a good start.

History

Most often in todays world, snipers are not "assassins" as is the perception of popular culture. In fact, the assassination role has historically been very limited. Most frequently throughout history, the primary mission of the sniper has been to target the enemies officer corps, and critical leadership and rally positions (like machine gun emplacements). Today, their primary missions are counter terrorism, hostage rescue, and intelligence gathering.

Sniping began with the introduction of the hunting rifle into military usage, some time around the American Revolution. Prior to this time, service arms were not accurate enough to usefully employ precision shooting; however over the next 50 years, the rifle was developed to the point where a skilled sharpshooter could reliably engage targets as far away as 300 yards. This is in comparison to the typical military musket of the time, which was only accurate to a man size target at 50 yards or less.

In the American Revolution, and the later Napoleonic wars; we first saw the employment of organized units of riflemen, who were used primarily as scouts and skirmishers ahead of the main line of battle. These skirmishers were sometimes capable of precision fire at 300 yards (though that was uncommon); but were most often used to gather intelligence (still a primary sniper mission today), and to harass the enemy, keeping them off balance and preventing them from setting up fortifications and field artillery.

Large scale military tactics didn't take this ability into account in a major way until the American Civil war, when organized sharpshooting units were first employed on a large scale.

The first organized sniping also occurred in this conflict; when individual marksmen of great skill were sometimes selected out and given highly accurate rifles and early scopes; to target high value personnel, at ranges of up to 600 yards confirmed, and 800 yards unconfirmed. There was no formal doctrine or training for this type of action, however most of the men employed in this manner were experienced hunters.

Later, in the second Boer war; when the British were fighting against experienced hunters an trackers from the local populace; the sniper concept gained momentum; but again, no organized professional sniper doctrine or training existed.

The modern sniper was born out of world war one, when the confluence of need, and technical capability allowed for this role to be developed.

The bolt action service rifle had been developed in the late 1880s, and adopted on a large scale throughout the turn of the century. The spitzer or "spire point" jacketed bullet was developed at the same time, which allowed medium bore bullets to be pushed out to 3000 feet per second or more, with great accuracy. These rifles, and their chamberings, were effective out as far as 800 yards. At the same time, the optical sight was made into a field usable, and relatively practical mechanism.

It was these technologies which gave the precision shooter the capability to shoot from a great distance without detection, and thus the modern sniper was born.

As world war 1 bogged down into extended trench warfare, the need became clear for soldiers who could target enemy officers and machine gunners at the long distances across no-mans land, while themselves remaining concealed (so as not to draw counter fire form the machine guns, or artillery).

Individual unit armorers would select particularly accurate rifles out of service lots, and give them to the best shots. Eventually, informal sniper schools were set up at the command level, until finally a school was set up back in england to teach sharpshooting.

Unfortunately, as soon as the war ended, most militaries promptly ended their sniper training (the eastern Europeans and Scandinavians being a notable exception), and it had to be rebuilt from the ground up for WW2; where at least the value of the sniper was better understood.

Training schools for the US and British army and Marines were quickly set up, and again snipers were given specially accurized versions of the bolt actions service rifles of the time (I now own three such samples, a US, a Russian, and a British rifle; which were all unfortunately butchered after the war, and sporterized some time in the 50s or 60s).

By Viet Nam, the training and doctrine of sniping was well established; though limited in role and scope; and the sniping schools had been severely curtailed or disestablished between the wars. Again, the tactical environment proved the value of the sniper very quickly, and soon full scale training efforts were underway.

The sniper, scout sniper, rifle scout, sharpshooter, and designated marksman are now understood as valuable force multipliers, and intelligence sources. Since Viet Nam, most militaries have maintained, developed, and advance sniper training; and expanded the presence of precision shooters in their ranks.

"Famous" snipers

The greatest sniper who ever lived (from a technical, and shooting skill standpoint at least), is almost without question Marine Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock.

In Viet Nam he generally used a modified Winchester model 70, with an 8x Redfield or Unertl or 10x Unertl scope (they started with 8x and went to 10x later). His early rifle was chambered in .30-06 but near the end of his service, they switched to .308. This platform afforded Hathcock the ability to take kill shots out to 1200m, but most of his engagements were under 800m.

There is contention for the "greatest" sniper title though, if you count the total number of confirmed kills as more important, rather than the range, or difficulty of shot.

Hathcock is credited with 93 official, confirmed and verified kills; however his actual total is estimated at approximately 340 (it is rather difficult to confirm a kill from 800m away while being shot at by the enemy). This only ranks him in the middle of high kill count snipers. Chuck Mahwinney had more confirmed kills (though about 20 less unconfirmed) while serving with Hathcock directly for example; and Ad Waldron, an Army sniper, had 109 confirmed kills.

What ranks Hathcock so high in the list of great snipers, were his uncanny abilities to stalk, hide, and shoot accurately at long ranges. While most sniping engagements occurred at 300 yards or less; Hathcock frequently engaged at 600 to 800 yards; and his longest range kill was at approximately 2500 yards (2,286 meters), using a modified .50bmg machine gun with a scope mounted on it.

This was the longest range sniper kill on record, until 2002; when a Canadian sniper team shooting a McMillan .50bmg sniper rifle made a confirmed 2430m (1.51 mile) shot. (Since then British and American sniper teams have made publicly acknowledged shots out to unconfirmed distances of 2700m -also using the .50bmg - with AI, and Barret rifles respectively; but Canadian Cpl. Rob Furlong still holds the official record.)

Further, Hathcock performed these feats while unknowingly suffering from early stage multiple sclerosis. His time as an active sniper ended after dragging several fellow marines out of a burning APC, sustaining severe burns over 40% of his body, and nearly crippling him. However, even struggling with MS and the horrid injuries, Hathcock returned to the US and became an instructor for the Corps, serving another ten years before retiring in poor health.

Simo Hayha, a finish sniper in WWII, killed as many as 700 men; though only 500 have been substantiated, and even that claim is in dispute, as only about 300 can be independently confirmed. Of the 700 potential kills, 200 were from close range with a machinegun or submachine gun; so they were not sniper kills. Also, almost all of his shots were from under 300m (all but perhaps 200).

This is not to take away from Hayhas phenomenal effort however; especially since he shot almost exclusively with an iron sighted (no scope) standard issue service rifle. Even more amazingly, all of his kills were accomplished in 100 days, during the Finnish winter; with as little as five hours of daylight per day, and temperatures as low as -40 degrees Fahrenheit.

The Russians claim that Vasily Zaytsev (one of the subjects of the movie Enemy at the Gates) made 242 confirmed kills, and as many as 400 probables; and have made claims of other snipers serving in WWII with as many as 500 kills (Ivan Sidorinko, and Fyodor Ohklopkhov, at least three others).

Recently however, after Zaytsevs death in 2006, documents have been release which purport to show that no Russian (or Soviet) sniper had more than 200 actual confirmed and verified kills.

Again, this is not to take away from Zaytsevs achievement. It is extremely difficult to confirm and verify a kill in the chaos of battle, and unlike Hayha, Zaytsev is confirmed to have taken kill shots from as far as 600m. Also, Zaytsev was noted as one of the best countersnipers in history, with confirmed kills on 11 enemy snipers, and probables on at least 30 more. He later passed on these skills, and trained other snipers responsible for at least 3000 confirmed kills in WW2.

What Snipers are NOT

Ooooh boy, this one is going to get interesting. I'mna put these in a numbered list for a futile attempt at clarity.... I expect I'll add more as the stupidity comes flooding back into my brain.

1. OK, first thing, let's correct a common media error. Any bad guy with a rifle is not a sniper. Snipers take precision shots on specific targets at long range, from concealment. Your typical bad guy with a rifle is operating more in the spray and pray mode.
   
   
2. The most famous recent criminal "sniper" case, the DC Snipers, could not credibly be called snipers. They took shots from concealment, without being detected, and they chose their targets to achieve their mission objective (which was to create panic and chaos leading to a racial war); but none of their shots exceeded 180 yards, and they were not carried out with great precision.
   
   
3. The two most famous "sniper" cases in American history, once again, could not fairly be called snipers.
   
   
   • Charles Whitman was a spree killer, who fired from the Texas tower killing a total of 15 people, and wounding another 31. Out of those 15 however, 5 were at close range with a knife, pistol, or shotgun. Whitmans shots were not taken with great precision, nor were they from concealment. Whitman made little effort to hide his position, and had barricaded himself in for a siege.
     
     
   • Lee Harvey Oswald took at least three and as many as five shots in rapid succession, at a moving target that was transitioning from 8 to 15 mph, at a distance changing and from 30 to 180 yards. To do this, he used an inaccurate, barely functional, Italian surplus service rifle, with surplus ammunition, and dime store grade scope. He struck his target once, or twice (depending on whether you believe in the magic bullet or not).
     
     
   Those are the actions of riflemen, but not the actions of snipers; and that distinction is important. Honestly, if they were snipers, we would have never known who they were, or where they fired from.
   
   All three of these cases would be more properly termed as sharpshooters (if Oswald even rises to that level). Of course sharpshooter sounds like someone from the frontier west, whereas the public perception of snipers is dark, mysterious, cool, scary etc...
   
   
4. The press simply seems to think that everyone who uses aimed fire from more than a few feet away is a sniper; even when dealing with soldiers fighting in war. Of course, aimed fire out to several hundred yards is part of normal infantry engagement, not any particularly special skill.
   
   
5. Similarly, in the Bosnian conflict, the terrorists shooting nearly randomly at civilian populations from buildings were termed snipers. Again, this is an inaccurate statement.
   
   There is no "cool" word for someone taking aimed rifle fire from short to medium ranges; it's simply what a rifleman does.
   
   
6. Most police snipers are not in fact snipers in the truest sense of the word. They most often act more in a sharpshooter role; though this is not always the case of course. A fair few police snipers around the country here, and in other countries, are also ex-military snipers.
   
   
7. Sniper rifles are not magic laser beams. They don't hit everything automatically, and when they do, they don't kill it automatically.
   
   Most often this comes up under the scary headline "Evil sniper rifle can kill an airliner".
   
   Well, first of all, anything is possible I suppose. Having the wrong O-Rings killed a space shuttle, it isn't all THAT hard to kill an airliner. Ducks occasionally kill airliners. That said, doing so with a rifle would be phenomenally difficult, and extremely unlikely.
   
   The first problem is hitting it. A .50 cal sniper rifle, or even a 20mm sniper rifle (there are a couple out there) are not capable of hitting a moving airliner with a single shot (or even five shots, the usual magazine limit) and taking it down.
   
   Hell, even a very skilled sniper is going to have a hard time hitting ANYTHING moving at 140 to 180mph (approach speed for most medium to large commercial aircraft) without a machine gun and hundreds of rounds.
   
   Thats why they invented flak cannons, which have exploding shells. You don't need to actually hit the thing, just lob a few dozen shells pretty close, and the shrapnel will do the damage (and yes, it is a few dozen shells per aircraft, if you're lucky).
   
   Now, lets say you manage to hit it, by being just that damned good (and that damned lucky). A .50 caliber bullet weighs a bit less than 2 ounces, and doesn't explode. A 747 weighs 970,000 lbs. Mass vs. mass, which one is going to win?
   
   In order to take down a large commercial aircraft with a .50 cal, you're going to have to hit it HUNDREDS of times, and as I said, you'd be lucky to hit it once.
   
   Even if you hit critical systems, they're all doubly redundant, some triply. If you hit an engine.. probably nothing really. Sure that engine is going to have to shut down, and it's going to lose power right quick; but it isn't likely to explode or disintegrate. Control lines? THeres two more. And it's not like you can really aim for these things. Like I said, you'd be lucky to hit the bird at all.
   
   Now, all that said, let's say you get the perfect lucky shot. Lets say you hit the pilot and copilot through the head simultaneously killing them both (reductio ad absurdium OK). Great, the plane goes down.
   
   Thing is though, it wasn't because you shot it with a .50. Airplane skins are made of paper thin aluminum (and I mean that literally. The skin of an airplane is about as thick as construction paper). You could have done the same thing with grandpas .30-30 lever gun; or for that matter, just about any rifle.
   
   Being a .50 cal wouldn't make such a lucky shot any more likely; and the .50 cal simply doesnt have THAT much more destructive power than any other rifle.
   
   
8. Now... I'm a pilot, and I've mostly flown very light aircraft, like the Cessna 172. Would a .50 cal take that down? After all, instead of the 747s 970,000 lbs, a 172 only weighs about 2,400 lbs. Shouldn't the EEEEVIL .50 caliber sniper rifle of doom be able to take down such a bitty thing?
   
   Well, no.
   
   At least, as I said above, it's no more likely than any other rifle. You'd probably have an easier time hitting the bird, because it approaches at about 50mph, not 15mph; but it IS a much smaller target; and it moves around a lot more.
   
   Honestly, light planes have a lot less to go wrong, and a lot fewer places where a single bullet could do major damage. Most of the space inside a light airplanes fuselage is empty air.
   
   About the worst thing that could happen, other than hitting the pilot of course (and again, as with a 747, you could do that with ANY rifle); is hitting the engine during approach or departure. Now, the engine is the biggest target, but theres this gigantic hunk of spinning aluminum in the way that would almost certainly deflect a bullet fired from the front... and it would be pretty hard to hit the engine from any other angle.
   
   Say you manage to hit the engine, and disable it, what happens? Again, not too much. The engine doesn't explode, it just sorta stops; and in most light aircraft, if you lose an engine on takeoff, you're OK.
   
   I'm not saying it's a day at the races. Sure it's nervous, and dangerous; but it's entirely possible to put the bird back on the ground safely. I've never lost an engine on departure, but I have on approach, and you can very definitely safely land when that happens. In fact, all pilots train for jsut such a thing to happen.
   
   
9. John Denver, Mr. Rogers, Steve McQueen, Captain Kangaroo, Bozo the Clown, Ed McMahon, Drew Cary, Gomer Pyle, and Dr. Ruth were not snipers; no matter what your cousins best friend read on the internet.
   
   Neither John Denver nor Fred Rogers served in the military. Jim Nabors was in the Alabama national guard in between WW2 and Korea.
   
   
   Bob Bell (Bozo) and Bob Keeshan (Captain Kangaroo) were both Marines in WW2, but never saw any combat.
   
   Steve McQueen was a Marine between WW2 and Korea, but never saw combat.
   
   Ed McMahon is a Marine, but not a sniper. He was a fighter pilot in WW2 and Korea. McMahon in fact had a full military career before becoming famous, and he retired as a Brigadier General in the California Air National Guard; with over 25 years of service
   
   Actor Don Adams of "Get Smart" was not a sniper; but he was a sharpshooter, and served with great distinction in the battle of Guadalcanal. He was severely wounded, and then transferred to stateside service where he became a drill instructor.
   
   Similarly, Dr. Ruth was not a sniper; though she was a scout and sharpshooter for the Israeli Haganah, the forerunner of the Israeli Army during the 47-49 war. She never saw combat.
   
   Drew Cary also was not a sniper; but he IS a Marine*. Carey served for six years active duty and finished his 20 in the reserves.
   
   *There are only four ex-marines living or dead: two are convicted spies (the only two marines ever convicted for betraying their country), one killed the president, and the other is a congressman.
   
   
10. To my knowledge, no current or past major celebrity has served as a sniper; though there are several bit players, stunt co-ordinators, and other "military consultants" who come in on action and military movies who have.
    
    
11. Snipers are not, as I said above, assassins. Though snipers have often been used in the past for targeted eliminations, such a use is difficult to accomplish, requires great skill, timing, intelligence (of both varieties), and good luck. There are much easier ways to kill people.
    
    
12. Here's one that really irritates me; the media perception that because of what the sniper does, they must be somehow cold, or unstable, or anti-social. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
    
    A man who isn't EXTREMELY stable will never be able to be a successful sniper. I have known several snipers; and they are generally among the most stable, even tempered, and quiet men I know.
    
    
13. Unlike other operators, who may have developed an occasionally deserved a reputation for having a wild side; the sniper tends to be more orderly, quiet, by the book, precise, and highly detail oriented. Most I know, or know of, are either reserved family men (often with quite large familys), or quietly confirmed bachelors.
    
    The one thing that they all share though, is there a distinct wall of separation between their family and personal life, and what they do; and that wall is unbreachable in both directions.
    
    
14. Another major irritation I have, is the media perception is that once someone has stopped being a sniper, the "horrors of what they have done" haunt them forever...
    
    That one is a bit tougher, because I know a few Viet Nam era snipers, and yes some of that is true; but to a man they believed in, and still believe in what they did. They regret that it was necessary, but they don't regret having completed their mission.
    
    Gunny Hathcock said "I like shooting, and I love hunting. But I never did enjoy killing anybody. It's my job. If I don't get those bastards, then they're gonna kill a lot of these kids we got dressed up like Marines. That's just the way I see it."
    
    
15. Then there's the old saw common to hollywood movies " I used to hunt, but then I was a sniper, and now I've lost the taste for killing"...
    
    Yeah that one just makes me laugh.
    
    First of all, killing a man and killing a deer or an elk are two entirely different things, emotionally , physically, and spiritually. Although I'm sure there are a few people who didn't particularly want to be soldiers, or who had horrible experiences as a soldier in war, for whom that may be true, but I'm pretty sure it's rare.
    
    You know what snipers talk about with each other when they aren't on the job? How much venison they're going to put in the freezer come thanksgiving time; or how long a shot they can take on a prairie dog.
    
    Almost every sniper I know, or know of, grew up hunting; and still hunts today. I don't think one of them who hunted as a kid stopped because of "the horrors of war".
    
    This one I think comes from Hollywood and the lefts complete mis-understanding of both hunting, and of soldiering.
    
    Soldiering isn't about killing, it's about accomplishing the mission. People are killed because they oppose the accomplishment of the mission; but it isn't the goal of soldiering.
    
    Hunting isn't about killing; you could go work at a slaughterhouse if you wanted that. Hunting is about HUNTING. The killing is just how you know you've won.
    
    
16. Snipers aren't bloodthirsty maniacs. They aren't cold detached sociopaths. They are almost exclusively quiet, professional, and dedicated men, who strongly believe in what they are doing.

A few final notes, and random thoughts

Snipers almost always think in meters. Hunters, non military shooters, and jsut about everyone else in the US, almost always thinks in yards; so I've generally noted in yards above.

Most snipers use a Mil-dot reticle system. This lets them calculate range, drift, bullet drop etc... on the fly, without getting off the glass. There are good resources for how to use Mil-dot reticles on the net.

The motto of the Marine sniper is indeed (or was at one time, they may have changed it in these politically correct days), "One shot, one kill" (as is often publicized), and it is still a mantra and unit motto of many sniper units. Often you will also see mottoes like "Silent hunters", "Swift, Silent, Deadly"; and others which emphasize that snipers are stealthy, and lethal.

Snipers tend to have odd, and very dark, senses of humor. For example, many snipers have been known to think the old AT&T jingle and slogan "reach out and touch someone", an endlessly funny joke. Some have even made it their unit motto.

Most dedicated professional military or law enforcement snipers work in teams, with a spotter. Most often, the sniper will stay on the glass for no more than 30 minutes, taking a rest while their spotter covers their target area; because it is impossible to focus through a scope for extended periods of time without degrading your performance to an unacceptable degree.

Great snipers (and other high precision long range shooters) are unnaturally still people. If you ever meet one, you will not believe how still they can be; it's kinda spooky. When shooting, they slow their breathing and heart rate down, and control their muscle movements to the point where their pulse in their fingertip can have a measurable effect on the shot. This is achieved through both gifted natural ability, and extensive training.

Reversing something I said above; there IS a way to shoot man in a fast moving car from a helicopter. Your bird driver has to pace the vehicle as closely as possible to reduce your relative velocities to near zero; and get you as close as possible. From there you can expect some chance of making the shot (presuming both the target and the bird aren't bouncing up and down too much); but don't expect any real precision. This technique is sometimes used with anti-material rifles (.50 BMG or larger) to disable vehicles. It is also used in certain wilderness areas for hazardous game control, or herd control. While this requires great skill, it isn't sniping.

Oh and that thing thats in every sniper movie, where one sniper shoots completely through the scope of another sniper, killing him? Yes, that has actually happened, several times. Gunny Hathcock and Vasily Zaitsev have both confirmed and documented a shot like that, and several other have claimed it.

For further reading

The best non-fiction book about a sniper ever written is probably "Marine Sniper" about Carlos Hathcock (his biography "Whitefeather" is also good). "Dear Mom: A Snipers Viet Nam", a book about fellow marine snipers Joseph Ward and Chuck Mawhinney, is also worth a read.

The best novel ever written about a sniper is probably "Point of Impact" by Stephen Hunter, which was inspired by Hathcock; and which, as I said above was the basis for the movie "Shooter". "War of the Rats" is also excellent, and was the basis for the movie "Enemy at the Gates".

Wikipedia has a half decent page on sniping, and another on sniper rifles; without too many glaring annoyances and inaccuracies.

Closing up

I've written about 10,255 words here (after revisions), and I've barely scratched the surface of this rather complicated subject. Theres a hell of a lot of detail I've glossed over or simplified here, and a lot of areas I didn't even try to cover. If I did, this post could have easily gone one for over 20,000 words (1/4 of a fair sized non-fiction book).

As it is, I've written about 20 typewritten pages; and I know I'm going to irritate the snipers and other precision shooters who read this page (and there are more than a couple), with my various and sundry errors and omissions (hopefully small).

My goal here, as in all these mythbusting posts, is to give a writer enough information to not make basic stupid mistakes; and for readers to understand them when they see them. I hope I've given enough information here to do so, without completely drowning you in the process.

Please, writers, directors, actors, I beg of you; read and do your research before you put words on a page, or performances on film. You'll end up with a better story, and a happier audience.