russian sniper-rifles

[Rosco the Iroc]

I found this lurking around the net. It shows some very rare pics and varents of the good old SVD.

http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2...sniper-rifles/

[bogey1]

how did i end up looking at half naked women after clicking the link

[mojo]

I would love to own a Dragunov

[shooker8]

Owning a real Dragunov would be nice!

[daschnoz]

I do like the lines of that rifle.

[Tomcat088]

I don't think it's as pretty as some of you, but I do think it's an impressive sniper rifle. What I find interesting though is that even the "real" sniper rifles only have a requirement of basically 3 MOA. This is acceptable to certain distances, but it's not all that precise compared to the US requirements for a sniper rifle. Pretty interesting.

[daschnoz]

It's a mindset thing.

The US mindset is an accurate rifle which allows the shooter to pick which nostril to put the bullet through at 800 yards - dropping the target dead on the spot.

The Russian mindset is more along the lines of shoot the guy in the chest and take him out of the fight - he'll die soon enough. Being an auto-loader, if a second shot is required, it's not far behind.

Both are equally effective.

[chivvalry]

It's a mindset thing.

The US mindset is an accurate rifle which allows the shooter to pick which nostril to put the bullet through at 800 yards - dropping the target dead on the spot.

The Russian mindset is more along the lines of shoot the guy in the chest and take him out of the fight - he'll die soon enough. Being an auto-loader, if a second shot is required, it's not far behind.

Both are equally effective.

Actually in a military situation wounding someone gravely enough that they can't continue to fight and will likely die can be preferable to killing someone outright. Kill a soldier and you take him out of the fight... but wound a soldier and you take three soldiers out of the fight... him and the 2 guys who have to carry him back to the medic. This tactic has proven successful in many engagements over many decades.

This, of course, assumes that the opposing army actually intends to treat the wounded soldier immediately instead of just waiting until after the fight to "mop up".

.

[Dave_n]

There is a school of thought that the Dragunov was really designed to be the weapon of a "designated marksman" in a platoon of regular infantry rather than a "sniper" in the Western Army sense. If that was/is the case, then 3 MOA is a reasonable accuracy level particularly when you realize that his "mates" will have either 7.62 x 39 or 5.45 x 45?, neither of which are much good beyond 300 metres. Dave_n

[Rundownfid]

There is a school of thought that the Dragunov was really designed to be the weapon of a "designated marksman" in a platoon of regular infantry rather than a "sniper" in the Western Army sense. If that was/is the case, then 3 MOA is a reasonable accuracy level particularly when you realize that his "mates" will have either 7.62 x 39 or 5.45 x 45?, neither of which are much good beyond 300 metres. Dave_n

Good points, and it shows the divergent thinking in the militaries of the two nations. Our Army, but especially our Marines, are expected to be able to shoot a rifle well, out to about 500 yds. We give them rifles capable of doing this and generally train to, or at least near that standard.


The Soviets (and I assume the Russians) had a massed infantry assault approach, where moving and shooting with overwhelming numbers was perceived to be the winning strategy. Their weapons, esp. the AK47, reflected that. In that scenario designated marksmen who could engage at 500 yds would be very useful to suppress the exuberance of the defending troops, there is a long way between 500 yds to effective AK range, keeping the AR armed troop's heads down would be critical.